Flores v. Bergtraum
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:20-cv-01240
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Flores v. Bergtraum, Judge Karas denied Flores’s reconsideration motion because it raised new arguments about a medical expert after summary judgment.
Margarita Flores’s motion for reconsideration was denied; Matthew L. Bergtraum’s prior summary-judgment ruling remained undisturbed.
What happened
Margarita Flores sued Matthew L. Bergtraum, alleging that he seriously injured her by hitting her with his car. Judge Karas had previously granted Bergtraum’s motion for summary judgment, and the Second Circuit affirmed that decision.
Flores asked the court to reconsider its decision based on arguments about Bergtraum’s medical expert, Dr. Jared F. Brandoff. She argued that Dr. Brandoff was not a radiologist and had reviewed MRI reports rather than the actual MRI films when forming his opinion that her injuries existed before the collision.
Judge Karas denied Flores’s motion for reconsideration. He ruled that Flores had not raised these arguments in her summary-judgment opposition and had not shown a change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice.
The detailed version
- Flores v. Bergtraum · No. 7:20-cv-01240
- Kenneth Karas
- Sept. 26, 2023
Background
Margarita Flores brought this action against Matthew L. Bergtraum, alleging that Bergtraum caused her serious injury by hitting her with his car. On January 13, 2022, the court granted Bergtraum’s motion for summary judgment, which asks the court to decide a claim when the material facts do not require a trial. Flores appealed, and the Second Circuit affirmed the court’s decision.
Flores also filed a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3. After the appeal, she withdrew all portions of that motion except the portion concerning Bergtraum’s medical expert, Dr. Jared F. Brandoff.
Flores’s Arguments
Flores argued that the court should have considered that Dr. Brandoff was an orthopedic surgeon rather than a radiologist and had not reviewed her actual MRI films. Instead, according to Flores’s argument, he reviewed MRI reports describing her injuries. She contended that his opinion that her neck and back injuries predated the collision was therefore insufficient to establish that she did not suffer a serious injury under New York Insurance Law § 5102(d).
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that reconsideration is an exceptional remedy. It is not an opportunity to present arguments that were available but omitted from the earlier briefing, submit new material, relitigate issues, or obtain a second hearing on the merits. A party seeking reconsideration must identify an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a clear error or manifest injustice based on matters previously presented to the court.
The court found that Flores had not made the arguments about Dr. Brandoff’s qualifications and review of the MRI materials in her opposition to summary judgment. Because a reconsideration motion could not be used to present those new arguments, the court rejected them. The court also concluded that Flores had not identified a change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice.
Disposition
Judge Kenneth M. Karas denied Flores’s motion for reconsideration and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion. The opinion does not alter the earlier summary-judgment ruling, which the Second Circuit had affirmed.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.