Orelus v. United States, 2:23-cv-02451

Background

On December 18, 2021, a USPS tractor-trailer driven by Pablo La Cruz sideswiped a 2016 Honda in which Steeve Orelus was a front-seat passenger; police report attributed fault to the USPS driver.
Orelus sought treatment starting December 20, 2021 (physical therapy, chiropractic, acupuncture); MRIs (Jan. 24, 2022) showed cervical and lumbar disc bulges and foraminal narrowing.
Orelus received multiple injections and two lumbar discectomy procedures (March 20, 2022 and August 19, 2022); medical bills submitted totaled about $59,518, with State Farm reimbursements recorded.
Defendant (United States) moved for summary judgment under the FTCA; it submitted experts: Dr. Patterson (medical) who found normal ROM and no causal link, and Dr. Serina (biomechanics) who opined the collision was low-speed and unlikely to cause structural disc injury.
Plaintiff submitted medical expert reports/affirmations (Dr. Weissberg; Dr. Demesmin) showing >20% range-of-motion limitations and opining the accident caused ongoing cervical/lumbar problems; Plaintiff continued working (≈40 hrs/wk) and returned to many activities.
Magistrate Judge Locke recommended granting summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s NY Insurance Law economic-loss claim (abandoned in opposition) and denying summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s claim of a “serious injury” under NYIL § 5102(d) on the significant/permanent-limitation theories, but granting it as to the 90/180-days category.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Plaintiff sustained a “serious injury” under NYIL § 5102(d) (permanent consequential limitation)	Orelus submitted physician reports (Weissberg, Demesmin) and MRIs showing disc bulges and >20% ROM loss and a partial permanent disability	Government experts (Patterson, Serina) say normal ROM on exam, low-speed impact unlikely to cause structural injury, and injuries attributable to degenerative change	Denied summary judgment for Defendant on permanent consequential limitation (genuine issue exists)
Whether Plaintiff sustained a “serious injury” under NYIL § 5102(d) (significant limitation)	Same evidence: MRI + expert opinions quantifying ROM loss ≥20% support significant limitation	Government cites Plaintiff's deposition (no major activity limits) and its experts to show limitations are not significant or accident-related	Denied summary judgment for Defendant on significant limitation (triable issue)
Whether Plaintiff satisfies NYIL § 5102(d) 90/180-days category (unable to perform substantially all usual activities for ≥90 of 180 days)	Plaintiff contends ongoing limitations and treatment support impairment	Defendant relies on evidence Plaintiff worked ~40 hours/week, returned to activities, and Patterson’s opinion of no prolonged disability	Granted for Defendant as to 90/180-days category (no genuine dispute for Plaintiff)
Whether Plaintiff abandoned his claim for economic loss > basic no-fault threshold (NYIL § 5102(a))	— (Plaintiff did not oppose)	Government moved for summary judgment on this claim	Granted for Defendant (claim abandoned)

Key Cases Cited

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard requires viewing evidence in favor of nonmovant)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (nonmovant must present specific facts showing genuine issue)
FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (FTCA applies state law as source of substantive liability)
Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110 (plaintiff bears burden to show waiver of sovereign immunity under FTCA)
Gaddy v. Evler, 79 N.Y.2d 955 (defendant’s initial burden in NY no-fault serious-injury summary judgment)
Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 98 N.Y.2d 345 (qualitative assessment for limitation/permanence under NYIL)
Pommells v. Perez, 4 N.Y.3d 566 (intervening conditions and causation in NY no-fault context)
Comba v. United States, 535 F. Supp. 3d 97 (E.D.N.Y. discussion of NY no-fault thresholds and serious-injury analysis)