Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

O'BRADOVICH v. MRIJAJ

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.
Dec 19, 2006
Important Paras
Please sign up to view Important Paras.

Plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law ยง 5102 (d). Her expert opined that the accident caused a fracture of her calcaneus, the heel bone adjacent to the ankle. However, on this record, there is no admissible evidence that plaintiff was ever diagnosed by her treating physician with a fracture that resulted from this accident. The unsworn MRI report merely contains the reference to a "cortical or impact fracture." The medical records of plaintiffs treating physician neither reference this MRI nor adopt any findings contained therein pertaining to a possible fracture. Plaintiff's evidence shows only that she had ankle surgery to debride an osteophyte and remove bone spurs. The operative report makes no mention of a fracture, nor does plaintiff's expert (also her treating physician) refer to such a fracture in his initial evaluation of plaintiff approximately four months after the accident.

We have considered and rejected plaintiffs other arguments as without merit.