A New York appellate court has upheld a ruling that dismissed a personal injury lawsuit against Uber Technologies, Inc. The court's decision, issued on October 6, 2026, affects the plaintiff, Jose Miguel Gomez, who claimed he sustained serious injuries from a motor vehicle collision involving an Uber driver. The ruling emphasizes the importance of providing sufficient evidence to establish a causal link between an accident and alleged injuries.
The case, Gomez v. Uber Tech., Inc., was filed under Index No. 817462/23 and Appeal No. 7165. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York reviewed the case after a lower court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, including Uber and its drivers. The ruling highlights the challenges plaintiffs face in proving that their injuries were directly caused by a specific incident.
The parties involved in the case include Jose Miguel Gomez as the plaintiff and Uber Technologies, Inc., along with its drivers, Steven Fotiadis and John Charles Minella, as defendants. Gomez alleged that he suffered serious injuries from a collision with an Uber vehicle. The case reached the appellate court after the Bronx County Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendants, granting their motion for summary judgment.
The dispute centered on whether Gomez could prove that his injuries were caused by the accident and whether those injuries met the legal definition of a serious injury under New York's Insurance Law § 5102(d). The lower court found that the defendants had established their entitlement to judgment by providing expert medical evidence that suggested Gomez's injuries were preexisting and not caused by the accident.
The court ruled that the defendants had met their burden of proof by submitting an affirmed report from a radiologist. This expert reviewed Gomez's MRI images and concluded that the conditions shown were preexisting degenerative issues that could not have been caused by the collision. The court noted, "Defendants established prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the affirmed report of their expert radiologist." This evidence shifted the burden to Gomez to provide counter-evidence.
In response, Gomez failed to present sufficient evidence to raise a factual issue regarding the causation of his injuries. The court pointed out that the medical records he submitted were unsworn and uncertified, rendering them inadmissible. The court stated, "The unsworn and uncertified medical records documenting treatment in the first few months after the collision are inadmissible and cannot be bootstrapped into evidence by attaching them to an affirmed report." Furthermore, the report from Gomez's treating physician, which suggested a causal relationship between the injuries and the accident, was deemed insufficient because the physician examined Gomez three months after the incident and did not observe the injuries at the time of the accident.
The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, indicating that Gomez's evidence did not adequately demonstrate that his injuries were caused by the collision. The ruling underscores the necessity for plaintiffs in personal injury cases to provide strong, contemporaneous medical evidence linking their injuries to the incident in question.
This ruling may have significant implications for future personal injury claims involving rideshare companies like Uber. It reinforces the need for plaintiffs to present compelling evidence to establish a causal link between their injuries and the alleged accident. The decision may also influence how similar cases are litigated in New York, as it sets a standard for the type of medical evidence required to support claims of serious injury.
Going forward, this ruling may deter some individuals from pursuing claims against rideshare companies unless they can provide robust evidence. It highlights the legal challenges that plaintiffs face, particularly in cases involving preexisting conditions. The court's decision serves as a reminder that in personal injury litigation, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to demonstrate that their injuries were directly caused by the defendant's actions.
As for the next steps, it is unclear whether Gomez will seek to appeal the ruling. The court's decision is final unless further challenged in a higher court. There are no related cases pending that were mentioned in the court filing. However, this case may serve as a reference point for similar future litigation involving rideshare services and personal injury claims.