To meet prima facie burden for summary judgment on serious injury threshold, medical expert must, without equivocation, compare range of motion against normal limits to find there is no serious injury under the insurance law.

The defendant’s summary judgment motion as to serious injury was denied at the trial court level, and that ruling was affirmed despite the fact that the defendant provided sufficient evidence to argue that the plaintiff’s injuries were not causally-related to the accident. Though this issue may seem relatively straightforward, much too often, expert medical reports fail to specifically compare the range-of-motion test results from the independent medical examination against the “normal limits” to provide sufficient evidence that the alleged restriction in range of motion does not rise to the level of a serious injury. The defendant in this matter also failed to allege that a treatment gap weighed against the plaintiff’s argument that the alleged injuries were caused by the accident by failing to include this argument in the motion-in-chief. This decision highlights how detail and adherence to procedure is necessary to avoid defeat on a motion, even when all the facts are in the defense’s favor.

_{Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2023 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2023 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}