New York's "serious injury" threshold in 3,828 appeals - what the data shows

Short answer: New York's no-fault "serious injury" threshold (Insurance Law § 5102(d)) produces more appeals than almost any other personal injury issue: we found 3,828 decisions from 1989 to 2018. Nearly all (92%) are summary judgment appeals. Two Court of Appeals decisions are cited in about half of them: Gaddy v. Eyler and Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys. And appellate courts reversed often - about 38% of decisions with a clear disposition.

What we analyzed

We searched LegiMatch's library for New York decisions discussing "serious injury" under § 5102: 3,828 decisions from 1989 to 2018, 99% from the Appellate Division. We counted key phrases in the full text and the authorities cited most. The figures describe what courts wrote about; they aren't predictions.

Which threshold categories courts discuss

The limitation categories dominate, and the evidence fight is usually about range-of-motion findings: whether the plaintiff's doctors quantified the limitation, compared it with normal function, and tied it to the accident.

How the appeals were decided

The disposition could be read automatically for 2,885 decisions:

A 38% reversal share is high for appeals generally. It reflects how fact-specific the medical evidence is, and how often the Appellate Division disagreed with the motion court about whether a triable issue existed. Treat these shares as approximate.

The authorities cited most

• Gaddy sets the defendant's initial burden on summary judgment.
• Toure explains what objective medical evidence can show a limitation, including quantitative and qualitative assessments.
• Pommells addresses gaps or cessation of treatment.
• Perl addresses when range-of-motion measurements must be made.
• Licari explains the purpose of the threshold.

What this means for your research

1. Pick the category - permanent consequential limitation, significant limitation, 90/180-day, or another § 5102(d) category - and research it specifically.
2. Test the medical evidence against Toure and Perl: objective findings, quantified limitations, and timing.
3. Address gaps in treatment under Pommells if your client stopped treating.
4. Find decisions with similar injuries and evidence - the same body part, similar findings, similar treatment history.

LegiMatch helps with step 4: describe the accident and injuries and get up to 100 similar decisions, ranked by a match score that shows how facts, legal issues, statutes, jurisdiction and recency contributed, each linked to the court's text. It supports your research and doesn't give legal advice.

Frequently asked questions

What is a "serious injury" under New York Insurance Law § 5102(d)?

The statute lists categories, including death, dismemberment, significant disfigurement, fracture, permanent loss of use, permanent consequential limitation, significant limitation of use, and a medically determined injury preventing usual activities for 90 of the 180 days after the accident. A plaintiff must meet one to sue for non-economic loss in a covered motor vehicle case.

Why is Toure v. Avis cited so often?

It explains how plaintiffs can prove a limitation with objective medical evidence, either by assigning a percentage to the loss of range of motion or by a qualitative assessment comparing the limitation to normal function.

How was this data collected?

From 3,828 New York decisions in LegiMatch's library (1989-2018) discussing serious injury under § 5102. Phrase counts use full-text search; dispositions were labeled automatically and are approximate.

Sources

• LegiMatch analysis of 3,828 New York decisions, 1989-2018 (court text from public-domain US court records)
• New York Insurance Law § 5102(d)