The New York Appellate Division recently ruled in the case of Gersic v. Kuehner, dismissing serious injury claims made by Thomas Gersic against Brenmar Inc. and Garry Kuehner. This decision, issued on September 29, 2026, has significant implications for personal injury claims in New York, particularly those involving alleged injuries from automobile accidents.
The court's ruling affects individuals who may be involved in similar personal injury cases, especially those claiming serious injuries under New York's Insurance Law. The court's decision emphasizes the importance of establishing a clear causal connection between an accident and the injuries claimed, particularly when preexisting conditions are involved.
In this case, Thomas Gersic filed a lawsuit against Garry Kuehner and his employer, Brenmar Inc., following a vehicle accident. Gersic claimed that the accident caused serious injuries that met the threshold set by New York's Insurance Law § 5102(d). The dispute arose over whether Gersic's injuries were indeed caused by the accident or were instead due to preexisting degenerative conditions.
The case reached the Appellate Division after the Supreme Court in Bronx County denied Brenmar's motion for summary judgment, which sought to dismiss Gersic's claims of serious injury. Brenmar argued that Gersic's injuries were not related to the accident but were instead the result of chronic conditions that existed prior to the incident.
The court's ruling reversed the lower court's decision, granting Brenmar's motion for summary judgment and dismissing the complaint against both Brenmar and Kuehner. The judges on the panel included Webber, Mendez, González, Higgitt, and Parker-Raso. The court stated, "Brenmar established prima facie that plaintiff's claimed injuries were not causally related to the accident, but were in fact the result of chronic, preexisting degenerative conditions."
The court highlighted that while Brenmar's expert acknowledged that Gersic sustained minor sprains and strains from the accident, these injuries had fully resolved. The court found that the more serious herniations claimed by Gersic were due to degenerative conditions and not the accident itself. The ruling emphasized that the opinions provided by Gersic's treating chiropractor and orthopedic surgeon did not adequately support the claim that the accident caused the herniations.
According to the court, "plaintiff's experts' conclusory opinions on causation failed to raise an issue of fact in opposition to Brenmar's prima facie showing." This means that the evidence Gersic presented was insufficient to prove that his injuries were caused by the accident, leading to the dismissal of his claims.
The ruling has significant implications for future personal injury cases in New York. It reinforces the requirement that plaintiffs must clearly demonstrate a causal link between their injuries and the incident in question, particularly when preexisting conditions are involved. This decision may deter some individuals from pursuing claims that lack strong medical evidence connecting their injuries to the accident.
Additionally, the court's ruling impacts how personal injury claims are evaluated in New York. It sets a precedent that emphasizes the need for thorough medical evaluations and clear evidence of causation. Plaintiffs in similar cases will need to provide robust evidence to overcome defenses based on preexisting conditions.
The decision also underscores the importance of expert testimony in personal injury cases. The court noted that while it is acceptable for a chiropractor to correlate the onset of symptoms with an accident, they must provide a clear explanation of how the injuries are traumatic rather than degenerative. This requirement may lead to a higher standard for expert opinions in future cases.
Looking ahead, it is unclear whether Gersic will appeal the decision. The court's ruling effectively ends his claims against Brenmar and Kuehner unless new evidence emerges that could substantiate his allegations. There are no related cases currently pending that were mentioned in the court filing.
In conclusion, the Appellate Division's ruling in Gersic v. Kuehner serves as a reminder of the challenges faced by plaintiffs in personal injury cases, particularly when preexisting conditions are involved. The decision highlights the necessity for clear and convincing evidence to establish the connection between an accident and claimed injuries.