Yacoubou v. Tex-Q Express Inc.

Background

The action arose from a motor vehicle accident involving plaintiff Fadil Yacoubou, defendant John Doe, who allegedly drove the truck, and defendant Tex-Q Express Inc., which owned the truck. Tex-Q moved for summary judgment, asking the court to rule that Yacoubou had not sustained a “serious injury” under New York Insurance Law § 5102(d). Summary judgment is a decision made without a trial when the relevant evidence does not show a genuine dispute requiring a trial.

Magistrate Judge Robin Tarnofsky issued a report and recommendation advising that the court grant Tex-Q’s motion and dismiss the claims against John Doe without prejudice. The district court reviewed the recommendation and the parties’ submissions.

Arguments and Analysis

Yacoubou argued that the magistrate judge overlooked the statutory category covering an injury that causes a significant limitation in the use of a body function or system. The court rejected that argument. It agreed that Tex-Q had made an initial showing that Yacoubou’s injuries did not cause a significant limitation and that Yacoubou had failed to counter that showing.

Yacoubou also argued that a genuine factual dispute existed over whether his injury caused a significant limitation. Tex-Q’s independent medical expert found a normal range of motion in all body parts except for a 17 percent decrease in thoracolumbar-spine flexion. The court agreed with the recommendation that this decrease did not meet New York’s significant-limitation standard. It relied on Cooper v. Dunn, which treated an 18 percent decrease in lumbar-spine range of motion and a 10-to-20-percent limitation in back movement as legally insignificant, as well as other cited New York decisions.

The court rejected Yacoubou’s argument that Cooper was distinguishable because the experts in that case disagreed about the extent of the injury. According to the court, Cooper held that the plaintiff’s evidence was legally insufficient even when accepted as true. The court also noted that Yacoubou had not cited contrary authority.

Finally, Yacoubou argued that he had established that the accident caused his injuries. The court said this repeated an argument already rejected in the recommendation. It further stated that even if Yacoubou had shown a genuine factual dispute about causation, his claims would still fail because he had not shown a serious injury.

Disposition

The court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in full. It granted defendant Tex-Q Express Inc.’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the claims against John Doe without prejudice. The clerk was directed to close the case.

Result

The ruling resolved the case in favor of Tex-Q on the serious-injury issue. The opinion does not state that the court separately decided whether John Doe was liable; it states that the claims against John Doe were dismissed without prejudice.