[Download] "Ella Mae Beckett v. Edward Conte" by Supreme Court of New York " Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Ella Mae Beckett v. Edward Conte
- Author : Supreme Court of New York
- Release Date : January 15, 1991
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 67 KB
Description
DECISION & ORDER The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case that she sustained "serious injury" within the
meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d). The plaintiff sought to recover damages by claiming she had suffered a "significant limitation
of use of a body function or system" (Insurance Law § 5102d). In order to establish that she suffered such a "significant
limitation", the plaintiff was required to provide objective evidence of the extent or degree of the limitation and its duration
(see, Petrone v Thornton, 166 A.D.2d 513; Phillips v Costa, 160 A.D.2d 855; Partlow v Meehan, 155 A.D.2d 647). Although the
plaintiff submitted the affidavits of a chiropractor and a neurosurgeon, both of whom found that she had suffered an 11% impairment
of the dorsolumbar spine due to injuries suffered in an automobile accident, the affidavits were prepared two to three years
after the medical examinations upon which the opinions therein were based (see, O'Neill v Rogers, 163 A.D.2d 466; Philpotts
v Petrovic, 160 A.D.2d 856; Covington v Cinnirella, 146 A.D.2d 565). Thus, there was insufficient proof of the duration of
the alleged impairment. Notably, the affidavits of the defendants' medical experts stated that the plaintiff had suffered
no "residual disability", and no evidence existed of any neurological dysfunction. In her affidavit, the plaintiff contends
that she continues to suffer pain and is unable to work due to the injuries suffered in the accident. The plaintiff's subjective
complaints of recurrent pain are insufficient under these circumstances to satisfy the statutory threshold of a "serious injury"
(see, Scheer v Koubek, 70 N.Y.2d 678, 679; Phillips v Costa, supra). Moreover, even though the plaintiff continues to be unemployed,
there is insufficient medical proof connecting her lack of employment to her accident-related injuries and, thus, her self-serving
comments concerning her inability to work are insufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment (see, Phillips v Costa,
supra; Covington v Cinnirella, supra; McKnight v Murabito, 139 A.D.2d 571). Disposition ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.