THE COURT OF APPEALS LEVELS THE PLAYING FIELD FOR CAR ACCIDENT VICTIMS

This morning the New York Court of Appeals published its decision in Perl v. Meher and provided clarity to the trial courts on whether lawsuits stemming from motor vehicle accidents should be permitted to continue to trial.  
 

 For years, many injured people were unable to get their “day in court” because they were not able to establish that they sustained a “serious injury” under New York Ins. Law §5102(d) the No Fault Threshold.  Until today, injured people had to establish by “objective proof” of the injury shortly after the accident, namely that a medical doctor took objective measurements of lost range of motion and strength.  The statement in the chart that the patient has “significant” lost range of motion/diminished strength was legally insufficient under the prevailing law.  The problem was that medical doctors are primarily concerned with treating the patient and not with tailoring the medical records to withstand judicial scrutiny on the chance that the patient may pursue a lawsuit.  As a result, many deserving patients’ lawsuits were dismissed on this technicality.  This was a huge tactical advantage for the automobile insurance carriers (GEICO, Allstate, State Farm etc.) and “Threshold Motions” were common place in motor vehicle lawsuits.

The Perl Decision takes into account that doctors may not be aware of the technicalities of documenting the medical chart to establish the contemporaneous “objective” measurements of lost range of motion and strength.  The treating physician must still make some “qualitative” assessment of the plaintiff’s condition contemporaneous with the car accident.  However, the measurements of the severity of the injury can wait until a later date – after the patient has an opportunity to benefit from treatment.  The Perl case is a big step towards keeping the Courthouse doors open to people injured in car accidents.