Kristen A. Carroll

Kristen Carroll (Partner-New York, NY) defended a tractor-trailer owner in a case where the plaintiff filed an action to recover for personal injuries allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident on the New York State Thruway, where our client’s tractor-trailer truck allegedly rear-ended the plaintiff’s vehicle. In addition to cervical and lumbar injuries, the plaintiff claimed three separate surgeries in relation to the accident, including a total knee replacement. The Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Dutchess held that our client established, prima facie, that the plaintiff’s injuries were degenerative and unrelated to the accident through expert reports from a biomechanist (biology and physical mechanics to understand human movement) and orthopedist, as well as the plaintiff’s own medical records. Fatally, the plaintiff’s opposition did not include any medical records dated after her January 2020 knee surgery to objectively support any ongoing limitations, failing to raise a triable issue of fact that her alleged limitations were permanent or significant. The court noted that the plaintiff did not address the records submitted by our client regarding her knee replacement, which indicated that the basis for the surgery was “arthritis” with no reference to the accident. The court specifically cancelled jury selection in its decision, which was scheduled for March of 2025.

New York, New York, partners Kristen Carroll, Nolan Comfort and Ellen Greiper obtained unanimous affirmance of an order from Bronx County that granted our motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff did not sustain a “serious injury” under any category of Insurance Law § 5102(d), in a case where summary judgment was already granted to the plaintiff on liability in a rear-end accident. The court held that Kristen, Nolan and Ellen met their prima facie burden through the submission of an expert report from an orthopedic surgeon who found normal ranges of motion with no evidence of acute injury, and that any injuries were degenerative in nature and not causally related to the accident; and a biomechanical engineering expert who opined that the low impact could not have caused the plaintiff’s claimed injuries. The plaintiff’s deposition also was submitted, wherein he admitted he ceased treatment within eight months of the accident. The court held that plaintiff’s failure to explain his cessation of treatment interrupted the chain of causation and rendered his physician’s finding of permanency speculative. Finally, the court held that the team met our burden with respect to the 90/180 category, as the plaintiff testified that he was only out of work for six weeks after the accident and continued to work at least 40 hours a week in his same capacity as a signal maintainer with the MTA within a few months of the accident.