Pickle v Johnson

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Pickle v Johnson 2016 NY Slip Op 32288(U) November 15, 2016 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 13-62007 Judge: Arthur G. Pitts Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] SI IO RT FO RM O RDER INDEX No. 13-62007 CAL. N o. 15-01760MV SUPREME COURT - STA TE OF NEW YORK I.A.S. PART 43 - SUFFOLK COUNTY PRESENT: Hon. ARTHUR G. PITTS Justice of the Supreme Court MOTION DATE ---=3'-' -1"---1=-=6ADJ. DATE 6-2-16 Mot. Seq. # 002 - MG; CASEDISP ---------------------------------------------------------------X PAULA PICKLE, Plaintiff, FRIEDMAN SANCHEZ, LLP Attorney for Plaintiff 16 Court Street, 26th Floor Brooklyn, New York 11241 DODGE & MONROY, P.C. Attorney for Defendant 1983 Marcus A venue, Suite 208 Lake Success, New York 11042 - against - JAREL M . JOHNSON, Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------X Upon the follow ing papers numbered I to 20 read on this motion summary judgment ; Notice of Motion/ Order to Show Cause and supporting papers --1.:..!.l.; Notice of Cross Motion and supporting papers_; Answering Affidavits and supporting papers 14-20 ; Replying Affidavits and supporting papers_; Other _ ; (and ,1fte1 hea1 ing eot111sel i11 $t1ppo1 t a11d opposed to tl1e nrotiou) it is, ORDERED that the motion by defendant Jarel Johnson for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs complaint is granted. Plaintiff Paula Pickle commenced this action to recover damages for injuries she allegedly sustained as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred at the intersection of William Floyd Parkway and Linden Lane in the Town of Brookhaven on June 23 , 2011. It is alleged that the accident occurred w hen the vehicle owned and operated by defendant Jarel Johnson crossed over the median into the northbound lane of travel and struck the front of the vehicle operated by plaintiff. By her bill of pa11iculars, plaintiff alleges that she sustained various personal injuries as a result of the subject accident, including an anterior labral tear of the left shoulder; disc herniations at levels C5 through C7, Tl 2-S l (sic), and L5-S 1; vertebral retrolisthesis at L2; and facet joint arthropathy at level L4L5. Defendant now moves for summary judgment on the basis that the injuries plaintiff alleges to have sustained as a result of the subject acc ident fail to meet the serious injury tlu·eshold requirement oflnsurance Law§ 5 102 (d). In support of the motion, defondant submits a copy oft he p leadings, plaintiff's deposition transcript, a certified copy of the police accident report with witness statement, and the sworn medical repo11 of Dr. Gary Kelman. Dr. Kelman conducted an independent orthopedic examination of plaintiff on August 22, 201 4 . Plaintiff opposes the motion [* 2] Pickle v Johnson Index . o. 62007113 Page 2 on the ground that defendant failed to meet his prima facie burden. and that the evidence submitted in opposition demonstrates that she sustained injuries within the .. limitations ofuse .. and the .. 901180 .. categories of the Insurance Law as a resull or the subject acc ident. In opposition to the motion, plaintiff submits her own affidavit, and the sworn medical reports of Or. Daniel Korman and Dr. Audrey Eisenstadt. ft has long been established that the .. legislati ve intent underlying the No-Fault Law was to weed o ut fri vo lous c laims and li mit recovery to significant inj uries" (Du/el v Gree11 . 84 NY2d 795, 798, 622 NYS2d 9 00 [ l 995 1: see Toure v A vis Re11t A Car Sys.. 98 N Y2d 345, 746 NYS2d 865 (2002]) . T herefore, the determinati on of whether or not a plaintiff has sustained a "serious inj ury'· is to be made by the court in the first instance (see Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230. 455 N YS2d 570 [1 982]: Porcano v leltma11, 255 AD2d 430, 680 N YS2d 590 [2d Dept 1988]: N olan v Ford, 100 AD2d 5 79, 4 73 N YS2d 516 [2d Dept 1984], aj/"d 64 N Y2d 681, 4 85 NYS2d 526 [ 1984]). Insu rance Law § 5102 (d) defines a "serious injury" as "a persona l injury which results in death; dismemberment: significant disfigurement: a fracture; loss of a fetus: permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function or system; permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member; significant limitation of use of a body function or system; or a medically determined injury or impairment ofa non-permanent nature which prevents the injured person from perfo1m ing substantially all of the material acts which constitute s uch person ' s usual and customary daily activities for not less than ninety days during the one hun dred eighty days immediately following the occurrence of the injury or impairment.'' A defendant seeking summary j udgment on the ground that a plaintiff's negligence claim is barred under the No-fault Insurance Law bears the initial burden of establishing a prima fac ie case that the plaintiff did not sustain a ..serious inj ury" (see Toure vAvis Rent A Car Sys. , supra; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 582 NYS2d 990 [1992)). When a defendant seeking summary judgment based on the lack of serious injury relies on the findings of the defendant 's own w itnesses, ''those fi ndings must be in admissible form, rsuch as], affidavits and affirmations, and not unsworn reports" to demonstrate entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (Pagano v Kingsbury , 182 A D2d 268, 270, 587 NYS2d 692 [2d Dept 1992]). A defendant may a lso establish entitlement to summary j udgment using the p laintiffs depos ition testimony and medical reports and records prepared by the plaintiff s own physicians (see Fragale v Geiger, 288 AD2d 43 1, 733 NYS2d 90 1 [2d Dept 2001]; Grossman v Wrigltt, 268 AD 2d 79, 707 YS2d 233 r2d Dept 2000]: Vignola v Varricltio, 243 AD2d 464, 662 NYS2d 83 1 [2d Dept 1997]; Torres v Miclteletti, 208 AD2d 519,6 16 NYS2d 1006 [2d Dept 1994] ). Once a defendant has met this burden, the plaintiff must then submit objective and admissible proof of the nature and degree of the alleged injury in order to meet the threshold of the statutory standard for --serious injury'' under ew York's No-Fault Insurance Law (see Du/el i • Green , supra: Tom abeue v Pawlewski. 305 AD2d I 025, 758 1YS2d 593 l·Hh Dept 2003]; Pagano v Kingsbury . supra). Defendant. by submitting competent medical evidence and plaintiffs deposition transcript. has established his prima fac ie entitlement to judgment as a matter oflaw on the ground that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance La\-v § 5102(d) (see Toure v A vis Rent A Car S:rs., supra: Gaddy v Eyler. supra: Torres v Ozel. 92 AD3d 770, 938 NYS2d 469 [2d Dept 20 121: W1111derliclt v Blrn~p<m , 99 AD3d 795, 951 NYS2d 885 [2d Dept 20071). Defendanf s examining orthopedist. Dr. Kelman, states in his medical report that an [* 3] Pickle v Johnson Index No . 62007/13 Page 3 examination of plaintiff revealed she has full range of motion in her spine. shoulders and knees, that there was no paraspinal tenderness upon palpitation of the paraspinal muscles, that there was no evidence of atrophy or intrinsic muscles, and that the straight leg raising test was negative. Dr. Kelman states that there was no evidence of tenderness. crepitus or effusion upon examination of plaintiffs right and left shoulders, and that the impingement sign was negative. Dr. Kelman states that there was no evidence of atrophy of the quadriceps of plaintiffs knees, that there was no effusion. and that the Lachman's test and Anterior Draw test were negative. Dr. Kelman opines that the strains/sprains that plaintiff sustained to her spine, left shoulder and knees as a result of the subject accident have resolved. Dr. Kelman concludes that plaintiff does not have any objective findings of an orthopedic disability. and that plaintiff is currently working and may continue to do so without restrictions or limitations. Fw1hermore, plaintiffs deposition testimony establishes that she did not sustain an injury within the 90/180 category of the Insurance Law (see Pryce v Nelson, 124 AD3d 859, 2 NYS3d 214 [2d dept 2015]; Knox v Lennihan. 65 AD3d 615. 884 NYS2d 171 [2d Dept 2009]; Rico v Figueroa, 48 AD3d 778, 853 NYS2d 129 [2d Dept 2008]). Plaintiff testified at an examination before trial that she worked from home, that she only missed approximately one week from work following the accident, that upon her return to work she continued to perform the same duties as she did prior to the accident, and that, although she worked less hours, she did not lose any pay following the accident. Therefore, defendant shifted the burden to plaintiff to come forward with evidence in admissible form to raise a material triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained an injury within the meaning of the Insurance Law (see Pomme/ls v Perez, 4 NY3d 566, 797 NYS2d 380 [2005]; see generally Zuckerman v Citj of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 427 NYS2d 595 [1980]). A plaintiff claiming a significant limitation of use ofa body function or system must substantiate hi s or her complaints with objective medical evidence showing the extent or degree of the limitation caused by the injury and its duration (see Ferraro v Ridge Car Serv. , 49 AD3d 498, 854 NYS2d 408 [2d Dept 2008]; Mejia v DeRose, 35 AD3d 407, 825 NYS2d 772 [2d Dept 2006]; Laruffa v Yui 1l1ing Lau, 32 AD3d 996, 821NYS2d642 [2d Dept 2006]; Kearse v New York City Tr. Auth., 16 AD3d 45, 789 NYS2d 281 [2d Dept 2005]). "Whether a limitation of use or function is 'significant' or 'consequential' (i.e. important ... ), relates to medical significance and invo lves a comparative determination of the degree or qualitative nature of an injury based on the normal function, purpose and use of the body part" (Dufel v Green , supra at 798). To prove the extent or degree of physical limitation with respect to the "limitations of use" categories, either objective evidence of the extent, percentage or degree of the limitation or loss of range of motion and its duration based on a recent exam ination of the plaintiff must be provided or there must be a sufficient description of the "qualitative nature'" of plaintiffs limitations, with an objective basis, correlating plaintiffs limitations to the normal function, purpose and use of the body part (see Perl v 1Ueher, 18 NY3d 208, 936 NYS2d 655 [2011]; Toure v Avis Re11t A Car Systems, Inc., supra at 350: see also Valera v Singh, 89 AD3d 929, 923 NYS2d 530 [2d Dept 2011]: Rove/o v Volcy, 83 AD3d 1034, 921 NYS2d 322 [2d Dept 20 11]). A minor, mild or slight limitation of use is considered insignificant within the meaning of the statute (see Licari v Elliott, supra). However, evidence of contemporaneous range of motion limitations is not a prerequisite to recovery (see Perl v Meller, supra; Paulino v Rodriguez, 91 AD3d 559, 937 NYS2d 198 (!st Dept 2012]). [* 4] Pickle v Johnson Index o. 62007/ 13 Page -i In opposition. plaintiff has failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to \\·hether she sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Section 5102 (d) of the Insurance Law as a result of the subject collision (see Frisch v Harris. 101 AD3d 9-l I. 957 YS2d 235 [2cl Dept 2012]: Tl C/11111g Lim v C/1rabaszcz. 95 AD3d 950; 944 ~YS2d 236 [2cl Dept 20 12]: Mack v Va/fort. 61 AD3d 831. 876 NYS2d 887 f:?.d Dept 2009]). A plaintiff is required to present nonconclusory expert evidence sufficient to support a finding not on ly that the alleged injury is within the serious injury threshold oflnsurance Law§ 5102 (d), but also that the injury was casually related to the subject accident in order to recover for noneconomic loss related to personal injury sustained in a motor vehicle acc ident (see Valentin v Pomilla, 59 ADJd 184, 873 NYS2d 537 l l st Dept 2009]). The medical evidence submitted by plaintiff is insufficient to overcome defendant's prima facie showing. Plaintiff subm its the report of Dr. Korman. w ho initially examined her on July 12, 20 11, and found significant range o f motion limitations in her spine, left shoulder and knees. and diagnosed plaintiff with, among other things, cervical, thoracic and lumbar myofascitis and spasm, and shoulder. knee and hip derangement. Dr. Kom1an re-evaluated plaintiff on November 22, 2011, and concluded that plaintiff sustained serious injuries to her left shoulder and spine. that her prognosis was poor, that she should continue with physical therapy on a ··symptomatic'' basis, that she continues to experience myofascial pain, and that her injuries are permanent and causally related to the subject accident. Dr. Korman recently evaluated plaintiff on February 25. 2016, and found significant ranges of motion limitations in her spine, left shoulder, and knees. Dr. Korman concluded that plaintiffs prognosis is poor, that she continues to experience chronic myofascial pain. that her injuries require a permanent alteration to her activities of daily living. and that her injuries are causally related to the subject accident. However, Dr. Korman. in reaching his conclusions has impermissibly relied upon the unswom reports of other doctors (see 1 l1arziotto v S traino. 38 AD3d 623, 83 1 NYS2d 551 (2d Dept 2007]: Moore vSarwttr, 29 AD3d 752. 816 NYS2d 503 f2d Dept 2006]; Vis/111evsky v G/assberg, 29 AD3d 680, 815 NYS2d 152 [2d Dept 2006]). Significantly, as Dr. Korman only examined plaintiff three times, including the most recent examination, his conclusions that plaintiffs p rognosis is poor and that her daily li ving activ ities are permanently altered as a result of the alleged inj urics she sustained in the subj ect accident are specu lative and without p robative value (see Yu11 v Barber, 63 J\03d 11 40; 883 NYS2d 242 [2d Dept 2009]; Besso v DeMaggio, 56 AD3d 596, 868 NYS2d 68 1 [2d Dept 2008); Piperis v Wan, 49 AD3d 840. 854 NYS2d 489 [2d Dept 2008]). Dr. Korman, in his recent exam ination, also fai ls to explain the decrease in plaintiff's ranges or motion in her spine and knees. since he last examined her in November 2011 . Additionally, the sworn medical report of Dr. Eisenstandt fails to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff sustained a serious injury, since it merely states that plaintiff has. among other things. an anterior labral tear. no rotator cuff abnormality. a small Tl 2-Ll herniation. and broad-based right paracentral C6-7 disc herniation extending into the right neural foramcn. Such findings. however. arc not evidence of a serious injury in the absence of objective evidence of the extent of the alleged physical limitations resulting from the injury and its duration (see Carabello v Kim. 63 AD3d 976. 882 NYS2d 2 l l [2d Dept 2009]: Sapienza v Ruggiero. 57 ADJd 643, 869 NYS2d 192 [2d Dept 2008J: Come/illS v Ci11tas Corp. , 50 AD3d 1085. 857 NYS2d 637 (2d Dept 2008]). More importantly, Dr. Eisenstandt never set forth her opinion as to the cause of the findings that she made in her report. especially in regards to the anterior labral tear (see Feher v Madorra11. 60 AD3d 725, 875 NYS2d 518 [2d Dept [* 5] Pickle v Johnson Index No . 62007/13 Page 5 2009]: Luizzi-Schweuk v SingIt, 58 AD3d 81 L 872 NYS2d 176 [2d Dept 2009); Scotto v Suh. 50 AD3d lOl 2, 857 NYS2d 185 [2d Dept 2008]). Lastly, plaintiff fa iled to offer competent evidence demonstrating that the injuries she sustained prevented her from perform ing substantially all of her usual or customary activities for not less than 90 days of the first 180 clays following the subject accident (see Rabolt v Park, 50 AD3d 995, 858 NYS2d 197 [2d Dept 2008]; Roman v Fast lane CarServ., Inc., 46 AD3d 535. 846 NYS2d 613 [2d Dept 2007]; Nociforo v Penna, 42 AD3d 514, 840 NYS2d 396 [2d Dept 2007); Felix v New York City Tr. Auth., 32 AD3d 527, 8 19 NYS2d 835 [2d Dept 2006]). Accordingly. defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint is granted . ~ :=.-c~ Dated: Riverhead, New York November 15, 2016 X ARTHUR G. PITTS, J.S.C. FINAL DISPOSITION NON-FI NAL DISPOSITION

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.