Published on:

Plaintiffs oppose the instant motion

A Bronx Estate Litigation Lawyer said that, defendant moves seeking an Order granting him summary judgment over and against plaintiffs. Defendant avers that to the extent that plaintiffs did not sustain serious injuries, as defined by the Insurance Law, it is entitled to summary judgment. Plaintiffs oppose the instant motion averring that defendant has failed to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment and that questions of fact preclude summary judgment.

A Bronx Estate Lawyer said that, the instant action is for alleged personal injury. Within their bill of particulars plaintiffs allege that on August 3, 2006 plaintiffs were involved in a motor vehicle accident with a vehicle owned and operated by the defendant. Plaintiffs allege that plaintiff sustained injuries, the most serious being a tear of the medial meniscus, requiring arthroscopic surgical repair and disc herniations at C3-C5. It is alleged that plaintiff sustained injuries, the most serious being a herniated disc at C5-C6. It is alleged that plaintiff sustained injuries, the most serious being, disc bulges at C3-C7. Plaintiffs allege that their injuries are serious under all categories of serious injury promulgated by the Insurance Law.

In support of the instant motion, and with regard to Ortiz, defendant submits four sworn reports from a radiologist, who discusses his review of radiological studies performed upon plaintiff. The radiologist reviews an MRI study performed upon plaintiff’s left knee on September 18, 2006. According to the radiologist, said study, while there is no evidence of meniscal or ligament tear, it nonetheless evinces knee injury, namely moderate tricompartment osteoarthritis with an ununited ossification of the tibial tuberosity. Said injury, according to Fisher is degenerative in nature, pre-existed the accident herein, and are unrelated to trauma. Fisher reviews an MRI study performed upon plaintiff’s left shoulder on September 22, 2006. According to Fisher said study evinces injury, namely bony impingement secondary to acromioclavicular hypertrophic spurring. Said injury, according to the radiologist is degenerative in nature, pre-existed the accident herein, and is unrelated to trauma. He reviews an MRI study performed upon left hip on September 21, 2006. He concludes that said study evinces injury to the left hip, namely, osteoarthritis. Said injury, according to him is degenerative in nature, pre-existed the accident herein, and is unrelated to trauma. Fisher reviewed MRI studies performed upon plaintiff’s cervical spine on September 20, 2006. Said studies, according to Fisher, evince injury, namely degenerative changes in plaintiff’s cervical spine. Said injury, according to the radiologist is degenerative in nature, pre-existed the accident herein, and are unrelated to trauma.

In opposition to the instant motion, plaintiffs submit a copy of this Court’s Order dated April 30, 2008, wherein plaintiffs were granted partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

To Be Cont…

If you are involved in a similar case scenario, there is a need for the legal representation of a Bronx Estate Litigation Attorney and Bronx Probate Attorney at Stephen Bilkis and Associates.

Contact Information