Summary
finding 25% loss of spinal range of motion significant
Summary of this case from Tenzen v. HirschfeldOpinion
February 19, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.).
An issue of fact as to whether plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), namely, a "significant limitation of use of a body function or system" (see, Licari v. Elliott, 57 N.Y.2d 230, 236; Decker v. Rassaert, 131 A.D.2d 626, 627), or a "permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function or system", is raised by the affidavit of plaintiff's treating neurologist, based upon his personal examination of plaintiff and supported by objectively ascertained and quantified findings, opining that plaintiff suffered from a nerve root injury with resulting 25% loss of range of motion of the spine (see, Lopez v. Senatore, 65 N.Y.2d 1017, 1020; Cowley v. Crocker, 186 A.D.2d 939, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 703; Iscovitch-Bero v. Chase, 221 A.D.2d 847).
Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.