Cabrera v. United States

Background

Dionicio Cabrera sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a law that can make the federal government liable for certain injuries caused by negligent federal employees. Cabrera alleged that Shawnté Lorick, an employee of the United States Probation Office for the Southern District of New York, negligently drove a United States-owned vehicle into the rear of the vehicle Cabrera was driving on August 7, 2015, causing serious injuries.

The parties consented to trial before a United States magistrate judge. The court held a bench trial from October 5 through October 7, 2020. The United States admitted that Lorick failed to use reasonable care when the vehicles collided, but disputed whether the accident caused Cabrera’s claimed injuries and whether those injuries were serious under New York law.

Cabrera claimed injuries to his neck, back, and knees. He received medical treatment after the accident, underwent surgery on both knees, and later underwent cervical spine surgery. The record also showed that he had another trip-and-fall accident while working as a janitor in April 2017, after which he received additional treatment, including shoulder surgeries.

Preliminary Rulings

The United States filed a motion asking the court to bar evidence concerning Cabrera’s left-knee injuries and to bar Dr. Mark McMahon from giving expert opinions about Cabrera’s spinal injuries. The court denied the left-knee portion of the motion without prejudice and reserved the jurisdiction question until after trial. It also denied the request concerning Dr. McMahon’s spinal testimony so that the court could hear the testimony and determine what weight it deserved.

After trial, the court ruled that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the left-knee claims. Before suing under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a plaintiff must first submit an administrative claim to the relevant federal agency. Cabrera’s administrative claim identified injuries to his neck, back, and right knee, but not his left knee. The court held that references to the left knee in more than 300 pages of attached materials did not adequately notify the United States that Cabrera was seeking damages for a left-knee injury. The court therefore could not consider those claims.

Legal Standards

The Federal Tort Claims Act applies the law of the place where the accident occurred. Because the accident occurred in the Bronx, the court applied New York law. To prove negligence, Cabrera had to show a duty, a breach of that duty, and an injury proximately caused by the breach. He also had to prove that he was entitled to damages.

Under New York’s no-fault automobile-insurance law, a person generally cannot recover for non-economic losses unless he proves a statutory “serious injury.” The categories relevant to the court’s analysis included a permanent consequential limitation, a significant limitation of use of a body function or system, a fracture, or a medically determined injury that prevented the person from performing substantially all usual daily activities for at least 90 of the 180 days after the accident. The court stated that subjective pain reports alone are insufficient and that objective medical evidence must support the claimed injury and its extent.

Findings on Causation

The court found that Cabrera proved the United States owed him a duty and breached that duty. It credited Lorick’s testimony that the collision was relatively light and occurred after she had been stopped at a red light and began moving forward. The court also relied on the police report, vehicle photographs, and the fact that the airbags did not deploy.

The court found that Cabrera did not prove that the accident caused his knee injuries. It credited the testimony of the United States’ orthopedic expert, Dr. Joseph A. Bosco III, that the claimed knee injuries were inconsistent with the collision’s mechanism. The court also noted that Cabrera did not complain about knee pain during the first three weeks after the accident and first complained of right-knee pain when he was referred to Dr. McMahon by his lawyer. The court found Dr. McMahon’s testimony about the left knee highly suspect and determined that he was not a credible witness.

The court did find that the accident caused Cabrera’s neck and back injuries. It relied on the circumstances of the collision, early medical records, and the testimony of the United States’ spine expert, Dr. Charla R. Fischer, who acknowledged that Cabrera developed neck and back injuries from the accident. The court gave very little weight to Dr. McMahon’s opinions about the spine because he treated Cabrera’s knees and lacked specialized spinal training.

Serious Injury Analysis

The court rejected each asserted category of serious injury. It found that Cabrera did not prove that his spine or knees suffered permanent injuries caused by the accident. It also found that he did not prove a significant limitation of use of his spine or knees supported by credible medical evidence. The court found no credible evidence of a fracture caused by the accident.

The court further found that Cabrera did not prove that he was unable to perform substantially all of his usual activities for at least 90 of the 180 days after the accident. Dr. McMahon testified that Cabrera could not work and that some activities were restricted, but he did not testify that Cabrera was prevented from performing his usual activities to a great extent. The court credited Dr. Fischer’s testimony about the spine and Dr. Bosco’s testimony about the knees, and found that Cabrera’s activities were only slightly curtailed during the relevant period.

Disposition

The court concluded that Cabrera had not suffered a serious injury under New York law and therefore could not recover in the case. It ordered that judgment be rendered in favor of the United States, dismissed the complaint, and directed the clerk to close the case.

Judge

Judge Stewart D. Aaron, a United States Magistrate Judge, issued and signed the Opinion and Order.