From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thomas v. Roach

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 20, 1998
246 A.D.2d 591 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Summary

finding that the chiropractor's affidavit was not based upon a recent examinationbecause the gap was more than two years

Summary of this case from Evans v. United States

Opinion

January 20, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kohn, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case that she sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). While the plaintiff submitted an affidavit by her examining chiropractor characterizing her injury as a "permanent consequential limitation" in her cervical and lumbar regions, the affidavit was prepared more than two years after he last saw the plaintiff and did not indicate that the opinion expressed therein was based upon any recent medical examination of her ( see, Beckett v. Conte, 176 A.D.2d 774; O'Neill v. Rogers, 163 A.D.2d 466; Philpotts v. Petrovic, 160 A.D.2d 856).

Mangano, P.J., Copertino, Joy, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Thomas v. Roach

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 20, 1998
246 A.D.2d 591 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

finding that the chiropractor's affidavit was not based upon a recent examinationbecause the gap was more than two years

Summary of this case from Evans v. United States
Case details for

Thomas v. Roach

Case Details

Full title:ROSEMARIE THOMAS, Respondent, v. ALICIA ROACH, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jan 20, 1998

Citations

246 A.D.2d 591 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
667 N.Y.S.2d 296

Citing Cases

WILLIAMS v. ELZY

The treating physician last saw the injured plaintiff more than two years before trial, and her "projections…

Kauderer v. Penta

The papers submitted by the injured plaintiff in opposition to the motion failed to demonstrate the existence…