New York Insurance Law § 5102(d) defines what qualifies as a serious injury as follows:
“Serious Injury�means a personal injury which results in:

- death
- dismemberment
- significant disfigurement
- a fracture
- loss of a fetus
- permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function, or system.
- permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member.
- significant limitation of use of a body function or system.
- a medically determined injury or impairment of a non permanent nature which prevents the injured person from
--performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute such persons usual and customary daily activities --for not lee than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the injury or impairment.

The new York State Court of Appeals case of Toure v. Avis Rent a car Sys., 98 N.Y.2d 345; 774 N.E.2d 1197; 746 N.Y.S.2d 865 (2002) defined once and for all for each of the four (4) Appellate Divisions what establishes the existence of a serious injury. In each of the three cases that were decided together, the court of Appeal concentrated on objective medical evidence. The following are just a few points written by the court in it’s decision worth noting:

- The Appellate Divisions have held that a diagnosis of a bulging or herniated disc, by itself, does not constitute a
--serious injury.
- Spasm can constitute objective evidence in support of a serious injury.
- Conclusion based on review of MRI films and reports can provide objective evidence of a serious injury.
- A Plaintiff must present objective evidence of “a medically determined injury or impairment of a non permanent
--nature�

- Dr. Cambareri, who opined that the plaintiff suffered two herniated cervical discs as a result of the automobile accident. His conclusion was supported by objective evidence introduced at trial, namely, the MRI films that he interpreted. Although this medical expert did not assign a quantitative percentage to the loss of range of motion in the plaintiff’s neck or back, he described the qualitative nature of plaintiff’s limitations based on the normal function, purpose and use of her body parts. In particular, Dr. Cambareri correlated the plaintiff’s herniated discs with her inability to perform certain normal, daily tasks.

- As our case law further requires, Dr. Waltz’s opinion is supported by objective medical evidence, including MRI and CT scan tests and reports, paired with his observations of muscle spasms during his physical examination of the plaintiff.