Summary
holding that plaintiff's doctor's report was insufficient to defeat summary judgment as he failed to adequately address plaintiff's preexisting back condition and other medical problems
Summary of this case from Scotto v. MoraldoOpinion
170.
Decided November 25, 2003.
Submitted by Thomas E. DeLorenzo, for appellants.
Submitted by Debra J. Young, for respondent.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo and Read concur.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
In this negligence action to recover for injuries allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident, defendant properly relied on medical records and reports prepared by plaintiff's treating physicians to establish that plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury causally related to the accident. Defendant having established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the burden shifted to plaintiff to offer proof in admissible form sufficient to create a material issue of fact necessitating a trial (see Giuffrida v. Citibank Corp., 100 N.Y.2d 72, 81). Plaintiff's submissions were insufficient to defeat summary judgment because her experts failed to adequately address plaintiff's preexisting back condition and other medical problems, and did not provide any foundation or objective medical basis supporting the conclusions they reached (see Romano v. Stanley, 90 N.Y.2d 444, 451-452; see also Toure v. Avis Rent a Car Sys., 98 N.Y.2d 345, 357-358).
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules, order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.