Akter v Barabas 2013 NY Slip Op 30970(U) May 3, 2013 Sup Ct, Queens County Docket Number: 005882/2011 Judge: Robert J. McDonald Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.
[* 1] SHORT FORM ORDER SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK CIVIL TERM - IAS PART 34 - QUEENS COUNTY 25-10 COURT SQUARE, LONG ISLAND CITY, N.Y. 11101 P R E S E N T : HON. ROBERT J. MCDONALD Justice - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x JAINAB AKTER, - against - Plaintiff, ISTVAN BARABAS, MATTHEW BARABAS, DERRICK NASH and AMANDA ESPINAL Index No.: 005882/2011 Motion Date: 04/17/13 Motion No.: 3 Motion Seq.: 5 Defendant. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x The following papers numbered 1 to 10 were read on this motion by defendants, ISTVAN BARABAS and MATTHEW BARABAS, for an order pursuant to CPLR 3212 granting defendants summary judgment and dismissing the plaintiff s complaint against them on the ground that said plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law 5102 and 5104: Papers Numbered Notice of Motion-Affidavits-Exhibits-Memorandum of Law...1-5 Affirmation in Opposition-Affidavits-Exhibits...6-10 This is a personal injury action in which plaintiff, JAINAB AKTER, seeks to recover damages for injuries she sustained as a result of a multi-vehicle accident that occurred on May 26, 2010 th in the vicinity of Myrtle Avenue and 114 Street, Queens County, New York. Plaintiff claims that at the time of the accident she was traveling westbound on Myrtle Avenue intending to make a left th turn onto 114 Street when she was struck from behind by the Espinal vehicle. Plaintiff claims that as a result of that impact her vehicle was pushed into the opposing lane of travel on Myrtle Avenue resulting in a second impact with the Barabas vehicle. 1
[* 2] The plaintiff commenced this action by filing a summons and complaint on February 18, 2011. Issue was joined by service of the Barabas defendant s verified answer dated April 12, 2011. A note of issue was filed by the plaintiff on September 20, 2012. The matter is presently on the calendar in the Trial Scheduling Part for July 11, 2013. Defendant now moves for an order pursuant to CPLR 3212(b), granting summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff s complaint on the ground that plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law 5102. In support of the motion, defendant submits an affirmation from counsel, William B. Stock, Esq; a copy of the pleadings; plaintiff s verified bill of particulars; the affirmed medical report of board certified orthopedist, Dr. Raghava R. Polavarapu; the affirmed medical report of radiologist, Dr. Jessica F. Berkowitz; the affirmed medical report of neurologist Dr. Marriana Golden; and a copy of the transcript of the second part of the plaintiff s examination before trial. In her verified Bill of Particulars, plaintiff states that she sustained, inter alia, disc bulges at C3-4, C4-5, C5-6, C6-7 and a disc herniation at C7-T1. Plaintiff contends that she sustained a serious injury as defined in Insurance Law 5102(d)in that she sustained a permanent loss of use of a body organ, member function or system; a permanent consequential limitation or use of a body organ or member; a significant limitation of use of a body function or system; and a medically determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature which prevented the plaintiff from performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute her 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. Dr. Marianna Golden, a board certified neurologist retained by the defendant, examined Ms. Akter on March 14, 2012. The plaintiff reported to the neurologist that as a result of the accident of May 26, 2010 she sustained injuries to her neck, shoulders and face. At the time of the examination she was experiencing pain in her neck and shoulders. Dr Golden performed comparative and quantified range of motion tests on the plaintiff and found no significant loss of range of motion of the cervical spine and lumbar spine. The diagnosis was status post cervical strain/sprain, resolved; and normal neurologic examination. The doctor concludes that the plaintiff is not disabled from a neurologic point of view. She is capable of working and can perform all of her normal activities of daily living without any restrictions or any neurologic limitations resulting from the accident of May 26, 2010. 2
[* 3] Dr. Raghava R. Polavarapu, a board certified orthopedic surgeon retained by the defendants examined the plaintiff on March 14, 2012. At the time of the examination the plaintiff reported continued pain in the neck and bilateral shoulders. She told the doctor that she stopped working for two weeks as a result of the accident. The orthopedic examination revealed a 25% limitation of range of motion of the cervical spine, no limitations of the thoracic spine, lumbar spine right shoulder left shoulder and left knee. The physician diagnoses the plaintiff as status post cervical spine sprain/strain resolved; status post lumbar sprain/strain resolved. Dr. Polavarapu states that he found no evidence of an orthopedic disability. He states that the decreased range of motion of the cervical spine is a subjective complaint and there were no clinical objective findings on examination that correlate to the subjective finding. Dr. Jessica Berkowitz, a radiologist submits an affirmed report in which she states that she reviewed the MRI of the plaintiff s cervical spine. She notes a minimal disc bulge at C3-4, C4-5 and C6-7 and disc herniation at C5-6 and C7-T1. She states that there is no evidence of acute traumatic injury to the cervical spine. She states that the disc bulges and disc herniations are chronic in nature although she also states that the etiology of the disc herniation at C5-6 cannot be defiantly determined on the basis of the MRI alone. Defendant s counsel contends that the medical report of Drs. Golden, Polavarapu and Berkowitz together with the plaintiff s testimony is sufficient to demonstrate that the plaintiff has not sustained a permanent consequential limitation or use of a body organ or member; a significant limitation of use of a body function or system; or a medically determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature which prevented the plaintiff from performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute her 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. In opposition, plaintiff s attorney Dena Katsougrakis, Esq., submits her own affirmation as well as the affidavit of the plaintiff dated, March 26, 2013; the transcript of the examination before trial of the plaintiff taken on December 11, 2011, and her continued examination taken on February 23, 2012; The affirmed report of radiologist, Dr. Stanley Yang; the affirmed medical records of Dr. Luo; the affirmed records of Dr Jalal; records from Imbalance Physical Therapy; and the affirmed report of Dr Rafael Abramov. 3
[* 4] In her affidavit, the plaintiff states that as a result of the accident of May 26, 2010 she sustained injuries to her neck and head. Immediately following the accident she was treated at the emergency room at Jamaica Hospital Medical Center. On June 1, 2010 she first sought treatment with Dr. Rahman a primary care physician. He referred her to Dr. Luo for pain management of her neck. She commenced physical therapy and pain management treatments with Dr. Luo on June 2, 2010 and continued her treatments at his office through June of 2011. At that time Dr. Luo advised her that her condition was not improving with treatment and she had reached the maximum level of improvement and she was advised to continue her exercises at home. Following her treatment with Dr. Luo, she received treatment from Dr. Jalal and Dr. Quasha for balance therapy. She states that due to her injuries she is unable or restricted in many activities that she was able to do prior to the accident and she was restricted in her responsibilities as a educational associate. She states that she still has persistent radiating pain in her neck and the mobility in her neck is greatly limited. Dr. Stanley Yang, a radiologist reviewed the MRI taken of the plaintiff s cervical spine on July 14, 2010. He found degenerative spondylosis at C3-4, C4-5, C5-6, C6-7 and C7-T1. He also found disc bulges at C3-4, C4-5, and a disc herniation at C7-T1. Dr. Luo submits affirmed records indicating that he first examined the plaintiff on June 2, 2010 with respect to her complaints concerning the subject accident and found that as a result of the accident she had complaints of pain radiating to the right arm and forearm and musculoskeletal pain all over her body due to the accident. He found that her range of motion of the cervical spine was significantly restricted. He recommended a course of physical therapy. Dr. Abramov examined the plaintiff on March 26, 2013. On that date he reviewed her prior medical records and conducted range of motion tests. His review of her MRI report revealed a C7-T1 central disc herniation. On March 26, 2013 she still had complaints of neck pain that was radiating in nature. Cervical spine range of motion studies conducted on March 26, 2013 revealed significant deficits of range of motion up to 44%. He states that her chronic pain, irritation and limitation of motion constitutes a permanent consequential limitation of use of the cervical region. He states that the motor vehicle accident of May 26, 2010 was and is the 4
[* 5] competent producing cause of the plaintiffs disc herniation and disc bulges. He states that the subject accident was the competent producing cause of the plaintiffs permanent consequential limitation of use relative to her cervical region. The proponent of a summary judgment motion must tender evidentiary proof in admissible form eliminating any material issues of fact from the case. If the proponent succeeds, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion, who then must show the existence of material issues of fact by producing evidentiary proof in admissible form in support of his position (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557[1980]). Upon review and consideration of the defendant s motion, the plaintiff s affirmation in opposition and the defendants reply thereto, this court finds that the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of demonstrating that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law 5102(d) as a result of the subject accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car SYS., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]). In support of the defendants motion they relied on, inter alia, the affirmed medical report of Dr. Polavarapu dated March 14, 2010. In his report, Dr. Polavarapu a orthopedic surgeon, noted during his examination of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had significant limitations in her cervical spine range of motion (see Mondevil v Kumar, 74 AD3d 1295; Smith v Hartman, 73 AD3d 736; Quiceno v Mendoza, 72 AD3d 669; Giacomaro v Wilson, 58 AD3d 802). Although Dr. Polavarapu stated that the limitations were merely a subjective complaint he failed to sufficiently explain with any objective medical evidence, the basis for his conclusion that the limitations that were noted were merely subjective (see Quiceno v Mendoza, supra). As the independent physical indicated that the plaintiff has limitations of range of motion of her cervical spine three years post-accident, plaintiff has failed to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff does not have a physical injury as defined in the Insurance Law (see Katanov v County of Nassau, 91 AD3d 723 [2d Dept. 2012; Astudillo v MV Transp., Inc., 84 AD3d 1289 [2d Dept. 2011]). 5
[* 6] Since the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to consider whether the papers submitted by the plaintiff in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Torres v Torrano, 79 AD3d 1124 [2d Dept. 2011]; Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2d Dept. 2001]). However, even if the defendants had made a prima facie case, this Court finds that the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact by submitting the affidavits of Drs. Luo and Abramov attesting to the fact that the plaintiff had sustained significant limitations in range of motion of the cervical spine and lumbar spine both contemporaneous to the accident and in a recent examination, and concluding that the plaintiff's limitations were significant and permanent and resulted from trauma causally related to the accident (see Ortiz v. Zorbas, 62 AD3d 770 [2d Dept. 2009]; Azor v Torado,59 ADd 367 [2d Dept. 2009]). As such, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained a serious injury under the permanent consequential and/or the significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law 5102(d) as a result of the subject accident (see Khavosov v Castillo, 81 AD3d 903[2d Dept. 2011]; Mahmood v Vicks, 81 ADd 606[2d Dept. 2011]; Compass v GAE Transp., Inc., 79 AD3d 1091[2d Dept. 2010]; Evans v Pitt, 77 AD3d 611 [2d Dept. 2010]; Tai Ho Kang v Young Sun Cho, 74 AD3d 1328 743 [2d Dept. 2010]). In addition, the plaintiff adequately explained the gap in the her treatment by stating that she had been advised by Dr. Luo that in his opinion she reached the point of maximum medical improvement (see Abdelaziz v Fazel, 78 AD3d 1086 [2d Dept. 2010]; Tai Ho Kang v Young Sun Cho, 74 AD3d 1328 [2d Dept. 2010]; Gaviria v Alvardo, 65 AD3d 567 [2d Dept. 2009]; Bonilla v Tortori, 62 AD3d 637 [2d Dept. 2009]). Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, it is hereby, ORDERED, that the defendants motion for an order granting summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff s complaint is denied. Dated: May 3, 2013 Long Island City, N.Y. ROBERT J. MCDONALD J.S.C. 6