Court Opinion

ID: 9942832
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-21 21:09:18.587473+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:44:43.566729
License: Public Domain

Genao v Delacruz
               2024 NY Slip Op 30485(U)
                   February 14, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 155768/2020
                 Judge: James G. Clynes
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 155768/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41                                                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE ST A TE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
           PRESENT:              HON. JAMES G. CLYNES                                                    PART                                   22M
                                                                                              Justice
           --- ----- ----- -- ------ ------------ ------ -------------------------------------- ----X    INDEX NO.                155768/2020
            SANTA GENAO
                                                                                                         MOTION DATE               01/08/2024
                                                       Plaintiff,
                                                                                                         MOTION SEQ. NO. ----=-00.::...:1:.....__ _
                                                  -v-
            ORLANDO DELACRUZ,                                                                               DECISION+ ORDER ON
                                                                                                                  MOTION
                                                       Defendant.

           ------------- ----------------------------------- --- -------- -----------· ---------. X

           The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 00 I) 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,
           32,33,34,35, 36, 37,38.39,40
           were read on this motion to/for                                                            JUDGMENT - SUMMARY

                     Upon the foregoing documents, the motion by Defendant Orlando Delacruz for summary

          judgment on the grounds that Plaintiffs claimed injuries do not satisfy the serious injury threshold

          under Insurance Law 5102(d) is decided as follows:

                     Plaintiff seeks recovery for injuries allegedly sustained as a result of a July 2 7, 20 I 8 motor

           vehicle accident. Plaintiffs Bill of Particulars alleges injures to her cervical spine, thoracic spine,

           lumbosacral spine, left shoulder, left knee and left hip/pelvis and that those injuries fall within the

           categories set forth under Insurance Law 5102( d).

                      The burden rests upon the movant to establish that the plaintiff has not sustained a serious

           injury (Love v Bennett, 122 AD2d 728[ 1st Dept 1986 ]). When the movant has made such a

           showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to produce prima facie evidence to support the claim of

           serious injury (see Lopez v Senatore, 65 NY2d 1017[1985]).

                      In support of their motion, Defendants rely on the affirmed independent examination report

           of Dr. Salvatore Corso who reported that Plaintiffs cervical spine, left knee and left hip were all

           resolved and that there was no permanent or significant injury as a result of the accident on July

           27, 2018.

            15576812020 GENAO, SANTA vs. DELACRt:z, ORLANDO                                                                        Page 1 of6
            Motion No. 001

[* 1]                                                                            1 of 6
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 155768/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

                   Dr. Corso did not review any medical records, Magnetic Resonance Image (MRI) or X-

            Ray report and noted his opinion was based solely on his examination on April 15, 2022. He

            indicated that he reviewed the Verified Bill of Particulars, report of Motor Vehicle accident and
            Police accident report. Dr. Corso performed an independent orthopedic evaluation on April 15,

            2022, for the purpose of evaluation not treatment. Dr. Corso measured Plaintiffs range of motion

            using a standard hand-held goniometer and based his normal range of motion on the AMA

            guidelines. Dr. Corso found that range of motion of the cervical spine revealed flexion of 50

           degrees (50 degrees normal), extension of 60 degrees (60 degrees normal), right and left rotation

           to 80 degrees (80 degrees normal), and right and left lateral flexion to 45 degrees (45 degrees

            normal), without pain. Dr. Corso performed the Foraminal compression test, Spurling test and

           Traction test and they were all negative; range of motion for the thoracic spine and lumbosacral

           spine yielded normal ranges. The Clonus test, Laguere's test, forward flexion, straight leg raising,

            bilaterally, Lasegue's test, Kemig test and Waddell's test were performed and were all negative.

            Dr. Corso performed the Faber test and the Trendelenburg test with regards to the Left hip/pelvis

           which were both negative; range of motion was normal and no instability was found. Finally, Dr.

           Corso performed a Sulcus test, Hawkin's impingement sign, Neer's impingement sign,

           Apprehension test, Liftoff test, Speed's test, O'Brien test with regards to the left shoulder/arm and

           the Lachman's test, Anterior Drawer test, Valgus/Varus, Patellar apprehension test, Patellar Grind

           test, J-Sign and McMurray test with regards to the left knee/leg. He noted no atrophy and normal

           range of motion for both left shoulder/arm and left knee/leg. He concluded the Plaintiff's alleged

           cervical sprain, alleged thoracic sprain, alleged lumbar sprain, left shoulder/arm sprain, alleged

           left knee/leg, alleged left hip/pelvis and alleged ribs sprain were resolved. In his opinion, there

           was no objective clinical findings indicative of a present disability, and functional impairment

           which prevented the Plaintiff from usual activities including work, school and hobbies.

                   Defendant has met his initial burden of establishing that Plaintiff did not sustain serious

           injuries as a result of the accident under Insurance Law 5102(d) (Perez v Rodriguez, 25 AD3d 506

            l55768/2020 GE:\'AO, SANTA \·s. DELACRUZ, ORLANDO
            Motion No. 001                                                                        Page 2 of6

[* 2]                                                           2 of 6
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 155768/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

            [ I st Dept 2006]). The burden therefore shifts to Plaintiff to produce prima facie evidence to

            support her claim of serious injury.

                    In opposition, Plaintiff relied on the treatment records and affirmation of Dr. Dov

            Berkowitz and Dr. Graeme Whyte, who are Orthopedic surgeons in the same practice actively

            participating in the diagnosis and treatment of Plaintiff, the affirmation and MRI report of Dr.

            Priyesh Patel. the affirmation of Dr. Regina Moshe, the supervisor of Dr. B. V. Reddy Synder,

            Diagnostic Radiologist and the X-Ray reports obtained from New York-Presbyterian Weill-

            Cornell Medical Center on the date of the accident, July 27, 2018. The Bill of Particulars notes

            that the Plaintiff had lumbosacral spine surgery on October 16, 2018 and October 23, 2018 along

            with a trigger point injection.

                    Dr. Whyte initially examined Plaintiff; Dr. Berkowitz noted, "The patient came to my

            office for a consultation with Dr. Whyte on May 21, 2019". Dr. Berkowitz notes that Plaintiff

            complained of left shoulder pain and had significant pain in the posterolateral aspect and lateral

            aspect of the left hip. Dr. Whyte performed a physical examination of the left knee, left shoulder,

            and left hip and found significant limitation with respect to internal rotation, and external rotation

            was to 20 degrees (normal 45 degrees). Dr. Berkowitz notes the MRI report, which was available

            to Dr. Whyte, was positive for tearing of the labrum. The MRI report of the left knee was positive

            for joint effusion as well as ligamentous sprain injury. Dr. Berkowitz noted routine x-rays of the

            pelvis, right knee, and left hip demonstrated adequate joint space. Dr. Berkowitz notes that the

            Plaintiff was re-evaluated by his office on .lune 18, 2019, September 3, 2019 and December 3,

            2019 as shown in the office files kept by himself and Dr. Whyte.

                    The medical reports of Dr. Whyte can be authenticated as business records by Dr.

            Berkowitz's office manager or Dr. Berkowitz, Plaintiffs treating physician," ... notwithstanding

            that these records contained reports from other doctors, based on the treating physician's testimony

            that they were created in the ordinary course of business for the purposes of diagnosis and

            treatment (Freeman v Shtogaj, 174 AD3d 448, 449 [I st Dept 2019] citing Freeman v. Kirkland,

            184 AD2d 331 [1st Dept 1992]). They will be properly admitted since, the assumption is " .. that

             l:'iS768/2020 GENAO.SANTA vs. DELACRl'Z, ORLA:"1D0
             Motion :"lo. 001                                                                       Page J of6

                                                                  3 of 6
[* 3]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 155768/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

            the notes and records routinely kept by the treating doctors in the course of their practice will be

            produced and identified at trial and will be authenticated by a witness with personal knowledge of

            such record keeping matters . .. Business entries of this kind are admissible in evidence for the truth

            of the matters asserted in such records." Generally, "a physician's office records, supported by the

            statutory foundation set forth in CPLR 4518(a), are admissible in evidence as business records ."

            (see CPLR 2306, 4518 (c) and 4532-a; Flaherty v Am. Turners NY, Inc., 291 AD2d 256, 258 (1st

            Dept 2002]). Finally, Dr. Berkowitz re-evaluated the Plaintiff for treatment purposes on February

            7, 2023. He found that the MRJ showed tendinosis of the rotator cuff and the MRJ of the left hip

            was positive for tearing of the labrum at the anterior and anterosuperior aspects, Plaintiff had loss

            of motion specifically in her left hip and left shoulder and that plaintiff would benefit from a

            continued course of treatment. The Hawkin's, O'Brien's sign tests were also performed which

            were positive for the left shoulder and a mild positive McMurray's test also resulted.                 Dr.

            Berkowitz did not rely on Dr. Whyte physical examination as the principal basis of his opinion but

            merely as a link in the chain of data. He primarily relied on his own re-evaluation and physical

            examination performed on February 7, 2023, the tests he performed and the MRI report and CT

            scan that were performed on plaintiff and " ... the materials reviewed by the expert were '·of [the]

            kind accepted in the profession as reliable in forming a professional opinion" (People v Sugden,

            35 NY2d 453 [1974]). Dr. Berkowitz is thus allowed to testify as an expert with regards to the

            non-testifying treating doctor reports and reach a legal conclusion. Dr. Berkowitz opined that the

            Plaintiffs injuries and subsequent treatment were, related to the Jul y 27, 2018 motor vehicle

            accident and there was permanent injury to her left hip .

                    Dr. Patel, a board-certified Diagnostic Radiologist in the submitted affirmation had the

            same findings in the interpretation of the MRJ of the left hip, signed on August 16, 2018. Dr. Patel

            found a tear of the anterior and anterior/superior labrum, a sprain in the ACL of the left knee in

            the MRI signed August 22, 20 I 8 and tendinosis of the supraspinatus and infraspinatus tendons

            with fraying of the bursal surface fibers in the MRI of the left shoulder, signed September 29,
            2018.

            155768/2020 GENAO, SANTA vs. DELACRLIZ, ORLA ' DO
            Motion o. 00 1                                                                           Page 4 or 6

[* 4]                                                           4 of 6
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 155768/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

                   Dr. Moshe affirmed the MRI performed by Dr. B.V. Reddy, Diagnostic Radiologist which

            showed central subligamentous herniations with regional nerve root impingement in the MRI of

            the cervical spine and acute appearing herniation with regional exiting nerve encroachment and

            posterior disc bulges with central regional nerve root encroachment in the MRI of the lumbar spine.

                   Plaintiffs evidence raises an issue of fact as to whether permanent consequential limitation

           of the hip or shoulder was sustained (see Mitchell v Calle. 90 AD3d 584 [lst Dept 2011];

            Djetoumani v. Transit, Inc .. et al, 50 AD3d 944 [2nd Dept 2008]). Dr. Berkowitz's examination

           along with the MRI reviews by Dr. Patel and Dr. Moshe makes his report sufficient to demonstrate

           continuing limitations (De las Santos v. Basilio, 176 AD3d 544, 545 [1st Dept 2019]; Frias v Son

            Tien Liu, 107 AD3d 589[1st Dept 2013]). If a claimant can satisfy at least one of the serious injury

           thresholds, then the claimant is permitted to recover for all damages proximately caused by the

           accident, even those that are not considered "serious" (Rubin v SMS Taxi Corp., 71 AD3d 548 [1st

           Dept 201 OJ). As Plaintiff has shown sufficient evidence of serious injury to her left hip/pelvis and

           has been declared permanently injured in her left hip, it is not necessary to determine the adequacy

           of the evidence as to her left knee or left shoulder. She may be entitled to recover for all injuries

           causally related to the subject accident (see Linton v. Nawaz, 14 NY3d 821 [201 O]; Rubin v SMS

            Taxi Corp., 71 AD3d 548 [ l st Dept 201 O]). Therefore, the Court need not determine whether

           Plaintiffs other injuries fall into one of the serious injury categories under Insurance Law 5102( d).

                   With respect to the 90/180 days category of serious injury, Dr. Berkowitz's reported

            permanency of Plaintiff's injury and limitation to some extent in activities of daily living is

           competent evidence that Plaintiff was unable to perform substantially all of her normal activities

            for at least 90 days of the first 180 days, as a result of the accident. Plaintiff testified in her

           examination before trial that she worked as a cleaning technician, 5 days per week for

           approximately 7 hours per day at different places. Plaintiff testified that she can no longer exercise

            in the same capacity and that she now works caring for an aunt, 7 days a week for 4 hours per day,

            where she cooks, does laundry, and accompanies her aunt to the doctor. She also testified that she

           was away from her job for 6 months, after the accident. Plaintiff's testimony as to her restrictions

            155768/2020 GE:'IAO, SANTA vs. DELACRt:z, ORLANDO
            Motion l'io. 001
                                                                                                   Page 5 of6

[* 5]                                                           5 of 6
                                                                                                              INDEX NO. 155768/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41                                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

            in conjunction with Dr. Berkowitz's report has raised an issue of fact as to the 90/180 days category

           as well. Accordingly, it is,

                    ORDERED that the motion by Defendant Orlando Delacruz for summary judgment on the

            grounds that Plaintiffs alleged injuries fail to satisfy the serious injury threshold under Insurance

            Law 5102( d) is denied; and it is further

                    ORDERED that any requested relief not specifically addressed herein has nonetheless

           been considered; and it is further

                    ORDERED that within 30 days of entry, Plaintiffs shall serve a copy of this Decision and

           Order upon the Defendant with Notice of Entry.

                    This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

                     2/14/2024
                      DATE

                                    ~
             CIIECKONE:                   CASE DISPOSED                  .',O'.\'-Fl:",IAL DISPOSITIO'.\'

                                          GRA:'l"TED      0    DE'iJED   GRA'.\'TED I:'; PART               □ OTHER
             APPLICATION:                 SETTLE ORDER                   SliBMIT ORDER

            CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:         INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN     FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT              □ REFERENCE

            15:i768/2020 GENAO, SANTA vs. DELACRUZ, ORLANDO                                                   Page 6 of6
            Motion :\o. 001

[* 6]                                                         6 of 6