As the highest court in the state, decisions of the New York Court of Appeals can have a far-reaching impact: lower New York courts are bound to abide by Court of Appeals rulings. Late in 2011, a unanimous decision came down from the Court pertaining to no-fault auto accident insurance claims in which victims did not receive a full, quantitative medical exam immediately after sustaining their injuries.
Quantitative Medical Assessments Not Required Immediately After Accident
New York no-fault insurance law mandates that insurers pay car accident victims for economic damages (medical bills, lost wages, etc.) up to $50,000, with no requirement that the injured parties prove the other driver was at fault. However, for additional non-economic damages (chiefly pain and suffering), injured victims cannot collect compensation unless they can prove they suffered from "serious injury."
A plaintiff can show their injury was serious in a number of ways, including by proving permanent impairment of a body part or function, or temporary impairment that caused an inability to conduct daily activities for at least half of the 180 days following an accident. In New York, the subjective complaints of a victim alone are not sufficient to prove the serious nature of an injury; objective proof, such as the testimony of a doctor as to the results of quantitative medical tests, is required.
The Court of Appeals ruling concerned several plaintiffs who had suffered injury in car crashes, but had obtained only cursory, treatment-orientated examinations immediately after the accidents. Specific, numerical assessments of the bodily damage resulting from the accidents were not made until many months later, in preparation for litigation.
The defendants challenged these long after-the-fact quantitative medical examinations as insufficient, rendering the plaintiffs' claims invalid as a matter of law. However, New York's highest court determined that requiring auto accident victims to obtain a comprehensive, litigation-orientated exam immediately after an accident would create a perverse set of incentives.
Writing for himself and his six colleagues on the Court, the Honorable Robert Smith pointed out that there was nothing unusual about a doctor being primarily, or only, concerned with treating injuries immediately following an accident. More detailed, quantitative medical assessments typically occur long afterwards, and only after a lawsuit is contemplated. Judge Smith explained that although a contemporaneous medical report may be important to establish causation of injuries in the wake of an accident, it does not have to be a comprehensive examination to preserve a plaintiff's claim for damages.
The Court Of Appeals Ruling May Affect Future Car Accident Lawsuits
For New York trial attorneys and the injured clients they serve, the new ruling could be of great value. It is now clear that a full medical evaluation immediately following an accident is not necessary to maintain a cause of action, and victims who have waited to obtain such an exam will still be able to pursue the monetary recovery they deserve.
That being said, there are still time limits for filing a personal injury lawsuit, and injured parties should not wait too long to explore their legal options following a car accident. If you have been injured, you should contact an attorney as soon as possible to find out how you may be able to collect compensation for your injuries.
