Flores v. Bergtraum

Background

Margarita Flores sued Matthew L. Bergtraum, alleging that he seriously injured her when his car struck her as she walked in a crosswalk on November 9, 2018. Bergtraum conceded liability for the accident. The remaining dispute concerned the extent and cause of Flores’s claimed injuries and whether they met New York’s statutory serious-injury threshold.

Flores claimed injuries to her cervical spine, lumbar spine, and right knee. She testified that she experienced pain and difficulty with household activities, stairs, bicycling, obtaining a General Educational Development diploma, and obtaining a driver’s license. She returned to work after missing one day, but said her duties changed so that she worked behind the cash register. She received physical therapy and chiropractic treatment, later underwent cervical-fusion surgery, and was advised to consider lumbar-fusion surgery.

Bergtraum moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment allows a court to rule without a trial when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Legal standard

Because the case involved injuries from an automobile accident, the court applied New York’s no-fault law. Under that law, a person generally may sue for accident-related injuries only if the injuries qualify as a “serious injury” under New York Insurance Law § 5102(d). The categories relevant here included a permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member, a significant limitation of use of a body function or system, and an injury that substantially prevented the person from performing customary daily activities for at least 90 of the first 180 days after the accident.

At summary judgment, the defendant first had to present evidence establishing that the plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury. The burden then shifted to the plaintiff to present admissible evidence creating a genuine issue about whether she suffered a serious injury caused by the accident. The court emphasized that subjective complaints alone were insufficient; objective medical proof and nonconclusory evidence of causation were required.

Cervical-spine injury

The court found that Dr. Jared Brandoff’s report met Bergtraum’s initial burden. Dr. Brandoff opined that Flores’s cervical condition reflected degenerative changes rather than traumatic injury, that her surgery did not appear medically indicated for an accident-related injury, and that she had no accident-related disability requiring further treatment.

The court found that Flores’s evidence did not meet her responsive burden. The range-of-motion records from Doctors United did not identify the testing method or the tools used. Although Dr. Andrew Cordiale stated that he used a goniometer, he did not explain whether his range-of-motion tests were active or passive. The court also noted that Dr. Cordiale repeatedly recorded that the condition did not interfere with Flores’s normal daily function.

The court further found that Dr. Cordiale’s statement that the injuries were caused by the accident was conclusory and did not address Dr. Brandoff’s opinion that degenerative conditions caused the findings. The court therefore granted Bergtraum’s motion as to Flores’s cervical-spine claim, covering both the short-term and permanent-injury categories.

Lumbar-spine injury

Dr. Brandoff similarly opined that Flores’s lumbar imaging showed mild-to-moderate degenerative disease, with no traumatic injury or neurological deficit, and that she had no accident-related lumbar disability or need for further treatment. The court held that this evidence satisfied Bergtraum’s initial burden.

The court rejected Flores’s reliance on Dr. Cordiale’s report for substantially the same reasons discussed for the cervical spine. The report did not identify whether the range-of-motion testing was active or passive, repeated that Flores’s condition did not interfere with normal daily function, and did not rebut Dr. Brandoff’s opinion that degenerative disease—not the accident—accounted for the claimed lumbar condition. Flores’s return to work after missing one day also weighed against her short-term serious-injury claim. The court granted Bergtraum’s motion as to the lumbar-spine claim.

Right-knee injury

Dr. Brandoff concluded that Flores’s right-knee imaging showed degenerative, atraumatic changes and that his examination revealed no pain, instability, disability, or accident-related traumatic injury. The court found that this evidence met Bergtraum’s initial burden.

The court concluded that Flores did not provide sufficient evidence to create a triable issue. Dr. Stanley Liebowitz did not examine her until approximately eight months after the accident. The Doctors United records did not explain the range-of-motion testing methods or tools and did not adequately analyze causation. The court also found that Dr. Liebowitz’s records did not rebut Dr. Brandoff’s conclusion that the knee findings were degenerative rather than traumatic. The court granted Bergtraum’s motion as to the knee claim, including both the short-term and permanent-injury categories.

Disposition

Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted Bergtraum’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The court entered judgment for Bergtraum, directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion, and closed the case.