In Gumbs v. Flushing Town Center III, L.P. (114 AD3d 573 [1st Dept 2014]) the plaintiff alleged orthopedic injuries, along with a permanent inability to work and permanent or long lasting loss of enjoyment of life. By a 3-2 decision, the Appellate Division affirmed the motion court's denial of the defendants' motion to strike the complaint, due to the plaintiff's failure to provide authorizations for the release of medical records. The court below had denied the motion because defendants had not shown that the records sought were related to the claimed injuries. The majority ruled, "Discovery determinations rest with the sound discretion of the motion court. This Court is nonetheless vested with a corresponding power to substitute its own discretion for that of the motion court. Notwithstanding our own discretion, deference is afforded to the trial court's discretionary determinations regarding disclosure.' Unlike the dissent, we find no abuse of the court's discretion given the paucity of support for the motion in the first instance. Specifically, defendants' argument regarding the relevance of Gumbs's medical history as set forth in his deposition was improperly made for the first time in their reply papers. Accordingly, the denial of defendants' motion was reasonable and supported by law." (Id. at 574-575.) The majority then opined, in dicta" "Gumbs's waiver of his physician-patient privilege is limited in scope to those conditions affirmatively placed in controversy.' Gumbs did not place his entire medical condition in controversy by suing to recover damages for orthopedic injuries" (Id. at 575.) The dissent stated: "Plaintiff, by claiming that his enumerated injuries have resulted in his permanent inability to work and permanent or long lasting loss of enjoyment of life, has placed his general health and medical history at issue. I also disagree with the majority to the extent it concludes that the medical records sought by defendants are not discoverable because plaintiff claims to have suffered ankle, knee and shoulder injuries and the requested records do not pertain to those specific injuries. I believe the medical records sought by defendants directly relate to plaintiff's sweeping, broad and encompassing claims of permanent disability and loss of enjoyment of life, and it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to fail to consider these categories of damages in fashioning the scope of discovery. When a plaintiff seeks future lost earnings, he or she squarely puts his or her prior medical history at issue because his or her overall health directly bears on the question of how many years the plaintiff realistically could have continued to work had no accident occurred. Likewise, when a plaintiff also seeks damages for the permanent loss of his or her ability to enjoy life, the jury must take into consideration the period of time that the plaintiff can be expected to live. Although statistical life expectancy tables are useful, juries are routinely instructed that the tables are not binding and they may also consider evidence of a plaintiff's actual health condition, habits and activities in making this evaluation. Consequently, such evidence should be discoverable. Plaintiff's medical records shed light on whether he suffered from other conditions, having nothing to do with this accident, which may have impacted upon his ability to enjoy life and/or life expectancy. Plaintiff's argument, which the motion court accepted and this Court now affirms, that the requested medical records must be relevant and directly correlate to a specific physical condition he has put at issue, meaning his ankle, knee and shoulder injuries, is too narrow an interpretation of this case where plaintiff is seeking broad categories of damages." (Gumbs, 114 AD3d at 574-75 [Gische, J., dissenting].)