Supreme, Appellate, and Court of Appeals Rulings Cases won based on good objective medical evidence and proper medical testing, which supported the patient's condition:

1.N.Y.S. 2d 345
"...An experts qualitative assessment of a plaintiff's condition may suffice, provided that the evaluation has an objective basis and compares the plaintiff's limitation to the normal function… the expert further attributes the limitations in plaintiff’s physical activities to the nature of the injuries sustained by opining that the plaintiff's difficulty sitting, standing or walking for any extended period of time and his inability to lift heavy boxes at work are a natural and expected medical consequence of his injuries, Moreover, the expert’s opinion is supported by objective medical evidence…and reports, paired with his observation of muscle spasms during his physical examination of plaintiff."

2. 31398951 (S.D.N.Y.)
"...Permanent limitation of motion in his neck and back are due to lumbar and cervical disc herniations, qualified as serious injury... even though the limitation was not total and victim continued to work full time, victim’s physician opined that victim sustained such injuries based on MRI test and observations of spasm and limitations in range of motion…that victim’s injuries prevented him from performing his usual activities of working as a karate instructor and as instructor in law enforcement courses."

3. N.Y.S. 2d 111
"Palpable trigger points may constitute objective medical evidence of a serious injury, for purposes of meeting serious injury threshold. An experts designation of numeric percentages of a plaintiff’s loss of range of motion, which are in direct conflict with the opinion of defendants examining physician, can be used to substantiate a plaintiff’s claim of serious injury, for purposes of meeting the serious injury threshold."

4. No. 2001-1653 QC
Defendant's medical experts examined plaintiff found mild tenderness in the cervical region and that range of motion testing in the cervical region was normal despite an MRI report, which showed bulging discs at C4-C5 and C5-C6. The burden therefore shifted to the plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact that she sustained a serious injury since a herniated or bulging disc does not alone constitute a serious injury. The plaintiff was required to provide objective evidence of "the extent or degree of physical limitation" by means of a numeric percentage of a plaintiff's loss of range of motion ... [or] [a]n expert's qualitative assessment of a plaintiff's condition ... provided that the evaluation has an objective basis and compares the plaintiff's limitations to the normal function, purpose and use of the affected body organ, member, function or system. Decreased ROM, Objective Findings, combined with the disc bulges at C4-C5 and C5- C6 referred to by defendant's doctor, was sufficient to a serious injury."

5. WL 31888266 (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept)
"An expert’s qualitative assessment of a plaintiff's condition may suffice, provided that the evaluation has an objective basis and compares the plaintiff's limitations to the normal function, purpose and use of the affected body organ, member, function or system."

6. WL 186043 (NYAD 2 Dept) 01/08/03
...a bulging or herniated disc may not constitute a serious injury within the meaning of no-fault, a plaintiff must provide objective medical evidence of the extent of the alleged physical limitation

ADD APPENDIX C: Case Precedence to the end of the above