next case on the calendar is were united states vehicle the bus driver characterized the impact as being medium the bus driver overseed obviously in the front seat in the back and i think that's all i'm going to say by the facts and since i know the cause of way of the fact s the peel basically consists of three points albeit died in the nominative in my beliefs as five but the main point that i like to focus on is the district court that the court decided the issue of causation in the context of whether or not my clients have i met evidence do you have it all of any serious injury  then she was cut off of no fault ok then she was on treatment the quite a while later ok but a lot of stuff has happened in between how does any of their amount under  serious injury under new york word is a different story your honor i have attached and it's in my belief ok where you have the measurements  limitations according to current to position of thirty three percent fifty percent that certainly is significant and i would also note that under new york law it is not necessary for the significant limitations standard for it to be permanent ok that's another thing that this record state incorrectly that you're relying on dr friedman's report in two thousand and fifteen and they had at their disposal all of the documentation and after she was in the hospital for three weeks and underwent the two serious appellations in discharge summary the conclusion is that the principal diagnosis ok this is a quote the condition that was the term of after study to have been a sponsible for the admission to the hospital ok was  the neck injury ok and post model vehicle accident the chronic condition that my client has suffered she says she was eight years old but has never had to undergo surgery and was able to get married live her life her family but never acquired any surgery that the chronic condition is listed as a secondary diagnosis not as the primary diagnosis this is completely and totally disregarded by the district court as if it didn't exist so when we will boil down to what the issue is it boils down to the district for the lying on an unsigned report of a radiologist who has never examined my client and who has never read any of the hundreds probably over thousand pages of medical documentation from white of hospital and i would like to also point out that in addition to that i don't believe that  e no for trash old applies to the united states because united states is clearly not a covered person ok because it does not have to pay any no for benefits  better very interesting legal question and you have judge sweet opinion in cooper which is we are of there is no liability on the united states because we united states cannot be liable no fault situation yes the argument can be made that even vote for united states is not liable there should be or would be no recovery in new york in very poor vet same fresh old must appl with respect to the government's recovery and that you know it's a new legal issue it's an interesting one but why the idea is to be followed new york law which with federal courts claims act john is that the notion that the united states is subject to no fault law which is certainly a phrase that is used the in the some of the cases but being subject to me is connotes an obligation if you deny the state is not obligated to pay no for benefits is not subject to anything so then we have in essence saying that subject to me is that is just and title to the benefits but not to the incorporate the law of the state when the federal government does it does but i don't believe that there's anything that states ok in fact in the case of gamma versus daniels ok makes it very ok that this is a public policy kind of a tradeoff ok and if an entity such as the united states does not have any of the burdens then why should be entitled to one of the benefits to the trash old ok makes absolutely no sense i do acknowledge iana that there is a statement in some of the cases which says that the united states is quote subject to the no fault law but makes absolutely no sense what is me that subject to if it doesn't have to pay no for benefits which clearly it didn't and which clearly in this case not even the treasurer thirty paid any no for benefits to miss word should they did pay no full benefits to the door but not to ms word but in a i for the life of me i just don't understand how the court just simply sidestepped that issue and said well you know since i decided the issue of no fault  damages which is part of the issue of the trash hold in this instance the court reversed it ok and the court essentially said but even if i was to reach it the court is in essence telegraphing that  clients were were passengers on the city bus ok there's no issue of bad them being compatible with culpable and what can there be of anything of in nature stating that they shouldn't be some of judgment other than this speculation by the tragedy by the u s that perhaps they're not even on the bus because they can't produce after four years the metrocard and because their name does not appear in the police report which is clear that the reason why the name doesn't appear on the police supposed because the bus driver told everybody to get off and he doesn't even and he didn't even tell the police officer that there were four passengers in the bus the police report says the only one person in the bus which is bus driver so morning your honour's make please the court i'm assisting state's attorney kathleen mahoney from the eastern district of new york i represent defended pelly united states of america the district court correctly found that the united states was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's tort claims because the united states demonstrated that neither plaintive could establish that she says satisfied the serious injury requirement under new york real fault law the federal torts claimed act which is the limited waiver of immunity their lab plaintiffs even bring their tort claims against the united states provides the united states will be liable in accordance with the law of the place with the negligent act or initiate occurred let's  the threshold applies with respect to ms word we have any number of testimony by her doctor and the hospital law is very clear that when something tends to cause something that is a prima facia case of causation the government is or defendant is allowed to bring in evidence specifically to the meeting of the threshold the language of this doctor goes way beyond the kind of language with the new york court of appeal in  was an eighty two year old woman with a degenerative longstanding preexisting and it's very persuasive itchy had all of these feelings but you can't say as a matter of law that the changes disagrees with your reading of the record what the record showed was that ms word had severe degenerative conditions of her cervical spine prior to the accident that following the accident dr friedman's report sufficient to come forward with evidence saying ok she had this we all agree she had these serious conditions before the accident but then there was an accident the accident those injuries were either exacerbated or there were new injuries resulting from the accident itself and that 's what dr friedman in essence says right no your honor dr freeman never even acknowledged the ms word had those preexisting conditions the district court actually said it was if it never existed he never he didn't indicate that he viewed any of the not believe him or not but that's a question of fact but don't tell me he didn't say the tree had previously condition because you says yes you are but what he didn't knowledge was that prior to the accident  was being worked up for potential surgery for those preexisting conditions she wasn't following through on her appointments it was pretty common throughout her medical records to test actually been ordered in anticipation of that the m r i that was done after she got to the hospital showed no significant change from the one done a year earlier which was the one that the neuro neurosurgeon had been looking at and talking about performing that surgery when ms word came into the hospital the the scene on the two thousand and seven m r i with her and recommended she have the surgery she said now i want to go home i'll come back a follow up in the clinic he said ok as long as that new m r i doesn't show any ligament to sore bony this were new york new york the question of the pressure would this would be a jewelry question or racial and i don't for a moment doubt that one could find the opposite but the new york court of appeals has told us that when the reason evidence of both so it's just it's going to be issue it's a jury question well actually your honor it's the united states that the defendant it's not a jury question it's a question for the district court judge and in this case the district court judge looked at all of the evidence including the expert reports and concluded that plaintiff's evidence did not refute the conclusion of the government's expert or the statements in the plaintiff's treatment records opposing counsel said in the law is abandoned before us with respect to make this break as who worked an expert's opinion is only as good as the facts that it's based on it is true dr friedman said the magic words that just calorie she read to us but the fact the matter is that's all he said it's stated the conclusion he never delved into the evidence or discussed any evidence of his words condition being different before the accident and after the accident if one looks at these even we as laypeople not healthcare professionals look at the medical records from the hospital you can't find anything like that there's not a page in those medical records there's not an entry in those medical records that describes something different after the accident than there accident the united states put in a sworn statement from radiologist dr klein who reviewed all of the radiological studies before and after the accident and said that there is no change before and after the accident and then all the radiology studies after the accident show no acute evidence of trauma no evidence of acute trauma in response to that that which established defendants entitle him to summary judgment on the so it serious injury issue plaintiff did not put in any new sworn statement by a health care professional so that we only have the previous sworn statements of dr freeman and dr klein's affidavit is an rebutted in the district court with it i'd like to just understand your argument abo why the treating physician long term physician when who knows her background and knows says mr worked had a longstanding history of prior cervical and lumber he doesn't have to go into chapter and verse but he's got to say something got a point to something and some scheme and some she never has she was supposed to go for the letter diagnostics that he she never went so you can't find any evidence there he just has to point to something but he doesn't he just issues the conclusion that helps a plaintiff in a lawsuit thank you microphone this conversation was focusing on dr friedman i think the focus should be a bite of the hospital they are the ones who are with the who was who were treating her for several years and they are the ones who came with the final diagnosis that this was connected to the accident no one seems to be addressing that issue ok that she really close the issue because there are dozens and dozens of references to the motor vehicle accident being secondary to the injuries that she sustained i quoted them in k and then he says in addition m r i ct signal changes might lag behind clinical symptoms what he's saying in essence is that hey the fact it doesn't show up on the m r i ok may the second volume the second volume of  ok and that's basically don't thing which i would like to add to this discussion thank you very much thank you we will take the matter under submission submitted and that is the last case on