Cekic v. Zapata

Defendant met his initial burden by submitting the affirmed report of experts who examined plaintiffs and concluded, based upon objective tests conducted, that neither had suffered a permanent consequential limitation or a significant limitation of his/her lumbar or cervical spine as a result of the subject September 25, 2005 motor vehicle accident.

Although plaintiff Asim Cekic came forward with objective medical evidence of a limitation, such evidence is unavailing due to a failure to distinguish between injuries from the subject accident and those from two prior accidents (see Pommells v…