Morales v. Cabral

• Decision Date: 21 November 2019
• Docket Number: 10433,Index 21130/15E
• Citation: 113 N.Y.S.3d 684,177 A.D.3d 556
• Parties: Marisol MORALES, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Cesar CABRAL, Defendant, Elsie Morales, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

177 A.D.3d 556

113 N.Y.S.3d 684

Marisol MORALES, Plaintiff–Respondent,

v. Cesar CABRAL, Defendant,Elsie Morales, Defendant–Appellant.

10433

Index 21130/15E

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

ENTERED: NOVEMBER 21, 2019

Thomas Torto, New York (Jason Levine of counsel), for appellant.

Law Offices of Stuart M. Kerner, P.C., Bronx (Stuart M. Kerner of counsel), for respondent.

Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Oing, Singh, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann Brigantti, J.), entered on or about April 12, 2018, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant Morales's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against her on the threshold issue of serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102(d), unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the motion as to the claims of "permanent consequential" injury to the cervical and lumbar spine, serious injury to the left shoulder, and a 90/180–day injury, and, upon a search of the record, to grant summary judgment to defendant Cabral to the same extent, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Defendant Morales established prima facie that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury to her cervical spine, lumbar spine or left shoulder in the June 2014 automobile accident through the reports of physicians who examined plaintiff and found no indications of limitations in use of the subject body parts. Although one examiner measured limitations in motion, she opined that these were subjective and unrelated to any objective evidence of injury (see Macdelinne F. v. Jimenez, 126 A.D.3d 549, 551, 6 N.Y.S.3d 40 [1st Dept. 2015] ). Morales also submitted radiologists' reports finding either no injury or preexisting conditions and an emergency room medical expert's finding that plaintiff's post-accident complaints and treatment were inconsistent with her claims (see De La Rosa v. Okwan, 146 A.D.3d 644, 45 N.Y.S.3d 443 [1st Dept. 2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 908, 2017 WL 2367334 [2017] ). Morales further relied on records of plaintiff's primary care physician, which reflect no contemporaneous complaints by plaintiff and show that plaintiff had a normal range of motion a year after the accident (see Perl v. Meher, 18 N.Y.3d 208, 217–218, 936 N.Y.S.2d 655, 960 N.E.2d 424 [2011] ). The physician's records also show that plaintiff ceased treating at that time (see Pommells v. Perez, 4 N.Y.3d 566, 574, 797 N.Y.S.2d 380, 830 N.E.2d 278 [2005] ).

In opposition, plaintiff submitted no objective physical findings to support her claim that she suffered any limitations in use of her left shoulder ( Henchy v. VAS Express Corp., 115 A.D.3d 478, 479, 981 N.Y.S.2d 418 [1st Dept. 2014] ). As to her cervical and lumbar spine injuries, plaintiff submitted admissible reports of her radiologist and treating chiropractor. The radiologist opined that the MRIs showed herniated discs and no evidence of degeneration, which, given the absence of evidence of preexisting conditions in plaintiff's own medical records, is sufficient to rebut the findings of defendant Morales's radiologist (see Hayes v. Gaceur, 162 A.D.3d 437, 79 N.Y.S.3d 119 [1st Dept. 2018] ; Yuen v. Arka Memory Cab Corp., 80 A.D.3d 481, 915 N.Y.S.2d 529 [1st Dept. 2011] ). The chiropractor's report also provided evidence of contemporaneous treatment of plaintiff's claimed injuries and of limitations in range of motion shortly after the accident (see Bonilla v. Vargas–Nunez, 147 A.D.3d 461, 46 N.Y.S.3d 594 [1st Dept. 2017] ), as well as one year later and recently.

However, neither plaintiff's affidavit nor her chiropractor's report provided a reasonable explanation for her complete cessation of treatment about one year after the accident "even though she had health insurance and saw a regular primary care doctor" (see Bogle v. Paredes, 170 A.D.3d 455, 455, 95 N.Y.S.3d 193 [1st Dept. 2019] ). The cessation of treatment is particularly noteworthy because plaintiff continued to see her primary care physician after June 2015, and the physician found full range of motion at examinations in August 2015 and July 2016. Thus, plaintiff's own medical records show both that she was able to continue seeing a doctor after No Fault benefits ceased and that she no longer had symptoms related to her alleged injuries, and plaintiff's chiropractor failed to explain the conflict between these facts and his findings (see Acosta v. Vidal, 119 A.D.3d 408, 988 N.Y.S.2d 485 [1st Dept. 2014] ; Jno–Baptiste v. Buckley, ...