Source: https://martincolin.com/blog/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 02:55:54+00:00

Document:
As discussed in the previous post, recently a defendant who had slammed his bread truck into the rear of our client’s automobile, causing physical injuries to her, filed a written motion requesting the court dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that, even though my client said she was in pain, the medical records failed to show an objectively verifiable injury.
We opposed the defendant’s request to dismiss the case. Our papers were in three parts: a sworn affidavit from one our our attorneys; a sworn affidavit from a radiologist; and a sworn affidavit from a treating physician.
I am a physician licensed to practice medicine in the State of New York. My area of specialty is neurology. I maintain an office at 38 Brockway Place, White Plains, New York. I make this affirmation at the request of the attorneys for the plaintiff Selena Calderon Ortega.
I examined Selena Calderon Ortega on October 16, 2016; November 13, 2016; January 22, 2016; February 26, 2015; May 4, 2015; August 13, 2015; and October 12, 2015.
I first examined Selena Calderon Ortega on October 16, 2016. She reported that she was the restrained driver of a vehicle that was rear ended on September 16, 2016. She reported no head injury and no loss of consciousness. Ms. Calderon Ortega reported that after a week of back pain she went to Phelps Memorial Hospital emergency room, where she was evaluated, x-rayed, and released. She presented complaining of middle and lower back pain with muscle spasms.
Thoracic spine examination on October 16, 2016 revealed spasm and tenderness of the muscles. Lumbar spine examination on October 16, 2016 revealed decreased range of motion. Lumbar spine flexion-extension to seventy five degrees, right and left lateral flexion to twenty degrees. Lumbar spine examination revealed spasm and tenderness of the paraspinal muscles. On October 16, 2016, my diagnosis was: Thoracic paraspinal muscle spasms; Lumbar spine injury with signs of radiculopathy. The patient had limitations with lifting and bending. I recommended that the patient obtain an MRI of the lumbar spine and to schedule a follow up examination.
I next examined Ms. Calderon Ortega on November 13, 2016. The patient continued to complain of back pain with difficulty in walking. Examination on November 13, 2016 revealed antalgic gait due to back pain; straight leg raising was normal to ninety degrees on the left and elicited pain at seventy five degrees on the right. Thoracic spine examination revealed spasm and tenderness of the muscles. Lumbar spine examination revealed decreased range of motion; flexion-extension to seventy five degrees, right and left lateral flexion to twenty degrees; spasm and tenderness of the paraspinal muscles. MRI of the Lumbar Spine performed November 12, 2016 revealed L3-L4 disc bulge, L4-L5 and L5-S1 disc herniation. My diagnosis was: Thoracic paraspinal muscle spasms; Lumbar spine injury with signs of radiculopathy; L3-L4 disc bulge; and L4-L5 & L5-S1 disc herniation. The patient had limitations with lifting and bending. After examination of the patient on November 13, 2016, it was my opinion, with a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the patient was totally disabled, with her limitations and functional disabilities causally related to the aforementioned accident. I recommended that the patient continue with Physiatry and physical therapy treatments, and to schedule a follow up examination. I prescribed Flexeril 10mg (once a day for pain & stiffness caused by muscle spasms) and Mobic 7.5 mg (once a day for pain relief).
I next examined Ms. Calderon Ortega on January 22, 2015. The patient continued to complain of back pain. The patient stated that she is unable to exercise, that she has interrupted sleep, and that she is feeling angry. Examination on January 22, 2015 revealed antalgic gait due to back pain; straight leg raising elicited pain at seventy five degrees bilaterally. Cervical spine examination revealed spasm and tenderness of the muscles. Thoracic spine examination revealed spasm and tenderness of the muscles. Lumbar spine examination revealed decreased range of motion; flexion-extension to seventy five degrees, right and left lateral flexion to twenty degrees; spasm and tenderness of the paraspinal muscles. MRI of the Lumbar Spine performed November 12, 2016 revealed L3-L4 disc bulge, L4-L5 and L5-S1 disc herniation. My diagnosis was: Thoracic paraspinal muscle spasms; Lumbar spine injury with signs of radiculopathy; L3-L4 disc bulge; and L4-L5 & L5-S1 disc herniation. The patient had limitations with lifting and bending. After examination of the patient on January 22, 2015, it was my opinion, with a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the patient was totally disabled, with her limitations and functional disabilities causally related to the aforementioned accident. I recommended that the patient continue with pain management and continued physical therapy treatments, as well as continue on prescribed Flexeril 10mg (once a day for pain & stiffness caused by muscle spasms) and Mobic 7.5 mg (once a day for pain relief). I asked that she schedule a follow up examination.
I next examined Ms. Calderon Ortega on February 26, 2015. The patient complained of persistent low back pain and with continued inability to do her exercises. She also had trouble sleeping. Examination on February 26, 2015 revealed straight leg raising elicited pain at seventy five degrees bilaterally. Lumbar spine examination revealed decreased range of motion; flexion-extension to seventy five degrees, right and left lateral flexion to twenty degrees; spasm and tenderness of the paraspinal muscles. MRI of the Lumbar Spine performed November 12, 2016 revealed L3-L4 disc bulge, L4-L5 and L5-S1 disc herniation. My diagnosis was: Thoracic paraspinal muscle spasms; Lumbar spine injury with signs of radiculopathy; L3-L4 disc bulge; and L4-L5 & L5-S1 disc herniation. The patient had limitations with lifting, bending, and prolonged standing. After examination of the patient on February 26, 2015, it was my opinion, with a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the patient was totally disabled, with her limitations and functional disabilities causally related to the aforementioned accident. I recommended that the patient continue with pain management for epidural steroid injections, to continue physical therapy treatments, to continue on prescribed Flexeril 10mg (once a day for pain & stiffness caused by muscle spasms) and Mobic 7.5 mg (once a day for pain relief), and to schedule a follow up examination.
I next examined Ms. Calderon Ortega on May 4, 2015. The patient complained of persistent back pain. Examination on May 4, 2015 revealed straight leg raising elicited pain at seventy five degrees bilaterally. Lumbar spine examination revealed decreased range of motion; flexion-extension to seventy five degrees, lateral flexion to twenty degrees bilaterally accompanied by spasm and tenderness of the paraspinal muscles. MRI of the Lumbar Spine performed November 12, 2016 revealed L3-L4 disc bulge, L4-L5 and L5-S1 disc herniation. My diagnosis was: Thoracic paraspinal muscle spasms; Lumbar spine injury with signs of radiculopathy; L3-L4 disc bulge; and L4-L5 & L5-S1 disc herniation. The patient had limitations with lifting, bending, and prolonged standing. After examination of the patient on May 4, 2015, it was my opinion, with a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the patient was totally disabled, with her limitations and functional disabilities causally related to the aforementioned accident. I referred the patient to Dr. Shea for pain management, and recommended the patient continue with pain management for epidural steroid injections, to continue physical therapy treatments, to continue on prescribed Flexeril 10mg (once a day for pain & stiffness caused by muscle spasms) and Mobic 7.5 mg (once a day for pain relief), and to schedule a follow up examination.
I next examined Ms. Calderon Ortega on August 13, 2015. The patient stated that she felt the pain was better during the day, but it was severe at night and interfered with her sleep. Examination on August 13, 2015 revealed straight leg raising elicited pain at seventy five degrees bilaterally. Cervical spine examination revealed spasm and tenderness of the paraspinal muscles. Thoracic spine examination revealed spasm and tenderness of the paraspinal muscles. Lumbar spine examination revealed decreased range of motion; flexion-extension to seventy five degrees, lateral flexion to twenty degrees bilaterally accompanied by spasm and tenderness of the paraspinal muscles. MRI of the Lumbar Spine performed November 12, 2016 revealed L3-L4 disc bulge, L4-L5 and L5-S1 disc herniation. My diagnosis was: Thoracic paraspinal muscle spasms; Lumbar spine injury with signs of radiculopathy; L3-L4 disc bulge; and L4-L5 & L5-S1 disc herniation. The patient had limitations with lifting, bending, and prolonged standing. After examination of the patient on May 4, 2015, it was my opinion, with a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the patient was totally disabled, with her limitations and functional disabilities causally related to the aforementioned accident. I recommended the patient should obtain an EMG/NCV of the lower extremities to evaluate lumbar motor root involvement, to follow up with Dr. Shea for pain management, to continue physical therapy treatments, to continue on prescribed Flexeril 10mg (once a day for pain & stiffness caused by muscle spasms) and Mobic 7.5 mg (once a day for pain relief), and to schedule a follow up examination.
At the most recent examination on October 12, 2015, Ms. Calderon Ortega reported that she had been suffering from back pain, she had difficulties sleeping, and she reported feeling anxious. The patient was well developed, oriented x3 and cooperative. Speech was clear and coherent with no language disturbance noticed. On mental status exam, there was no evidence of cognitive impairment or manifest mood disturbance. The patient’s head was normocephalic with no evidence of recent trauma or bruits. Cranial nerves revealed normal fundi and full visual fields. There was full extraocular movements with no nystagmus. The pupils were isocoric, symmetrically reactive to light and accommodation. Facial sensation was normal with corneal reflexes being symmetrical and normoactive. There was no gross paresis of the seventh nerve. The patient’s hearing was within normal limits, with the Rinne and Weber test being physiologic. The ninth through twelfth nerve were intact.
Motor examination on October 12, 2015 revealed adequate strength and tone in all major groups 5/5. Sensory was intact to touch, pain, position, and vibration sense. Deep tendon reflexes were normal and symmetrical. Plantar reflexes were flexor. There were no cortical release signs. Coordination testing including finger to finger, finger to nose, rapid alternating movements and tandem gait were normal. Gait was normal including tandem, on toes, and on heels. The Station and Romberg test were negative. Straight leg raising was normal to ninety degrees bilaterally. Cervical spine examination revealed normal range of motion.
Thoracic spine examination on October 12, 2015 revealed spasm and tenderness of the paraspinal muscles. Lumbar spine examination on October 12, 2015 revealed spasm and tenderness of the paraspinal muscles.
As noted on earlier reports, MRI of the lumbar spine (11/12/2016) revealed disc bulge of L3-L4 flattening the sac. At L4-L5 there is a subligamentous central and bilateral disc herniation lateralizing to the right giving mild mass effect on the anterior aspect of the sac with mild productive changes of the facet joints. At L5-S1 there is a small central and bilateral disc herniation lateralizing to the right reaching the sac and the right S1 root.
The patient has limitations with lifting, bending, and prolonged standing.
My diagnosis is: Thoracic paraspinal muscle spasms; Lumbar spine injury with signs of radiculopathy; L3-L4 disc bulge; L4-L5 & L5-S1 disc herniation. With a reasonable degree of medical certainty, it is my opinion that the patient is partially disabled. Her limitations and functional disabilities are causally related to the aforementioned incident.
In addition, I have reviewed a narrative report affirmed by Charles Burns, M.D., radiologist, who reviewed the MRI of the lumbar spine performed November 12, 2016 at White Plains Radiology and concluded that the MRI demonstrated the loss of the normal lumber curvature as seen on T2 weighted sagittal images. Dr. Burns concluded this latter structural change is due to traumatic soft tissue injury, muscle spasm, or pain that caused straightening to the lumbar alignment. Dr. Burns observed they are accompanied by chronic disk herniations at L3-L4 and L4-L5 noted on the axial and sagittal T2 weighted images. Dr. Burns concluded these changes resulted in bilateral neural foramina narrowing at L4-L5 and L5-S1 which were precipitated by the loss of the lumber curvature/lordosis. Dr. Burns observed accompanying the prior change is the annular tear at L4-L5, which is a definite cause for back pain. Dr. Burns affirmed that these myriad of findings all contribute to the patient’s clinical symptoms. Dr. Burns affirmed that the above findings confirm traumatic soft tissue injuries as indicated by annulus tear and loss of lumbar curvature, are superimposed on chronic disk herniations of the lumbar spine as confirmed by the MRI performed on 11/14/2016. Dr. Burns affirmed the findings are directly and causally related to the date of loss of 9/16/2016 in his professional opinion.
Based upon my clinical examinations of Selena Calderon Ortega that have taken place over the last year plus, the objective diagnostic tests described above, as well as my review of Dr. Burns’s affirmation, I have formed an opinion with reasonable medical certainty regarding Selena Calderon Ortega’s injuries. The automobile accident of September 16, 2016 caused her body to be thrust forward and back. This caused sudden extension and flexion of the neck and back. This sudden movement caused thoracic spine injury and lumbar spine injury, affecting the nerves, causing signs of radiculopathy indicated in my clinical diagnosis.
This injury correlates to the body mechanics of the accident, and Selena Calderon Ortega’s complaints are those to be expected from this type of condition. The pain that results from this condition causes limitations in lifting, bending and prolonged standing. Since this condition has persisted for over a year, it is my opinion that this is a permanent condition. Surgery may be an option, but that is too fraught with many risks, and success is never guaranteed.
In my opinion, with reasonable medical certainty, Selena Calderon Ortega has sustained significant limitation of use of her thoracic and lumbar spine as a result of the accident of September 16, 2016. The natural range of motion in the thoracic spine and lumbar spine has been compromised and limited by the pain caused by this accident. Moreover, since Selena Calderon Ortega has displayed these symptoms over the course of over a year, it is my opinion that this is a permanent condition.
Therefore, it is also my opinion with a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that Selena Calderon also sustained a permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ as a result of the September 16, 2016 accident. As a result of this accident, the thoracic and lumbar spine can no longer move naturally through its full range of motion without causing pain, thereby limiting the normal use of the spine.
Lastly, based on the records available to me, and the medical history provided by the plaintiff Selena Calderon Ortega, that for at least three months after the accident she was unable to leave the house, it is also my opinion that she has sustained a medically determined injury that prevented her from performing substantially all of her material acts that constituted her customary daily activities for not less than ninety days during the one hundred eighty days immediately following the accident.
I affirm under penalty of perjury pursuant to CPLR 2106 that the statements contained in this affirmation are true and accurate with reasonable medical certainty.
Recently, we found ourselves sitting with a client discussing the defendant’s summary judgment motion. You see, the defendant had already slammed his bread truck into the rear of our client’s automobile, causing physical injuries to our client and lots of property damage to her car. We had filed a lawsuit on her behalf and now, after all her medical records were exchanged and reviewed, the bread truck driver had filed a written motion requesting the court dismiss my client’s lawsuit on the grounds that, even though my client said she was in pain, the medical records failed to show an objectively verifiable injury. What nonsense.
We filed papers opposing the defendant’s request to dismiss the case. Our papers were in three parts: a sworn affidavit from one our our attorneys; a sworn affidavit from a radiologist; and a sworn affidavit from a treating physician.
I am an attorney with the law firm of MARTIN + COLIN, P.C., the attorneys of record for the plaintiff. I am thoroughly conversant with the facts and circumstances herein based upon my review of the contents of the plaintiff’s file maintained by this office.
Exhibit “1” May 6, 2016 affirmation of Maxwell Dolan, M.D.
Exhibit “2” April 7, 2016 affirmed report of Charles J. Burns, M.D.
For all the reasons that follow, I ask that this motion be denied in all respects.
This action arises from a rear-end collision that occurred on September 16, 2016 at approximately 11:11 a.m. on Route 9A at or near the intersection of Chappaqua Road in the village of Briarcliff Manor, County of Westchester, State of New York, wherein defendant, Riley Baumes, drove his vehicle, a delivery truck, into the rear-end of plaintiff’s vehicle.
On September 23, 2016, Ms. Calderon Ortega went to the Phelps Memorial Hospital Center Emergency Department complaining of increasing back pain. After examination she was discharged with the instructions to take 3 Advil every 6 hours as needed, to avoid strenuous activity, and to follow up with her doctor.
Subsequently, on October 16, 2016, Ms. Calderon Ortega began treating with neurologist Maxwell Dolan. (Exhibit “1”). Plaintiff presented complaining of middle and lower back pain with muscle spasms. (Exhibit “1”).
As set forth above, as recently as October 2015, which was the last time Ms. Calderon Ortega saw Dr. Dolan, Ms. Calderon Ortega continued to complain of severe back pain which interrupted her sleep. Ms. Calderon Ortega reported feeling anxious as a result of her injury. Dr. Dolan continued to observe limitations in Ms. Calderon Ortega’s range of motion, spasm and tenderness of the paraspinal muscles. Dr. Dolan opined that Ms. Calderon Ortega was partially disabled as a result of the accident.
Ms. Calderon was required to be examined by the defendant’s doctor on December 4, 2015. Days later, after Ms. Calderon Ortega’s October 2015 visit to Dr. Dolan, she left the country to study abroad in Colombia. The plaintiff continues to attend school in Colombia. It is for this reason and this reason alone that Plaintiff has not continued to treat with Dr. Dolan. There is nothing in Dr. Dolan’s medical records to suggest that plaintiff has fully recovered from the accident. While it is clear that she has made some improvement, her recovery is far from complete.
Ms. Calderon Ortega treated with Dr. Dolan for over a year from her initial appointment in October 2016, as discussed in Dr. Dolan’s attached affirmation, until she left the country to study abroad (Exhibit “1”).
While it is true that plaintiff Selena Calderon Ortega testified at her deposition on November 20, 2017 that she was not employed at the time of the accident and was not a student, that does not mean that she was not injured. (Exhibit “D”, p. 48-49).
While it is true that plaintiff Selena Calderon Ortega testified at her deposition that she was not involved in athletic activities prior to the accident, was not a member of an exercise facility, and did not play sports prior to the accident, that does not mean that she was not injured. (Exhibit “D”, p. 52-53). Those facts do not support defendants’ contention that she was not injured as a result of this accident.
Although plaintiff may not have been leading the most active and energetic lifestyle prior to the accident, it is conclusively established by these papers that, within days of the accident until the time that she left for Colombia, Ms. Calderon Ortega was continuously treating with Dr. Dolan. (Exhibit “D”, p. 40). Plaintiff further testified that she was regularly attending physical therapy two days per week (Exhibit “D”, p 43).
In other words, it is not fair to say that because plaintiff was not doing much prior to the accident, the accident could not have possibly altered her life that much. Defendants seem to be arguing that because she was not doing much prior to the accident, not much has changed as a result of the accident, and therefore, she doesn’t meet the serious injury threshold.
The real issue is how much pain and injury does plaintiff have as a result of the accident, and how much does it affect her daily life. Here, plaintiff Selena Calderon Ortega testified that she continues to have lower back pain every day and that she tries to relax and take it easy to relieve the pain. (Exhibit “D”, p. 51). Plaintiff testified that she still takes the strong prescription medication prescribed by Dr. Dolan for her continued pain. (Exhibit “D”, p. 52).
While the defendants try to make much of the fact that plaintiff was not that active prior to the accident, they were also very selective about the questions they asked during Plaintiff’s deposition. For example, defendants did not ask her at her deposition about the ways that her daily life has changed. Defendants did not ask her at her deposition about activities that she now has difficulties with. Defendants did not ask her at her deposition about activities that she can no longer do at all.
As a preliminary matter, in order to prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the defendants must make a prima facie substantive showing. The New York State Court of Appeals has held that summary judgment must be denied if the moving party fails to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers. Winegrad v. N.Y.U. Medical Center, 64 N.Y.2d 851, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316 (1985).
Where the record contains objective diagnostic proof, in admissible form establishing a disc injury, causally related to the subject accident, along with objectively measured quantified range of motion limitations, and qualified limitations, clinically correlated to the disc injury, the motion must be denied. Perl v. Meher, 18 N.Y.3d 208, 936 N.Y.S.2d 655 (2011); Toure v. Avis, 98 N.Y.2d 345, 746 N.Y.S.2d 865 (2002).
When the proof submitted by defendants “in support” of the motion by defendants demonstrates questions of fact, the motion must be denied. E.g., Astudillo v. MV Transportation, 84 A.D.3d 1289, 923 N.Y.S.2d 722 (Second Dept. 2011).
The defendant as the party seeking summary judgment must demonstrate absence of genuine issues of material fact on every relevant issue raised by the pleadings, including any affirmative defenses. Aimatop Restaurant Inc. v Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 74 A.D.2d 516, 425 N.Y.S.2d 8 (First Dept. 1980). Since the records submitted with the motion raise questions of fact, the motion must be denied.
In the present matter, defendants’ expert Ronald L. Munn, M.D., acknowledged that, when he met the plaintiff fifteen months after the accident, the plaintiff was still taking prescription pain medication in order to cope with the pain. Defendants’ expert then went on to state that the plaintiff had no disability and had fully recovered from her injuries as a result of the accident. However, defendants’ expert had to concede that Ms. Calderon Ortega’s demonstration of a full recovery was made while she was on prescription medication. Had Dr. Munn claimed that she was fully recovered without the continued need for prescription medication, one could argue that defendants’ met their prima facie burden. However, they did not. Ms. Calderon Ortega could only demonstrate her physical condition, which Dr. Munn found to be fully recovered, while she was on prescription medication to relieve her ailments.
For Dr. Munn to acknowledge that Ms. Calderon Ortega continues to require prescription medication in order to function normally, then he must also implicitly acknowledge that there is a licensed medical doctor that is writing the prescriptions for her. He must also implicitly acknowledge that the doctor prescribing the medication would only do so after physical observation, and a finding that the remedial effect of the medication outweighs the side effects. Therefore, by definition, the defendants have not met their prima facie burden.
Stated differently, defendants’ expert is essentially saying the following: A full fifteen months after the accident, Selena Calderon Ortega continues to seek medical treatment from a physician. Said licensed medical provider is examining her and determining that, a) she has the complaints; and b) that she requires prescription medication to address the complaints. The doctor has further determined that he will write her the prescription because he has determined that the plaintiff is suffering so much pain that the benefits of the prescription will outweigh the side effects. Therefore, Dr. Munn must acknowledge that the prescribed medication has been prescribed out of medical necessity, and that there must be a continued medical necessity as Ms. Calderon Ortega continues to require the medication. Thus, when Dr. Munn says that the patient is fine (while on prescription medication), he is implicitly acknowledging that she continues to suffer, seek medical treatment, receive medical treatment, and require a powerful prescription drug to address her ailments.
As such, the affidavit of defendants’ own expert witness fails to make out a prima facie case for summary judgment in favor of the defendant. On that ground alone, the defendants’ motion must be denied in all respects.
(d) “Serious injury” means a personal injury which results in death; dismemberment; significant disfigurement; a fracture; loss of a fetus; permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function or system; permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member; significant limitation of use of a body function of system; or a medically determined injury or impairment of a non-permanent nature which prevents the injured person from performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute such person’s usual and customary daily activities for not less than ninety days during the one hundred eighty days immediately following the occurrence of the injury or impairment.
Insurance Law 5102(d). (Emphasis added).
The plaintiffs demonstrated their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing, prima facie, that they each sustained a serious injury within the 90/180-day category of serious injury under Insurance Law 5102(d) (citations omitted.) In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiffs, who both alleged that they sustained serious injuries to, inter alia, the cervical and lumbar regions of their spines, each had a medically-determined injury that prevented them from performing substantially all of the material acts constituting their usual and customary daily activities during not less than 90 days during the first 180 days immediately following the subject accident (see Insurance Law 5102[d]). In his reports detailing his medical findings from his recent examinations of the plaintiff, the defendant’s expert orthopedic surgeon, Alan J. Zimmerman, failed to relate those findings to the plaintiff’s 90/180-day serious injury claims, which were clearly set forth in the bill of particulars. Thus, the reports were not sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the plaintiffs’ prima facie showing (citations omitted). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of serious injury.
83 A.D.3d 685, 919 N.Y.S.2d 886. (Emphasis added).
Similar to Refuse, supra, in the present matter, defendants’ examining medical expert, Ronald L. Munn, M.D. (Defendants’ Exhibit “E”) did not comment on the 90/180 category, which was clearly set forth in plaintiff’s bill of particulars. (Defendants’ Exhibit “C”). See, also, Hoisington v. Santos, 48 A.D.3d 333, 851 N.Y.S.2d 528 (First Dept. 2008); Thompson v. Ramnarine, 40 A.D.3d 360, 835 N.Y.S.2d 566 (First Dept. 2007); Toussant v. Claudio, 23 A.D.3d 268, 803 N.Y.S.2d 564 (First Dept. 2005); Burford v. Fabrizio, 8 A.D.3d 784, 777 N.Y.S.2d 810 (First Dept. 2004); Loesburg v. Jovanovic, 264 A.D.2d 301, 694 N.Y.S.2d 362 (First Dept. 1999).
It is worth noting that CPLR Rule 3212 states “If it shall appear that any party other than the moving party is entitled to summary judgment, the Court may grant such judgment without the necessity of a cross-motion.” CPLR Rule 3212(b).
Based on the preceding, plaintiff has established a prima facie case for “serious injury” under the 90/180 category. Defendants have utterly failed to address this category. Therefore, the defendants’ motion should be denied in all respects.
In order to prove the extent or degree of physical limitation, an expert’s designation of a numeric percentage of a plaintiff’s loss of range of motion can be used to substantiate a claim of serious injury (citations omitted). An expert’s qualitative assessment of a plaintiff’s condition also may suffice, provided that the evaluation has an objective basis and compares the plaintiff’s limitations to the normal function, purpose and use of the affected body organ, member, function or system.
Toure, supra, 98 N.Y.2d 350, 746 N.Y.S.2d 868.
In the Manzano v. O’Neil decision within Toure, supra, the Court of Appeals held that expert testimony that the plaintiff suffered a herniated disc as a result of an automobile accident, based upon his interpretation of MRI films and correlating the herniated discs with her inability to perform certain normal tasks was sufficient to establish that plaintiff had sustained a serious injury.
In this case, plaintiff presented the testimony of her treating physician, Dr. Dolan, who opined that plaintiff suffered two herniated cervical discs as a result of the automobile accident. His conclusion was supported by objective evidence introduced at trial, namely, the MRI films that he interpreted. Although this medical expert did not assign a quantitative percentage to the loss of range of motion in plaintiff’s neck or back, he described the qualitative nature of plaintiff’s limitations based on the normal function, purpose and use of her body parts. In particular, Dr. Dolan correlated plaintiff’s herniated discs with her inability to perform certain normal, daily tasks. These limitations are not so insignificant as to bar plaintiff’s recovery under the No-Fault Law.
Toure, supra, 98 N.Y.2d 355, 746 N.Y.S.2d 871.
Toure, however, imposed no such requirement of “contemporaneous” quantitative measurements, and we see no justification for it.
There is nothing obviously wrong or illogical about following the practice that Bleicher followed here- observing and recording a patient’s symptoms in qualitative terms shortly after the accident, and later doing more specific, quantitative measurements in preparation for litigation.
We agree with the Appellate Division dissenters in Perl that a rule requiring “contemporaneous” numerical measurements of range of motion could have perverse results. Potential plaintiffs should not be penalized for failing to seek out, immediately after being injured, a doctor who knows how to create the right kind of record for litigation. A case should not be lost because the doctor who cared for the patient initially was primarily, or only, concerned with treating the injuries. We therefore reject a rule that would make contemporaneous quantitative measurements a prerequisite to recovery.
Toure, supra, 18 N.Y.3d 217-218.
Where the defendant’s physician disputes the veracity of plaintiff’s examination, implying that he or she is malingering, the question of credibility must go to the jury. Perl v. Meher, 18 N.Y.3d 208, 219, 936 N.Y.S.2d 655 (2011).
In the case of plaintiff herein, the medical interpretations made by Dr. Dolan included objective testing, including MRIs, the actual observation of muscle spasms in her back at 7 office visits, and the observed limitations in plaintiff’s range of motion, revealed disc injuries and radiculopathies causally related to the car crash of September 16, 2016. Dr. Dolan has correlated the plaintiff’s limitations and losses to these injuries, and opined that they are significant, consequential, and permanent.
Summary judgment may only be granted where it has been clearly ascertained that there is no triable issue of fact. Issue finding, rather than issue determination, is the function of the Court in determining a summary judgment motion. Suffolk County Dept. of Social Services v. James M., 83 N.Y.2d 178, 608 N.Y.S.2d 940 (1994). It must be clear that no material triable issue of fact is presented. Kornfeld v. NRX Technologies, Inc., 62 N.Y.2d 686, 476 N.Y.S.2d 523 (1984).
“Even the color of a triable issue forecloses the remedy” of summary judgment. Rudnitsky v. Robbins, 191 A.D.2d 488, 489, 594 N.Y.S.2d 354 (2nd Dept. 1993); see Matter of Cuttitto Family Trust, 10 A.D.3d 656, 657, 781 N.Y.S.2d 696 (2nd Dept. 2004). Moreover, in deciding a summary judgment motion, the evidence must be construed in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. See, Pearson v. Dix McBride, LLC, 63 AD3d 895, 883 N.Y.S.2d 53 (2nd Dept. 2009); Mosheyev v. Pilevsky, 283 A.D.2d 469, 725 N.Y.S.2d 206 (2nd Dept. 2001).
The proof herein establishes that plaintiff has met the serious injury requirement for three categories. The defendants’ proof, at best, raises questions of fact. Therefore, this Court cannot grant dismissal as a matter of law. Thus, the motion should be denied and the matter scheduled for trial.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the defendants’ motion be denied in its entirety, and that such other and further relief be granted as this Court deems just and proper.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.