Bernabel v. Perullo
Decision Date | 09 December 2002 |
Citation | 300 A.D.2d 330,751 N.Y.S.2d 314 |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Parties | JUAN BERNABEL, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>MICHELLE PERULLO et al., Appellants. |
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the cross motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
"Although a bulging or herniated disc may constitute a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), a plaintiff must provide objective evidence of the extent or degree of the alleged physical limitations resulting from the disc injury and its duration" (Monette v Keller, 281 AD2d 523, 523-524; see Duldulao v City of New York, 284 AD2d 296, 297). In this case, the affirmed medical report submitted by the defendants' orthopedic expert found "[n]ormal range of motion of the cervical spine in all directions" despite a magnetic resonance imaging report (hereinafter MRI) showing a disc herniation at the C5-6 level and a disc bulge at the C3-4 level. Moreover, despite an MRI report regarding the plaintiff's lumbosacral spine which indicated a disc bulge at L5-S1, the expert found negative bilateral straight leg raising in both the sitting and supine positions. This evidence was sufficient to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as a result of the accident (see Duldulao v City of New York, supra).
The medical evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the motion was not in proper evidentiary form and thus did not raise a triable issue of fact (cf. Pagano v Kingsbury, 182 AD2d 268, 270).
To continue reading
Request your trial