Kim v. Stewart

Background

Yongjae Kim sued Joshua Eric Stewart and CHP Trans Inc. for personal injuries from an October 16, 2015 automobile accident. The opinion states that Stewart was driving a truck owned by CHP when the truck repeatedly struck the rear of Kim’s vehicle. Kim was taken by ambulance to Woodhull Hospital and reported neck, lower-back, and right-shoulder pain.

Kim received treatment for his right shoulder, including surgery on January 27, 2016. Dr. Daniel Yoo later reported limits in Kim’s shoulder movement, including forward elevation to 143 degrees compared with 180 degrees described as normal, and external rotation to 37 degrees compared with 90 degrees described as normal. Dr. Yoo concluded that Kim had permanent shoulder pain and stiffness, limitations with lifting and other activities, and injuries caused by the 2015 accident.

Kim also underwent neurological testing in 2018. The opinion describes testing showing problems with attention, concentration, memory, and processing speed. Dr. Mehrdad Golzad diagnosed mild traumatic brain injuries, post-concussion syndrome, persistent headaches, mood disorder, and memory and cognitive deficits. Kim testified that he could not work for three months after the 2015 accident while receiving treatment.

The opinion also discusses Kim’s earlier 2013 car accident. Medical records from that accident described neck, shoulder, ankle, and lower-back complaints, but the court noted that those records did not describe neurological complaints or deficits. Dr. Yoo later stated that Kim’s right shoulder had been doing well before the 2015 accident and that the later labral tear was caused by the 2015 accident.

Motion and Parties’ Arguments

Stewart and CHP moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that matters to the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

The defendants argued that Kim had not suffered a “serious injury” under New York Insurance Law § 5102(d). That law limits personal-injury claims under New York’s no-fault system to injuries meeting specified categories, including permanent loss of use, permanent consequential limitation, significant limitation, and a medically determined condition that prevents substantially all usual activities for at least 90 of the first 180 days after the accident. The defendants also argued, alternatively, that Kim’s injuries resulted from the 2013 accident rather than the 2015 accident.

The defendants relied on Dr. Jeffrey Passick’s examination, which found normal range of motion and no orthopedic disability, and Dr. Alan Greenfield’s opinions that several spinal and shoulder findings were chronic, degenerative, and unrelated to the 2015 accident. Kim argued that Dr. Yoo’s findings, the neurological evidence, and the conflicting medical opinions created factual disputes that a jury—not the court on summary judgment—had to resolve.

Court’s Analysis

The court accepted, for purposes of the motion, that the defendants had met their initial burden of presenting evidence that Kim’s injuries were not serious. The court nevertheless found that Kim had supplied sufficient objective evidence of a permanent consequential limitation and a significant limitation involving his right shoulder and brain injuries.

As to the shoulder, the court relied on Dr. Yoo’s measurements showing more than 20 percent limits in forward elevation and external rotation more than three years after the accident, together with Dr. Yoo’s opinions that the pain and limitations were permanent and caused by the 2015 accident. The court held that this evidence created a genuine dispute about whether Kim suffered a permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member.

As to the brain injuries, the court relied on the 2018 imaging report describing significant cortical atrophy that was most compatible with traumatic injury, as well as testing and diagnoses involving post-concussion syndrome and cognitive deficits. The court noted that the defendants did not directly address those findings and instead disputed causation generally.

The court also found a triable issue under the 90/180 category based on Kim’s testimony that he could not work for three months after the accident, considered together with the physical limitations described by his doctors. The court stated that the defendants’ medical reports addressed Kim’s condition several years after the accident rather than his condition during the six months immediately afterward.

The court declined to resolve the competing medical opinions or decide which witnesses were credible. It described the conflicting medical evidence as a “battle of the experts” and stated that credibility assessments and choices between conflicting accounts belong to the jury at trial.

Disposition

Judge Sarah L. Cave denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court directed the parties to file a joint pretrial order and other pretrial materials and scheduled a final pretrial conference. The Clerk was directed to close the motion at ECF No. 47.