Pannell-Thomas v. Bath
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Defendant established prima facie that plaintiff did not sustain a “permanent consequential” or “significant” limitation of use of the spine by submitting the affirmed report of a neurologist noting the absence of permanent neurological disabilities, full ranges of motion, and negative objective tests (see Barry v Arias, 94 AD3d 499, 499 [1st Dept 2012]). Defendant also made a prima facie showing that plaintiffs injuries were not causally related to the accident by submitting the affirmed *486MRI reports of a radiologist who concluded that the changes observed in the spine were degenerative…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Perl v. MeherNew York Court of Appeals · 2011
- Barry v. AriasAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- James v. PerezAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Seck v. BallaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Williams v. TathamAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Kone v. RodriguezAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Calcano v. RodriguezAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- McIntosh v. Sisters Servants of MaryAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Osborne v. DiazAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Pantojas v. Lajara Auto Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.