What happened: A New York appeals court affirmed denial of summary judgment after a biomechanical engineer did not demonstrate he was qualified to render a medical opinion on causation
Who’s involved: Max Services Corp. and its driver, two vehicle occupants
What’s at stake: The defendants’ motion to dismiss the personal injury claims before trial
Why it matters: Biomechanical crash-force testimony alone, without medical evidence on causation, was insufficient to meet the summary judgment burden
Where it stands: Affirmed on October 14, 2026; the underlying case continues
He could calculate the force of a crash, the court said, but diagnosing what that crash did to a body was not his job.
New York’s Appellate Division, Second Department, has affirmed a lower court’s refusal to throw out a personal injury lawsuit against Max Services Corp. and its driver, finding the defendants failed to produce competent medical evidence on the serious-injury question.
The case stems from a motor vehicle accident that left two occupants of the other vehicle claiming cervical and lumbar spine injuries. One also reported damage to a right shoulder and right knee; the other, to a left shoulder and left wrist. The defendants asked the court to dismiss the case on the basis that neither occupant had sustained a “serious injury” under New York Insurance Law § 5102(d) - the threshold that separates no-fault claims from full tort suits.
To clear that bar, the defendants needed to show, up front, that the injuries did not meet the statute’s categories for permanent consequential limitation of use or significant limitation of use.
They did not.
The defendants relied on a biomechanical engineer who reviewed the medical records and concluded the crash had not generated enough force to cause the claimed injuries. Bandstra went further, attributing the spinal injuries to pre-existing degenerative conditions rather than the accident.
The court accepted that the biomechanical engineer was qualified to opine on crash forces - the physics of how a collision translates into bodily impact. But he did not demonstrate that he was qualified to render a medical opinion on whether the accident actually caused the injuries. That is a doctor’s call, not an engineer’s.
The court also noted that the biomechanical engineer analysis partly rested on rejecting what the two occupants had said under oath about how their injuries occurred - a factual substitution that weakened the motion further.
The defendants separately failed to establish that the occupants had not met the 90/180-day category, which requires proof that an injury substantially limited daily activities for at least 90 of the 180 days following the accident.
The October 14 decision was unanimous.
Biomechanical testimony on crash forces, without a medical expert to connect those forces to specific injuries, was not enough to clear the summary judgment bar here - a distinction that matters every time an insurer builds its expert roster for a no-fault dispute.
