Opinion ID: 2058897
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Carrasco v Mendez

Text: On May 31, 2000, defendant's car struck plaintiff's vehicle as plaintiff was attempting to park and, on July 24, 2000, plaintiff commenced this action alleging that he suffered an accident-related serious injury. Following joinder of issue, defendant sought summary dismissal of the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had not sustained a serious injury within the meaning of the No-Fault Law. In support of her motion, defendant submitted two reports of the doctor, Vadim Miloradovich, who treated plaintiff for several months immediately following the accident. Initially, Dr. Miloradovich diagnosed plaintiff with [a]nterior spur formation of C5-C6 and C6-C7 disc, traumatic herniation of the disc (C4-C5, C5-C6, C6-C7 and L2-L3) and [d]isc bulge L3-L4, and opined that plaintiff's injuries were a direct result of the accident. Several months later, however, in his Final Report, Dr. Miloradovich noted that  any degenerative condition that existed prior to [plaintiff]'s current trauma ha[d] served to destabilize the spine  and that although the return to `Base line' ha[d] been achieved, prior existing conditions may continue with limited symptomatology. Having determined that therapy would no longer benefit plaintiff, Dr. Miloradovich discharged plaintiff in December 2000 with instruction to continue physical therapy and exercise at home for maintenance and to preclude exacerbation. Defendant also proffered the report of orthopedic surgeon Robert Orlandi, who conducted a physical examination of plaintiff on June 25, 2002 and reviewed his medical records, including reports of MRIs of his cervical and lumbar spine. Dr. Orlandi reported that the MRI reports of plaintiff's spine revealed degenerative conditions, including a pre-existent spondylitic spur formation at C5/C6 and C6/C7 and disc desiccation at L2/L3 which was indicative of degenerative disc disease. He concluded that his orthopedic examination did not document the presence of permanent residuals or a musculoskeletal disability. Plaintiff rejoined with the affidavit of Dr. Emmanuel Lambrakis, who explained that he had treated plaintiff since August 30, 2001  beginning more than a year after the accident. Dr. Lambrakis averred that his November 21, 2002 physical examination of plaintiffconducted after defendant's motionrevealed specific numerical deficiencies in plaintiff's extension, flexion and rotation of the cervical and lumbar spine. In addition, Dr. Lambrakis noted that he found severe muscle spasms in the cervical spine with excruciating pain when compressing C3 and C7 and that [t]he pain complained of and the loss of motion in the cervical spine is completely consistent with the disc herniations diagnosed at C4, 5, 6 and 7, as well as the anterior spur formation on C5, 6 and 7, after MRIs of the cervical spine were conducted after the accident. He also explained that the degree of pain exhibited by the Plaintiff with regard to his lumbar spine is consistent with the herniated disc at L2-L3, as well as a protrusion bulge on the L3-L4 level, also diagnosed after an MRI. Dr. Lambrakis opined to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that plaintiff sustained permanent severe partial disabilities as a result of the motor vehicle accident. Based on these submissions, Supreme Court granted defendant's motion and dismissed the complaint. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed. We granted leave and now affirm. As in Pommells and Brown, defendant's submissions shifted to plaintiff the burden of coming forward with evidence indicating a serious injury causally related to the accident. Unlike Brown, however, defendant presented evidence of a preexisting degenerative disc condition causing plaintiff's alleged injuries, and plaintiff failed to rebut that evidence sufficiently to raise an issue of fact. Dr. Orlandi, after physically examining plaintiff and reviewing prior medical records, including MRIs and x-rays, concluded that the pain in areas identified as herniated by Dr. Miloradovich was caused by preexisting and degenerative conditions. Even plaintiff's original doctor, Dr. Miloradovich, noted, in his final report, that plaintiff's pain was related to a prior condition. While plaintiff provided Dr. Lambrakis's expert report of specific losses of range of motion in plaintiff's spine, opining that plaintiff suffered serious and permanent injuries which were causally related to the accident ( Lopez v Senatore, 65 NY2d 1017, 1020 [1985]), plaintiff did not refute defendant's evidence of a preexisting degenerative condition. To the contrary, the Lambrakis report supplied by plaintiff explained that the pain and loss of range of motion in the cervical spine was entirely consistent with those formations identified by the MRI and set forth by Drs. Miloradovich and Orlandi as related to a degenerative condition. In this case, with persuasive evidence that plaintiff's alleged pain and injuries were related to a preexisting condition, plaintiff had the burden to come forward with evidence addressing defendant's claimed lack of causation. In the absence of any such evidence, we concludeas did the trial court and Appellate Divisionthat defendant was entitled to summary dismissal of the complaint ( see Franchini, 1 NY3d at 537; see also Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230, 237 [1982]). Accordingly, in Pommells v Perez and Carrasco v Mendez, the orders of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and in Brown v Dunlap, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and defendants' motions for summary judgment denied. In Pommells v Perez: Order affirmed, with costs. In Brown v Dunlap: Order reversed, with costs, and defendants' motions for summary judgment denied. In Carrasco v Mendez: On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs.