The 2024 New York Supreme Court case Yar v. Singh goes beyond clarifying liability in a standard rear-end collision—it’s a strong reminder for personal injury attorneys about the evidentiary precision required to meet the serious injury threshold under New York law. It also highlights the strategic advantage of using a Cambridge Medical Expert—valued for their clinical precision, diagnostic clarity, and ability to present evidence with courtroom credibility.
At the heart of the ruling is a familiar principle: success in motor vehicle accident (MVA) litigation isn’t based solely on fault—it often hinges on the strength, reliability, and admissibility of the medical evidence presented.
Case Background
On October 21, 2019, Muhammad Yar was driving on the Van Wyck Expressway near JFK Airport. As he prepared to exit toward the Cell Phone Lot, he slowed down due to a third vehicle cutting in front of him. While doing so, he was rear-ended by Malkiat Singh.
Yar filed suit, claiming injuries to his left shoulder and cervical spine as a direct result of the impact. The court initially focused on liability, ultimately rejecting Singh’s defenses of emergency conditions and comparative fault. The judge ruled Singh was negligent for failing to maintain a safe following distance, even if another vehicle had caused Yar to stop abruptly.
With liability resolved, the trial proceeded to the damages phase—where the outcome would hinge entirely on whether Yar’s injuries met New York’s “serious injury” threshold under Insurance Law § 5102(d).
Medical Evidence Shortfalls
Yar submitted medical testimony and records to prove he had sustained significant limitations due to the crash. The expert described restrictions in Yar’s shoulder and neck movement, as well as reported pain and reduced function. However, the court found this testimony insufficient for several reasons:
- Lack of quantified data: The expert failed to provide specific degrees of motion loss or comparisons to normal ranges.
- No objective diagnostic tools used: Instruments such as goniometers or inclinometers, which measure angles and motion, were not utilized.
- Absence of documented duration: There was no evidence showing how long Yar had been impaired, or if the injuries had long-term effects.
As a result, the court ruled that Yar had not met the legal requirement to show a “permanent consequential limitation” or “significant limitation of use” of a body function or system. His case was dismissed at the damages stage, despite the proven fault of the defendant.
Where Cambridge Medical Experts Add Value
Had Yar’s legal team engaged a Cambridge Medical Expert, the outcome might have been more favorable. Our professionals are known for integrating academic rigor with real-world litigation needs:
- Comprehensive documentation: Cambridge experts provide detailed, measurable evaluations and use industry-standard diagnostic tools.
- Courtroom fluency: They present findings clearly and withstand cross-examination, ensuring that testimony holds up in court.
- Trust and authority: Their credentials lend credibility that resonates with judges and juries alike.
In injury litigation, the presence of a Cambridge-trained expert sends a message: the case is built on the strongest medical foundation available.
Attorney Takeaways
- Expert quality influences case outcomes – Even clear liability won’t lead to compensation without credible, objective injury proof.
- Use quantifiable, medical-grade assessments – Range of motion, imaging results, and prognosis must be thoroughly documented.
- Invest in experts who understand legal standards – Not all doctors are litigation-ready. Top-tier professionals, especially those with academic and clinical reputations, offer a distinct advantage.
Conclusion
Yar v. Singh demonstrates that even when liability is clear, the outcome of an injury claim can rest entirely on the quality and precision of the medical evidence presented. In cases involving complex or contested injuries, Cambridge Medical Experts provide the clarity, depth, and professionalism needed to meet the highest evidentiary standards. Their insight doesn’t just support a claim—it strengthens the entire case strategy.
