Narrative Opinion Summary
In a personal injury case, the defendants appealed a Supreme Court order from Queens County that denied their motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint based on the plaintiff's failure to demonstrate a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102(d). The appellate court reversed the order, granted the defendants' motion, and dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff claimed a "significant limitation of use of a body function or system" but failed to provide objective evidence regarding the extent, degree, or duration of this limitation, which is necessary to substantiate such a claim, as established in *Beckett v. Conte*. The affidavits from the plaintiff's treating physician, Dr. Kathleen R. Watson, were deemed insufficient as they did not adequately specify the alleged limitation. Justices Bracken, Copertino, Santucci, Florio, and McGinity concurred with the decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Serious Injury Requirement under Insurance Law § 5102(d)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The plaintiff's claim was dismissed because she did not provide objective evidence of a serious injury, which is a prerequisite for recovery under the statute.
Reasoning: The plaintiff claimed a 'significant limitation of use of a body function or system' but failed to provide objective evidence regarding the extent, degree, or duration of this limitation, which is necessary to substantiate such a claim, as established in Beckett v. Conte.
Sufficiency of Medical Evidence in Personal Injury Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The plaintiff's treating physician's affidavits were insufficient because they did not specify the limitation in a manner that could substantiate the plaintiff's claim.
Reasoning: The affidavits from the plaintiff's treating physician, Dr. Kathleen R. Watson, were deemed insufficient as they did not adequately specify the alleged limitation.
Summary Judgment in Personal Injury Casessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a serious injury as required under the law.
Reasoning: The appellate court reversed the order, granted the defendants' motion, and dismissed the complaint.