Opinion
2000/686.
Decided January 16, 2007.
Upon the foregoing papers it is ordered that this motion is granted in its entirety.
In support of summary judgment dismissing plaintiff Krzysztof Parczewski's complaint, defendant made a prima facie showing that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury through the affirmations of an orthopedist, Dr. Katz and a neurologist, Dr. Basson, both of whom examined plaintiff almost four years after the accident and found no evidence of disability or impairment ( Houston v. Gajdos 11 AD3d 514 citing Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys, 98 NY2d 345 (2002); Gaddy v. Eyler 79 NY2d 955 (1992). Further, Drs. Katz and Basson respectively compared plaintiff Krzysztof Parczewski's range of motion of the lumbar and cervical spines to the normal range of motion and found them to be normal ( Wright v. Perlata, 26 AD3d 489 (2nd Dept. 2006); Browdame v. Candura 25 AD3d 747 (2nd Dept. 2006). Defendants also submitted affirmed MRI reports of the cervical spine of plaintiff Krzysztof Parczewski on June 7, 2005 which reveals degenerative disc disease. The burden now shifts to plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact ( Friends of Animals, Inc. V. Associated Fur Manufacturing, Inc., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067 citing CPLR Section 3212, sub (b).
In opposition Krzysztof Parczewski submits an affirmation from Pervez Quereshi, M.D. (Dr. Quereshi) who first examined plaintiff Krzysztof Parczewski on October 20, 2006, almost four and a half years after the accident. Plaintiff fails to present any medical proof that is "contemporaneous with the accident" showing initial range of motion restriction in his lumbar and/or cervical spines ( Lanza v. Carlick, 279 AD2d 613 (2nd Dept. 2001)). Moreover, Dr. Sapan Cohn found "multilevel disc pathology in Krzysztof Parczewski's cervical spine and noted a "predisposition towards the development of disc herniation and the development of degenerative disc disease" (See Affirmed Radiological Report dated June 7, 2005). Dr. Quereshi fails to address these degenerative findings and accordingly his opinion that the condition of Krzysztof Parczewski's cervical spine was caused by the subject accident is speculative ( Gomez v. Esptein, 29 AD3d 950 (2nd Dept. 2006); Bycinthe v. Kombos, 29 AD3d 845 (2nd Dept. 2006); Kaplan v. Vanderhans, 26 AD3d 468 (2nd Dept. 2006)).
In accordance with the foregoing, plaintiff Krzysztof Parczewski's complaint is dismissed.
In support of summary judgment dismissing plaintiff Krystyna Parczewski complaint defendants made a prima facie showing that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury through the affirmations of an orthopedist, Dr. Katz and a neurologist Dr. Basson both of whom examined plaintiff almost four years after the accident and found no evidence of disability or impairment ( Houston v. Gajdos, 11 AD3d 514 citing Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345; Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 (1992)). Dr. Katz performed objective tests such as Adson's, Babinski and Patrick's test and found them to be normal. He also compared the plaintiff Krystyna Parczewski's range of motion of the cervical and lumbar spines and right shoulder to the normal respective ranges of motion and found them to be normal. Dr. Katz' diagnosis was that Mrs. Parczewski had a resolved cervical strain, resolved lumbosacral strain and a resolved right shoulder derangement. The cervical spine MRI report dated May 22, 2005 prepared by Dr. Lodespoto, a board-certified radiologist reveals that she has "Degenerative disc disease, C4/5, C5/6, 6/7 bulges", and Dr. Lodespoto notes in his commentary that "The background cervical degenerative changes are chronic and long standing in nature, unrelated to any acute traumatic event." The burden now shifts to plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact ( Friends of Animals, Inc. v. Associated Fur Manufacturing, Inc., ]supra).
In opposition to summary relief, plaintiff Krystyna Parczewski submits an affirmation from Pervez Quereshi, M.D. (Dr. Quereshi) who first examined plaintiff on October 20, 2006 almost four and a half years after the accident. Plaintiff fails to present any medical proof that is "contemporaneous with the accident" showing initial range of motion restrictions in her cervical and lumbar spines and right shoulder ( Lanza v. Carlick, 279 AD2d 613 (2nd Dept. 2001)). Further, Dr. Quereshi fails to address the degenerative findings in her cervical spine and as such his opinion that there is a causal relationship between the accident and her alleged injuries is speculative ( Gomez v. Epstein, 29 AD3d 950 (2nd Dept. 2006); Bycinthe v. Kombos, 29 AD3d 845 (2nd Dept. 2006); Kaplan v. Vanderhans, 26 AD3d 468 (2nd Dept. 2006)).
Accordingly, the complaints are dismissed.