Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP

<p style="text-align: justify;">In the case of <em><a href="https://www.wcmlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Nicholson-v.-Kwarteng.pdf">Nicholson v. Kwarteng</a></em>, the Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident in August of 2015. According to the Plaintiff, she sustained serious injuries to her cervical spine and left shoulder as a result of the accident. After discovery was complete, the Defendant moved for Summary Judgment, asserting that the Plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law 5102(d).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">It was determined that the Plaintiff did not create an issue of fact as to her injuries. The court ruled that the orthopedic doctor that Plaintiff presented to support her claims failed to identify the objective tests utilized to reach his conclusions.  Plaintiff's doctor did not measure Plaintiff’s range of motion or provide evidence that other objective tests were performed. Therefore, Defendant’s motion was granted, and the case was dismissed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Seasoned litigators never overlook the finer details.  Defending MVA cases requires a dissection of of medical reports and narratives to support the defense of lack of serious injury.  Without a delineation of the objective tests administered the plaintiff's claims can be defeated.</p>
Thanks to Marc Schauer for his contribution to this post.  For any questions or comments please contact <a href="mailto:vterrasi@wcmlaw.com">Vincent Terrasi</a>.