In Valentin v. Pomilla, 59 AD3d 184 [1st Sept. 2009] the plaintiff argued that the evidence was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to serious injury since the plaintiff provided: (1) evidence (an examination by a Dr. Hausknecht) which showed some limitations approximately 2 months after the accident; (2)"MRIs of the cervical and lumbar spine (which) revealed disc herniation at L4-5 and L5-S1 and disc bulging at C4-C5, and that EMGs revealed L5-S1 radiculopathy". Additionally, the plaintiff had supplied an affidavit from his chiropractor which demonstrated range of motion deficiencies from an examination done shortly before the motion was submitted. While there was an indication in the records that the chiropractor had initially seen the plaintiff a few days after the accident, no information was provided by the plaintiff as to the findings of the chiropractor, if any, at that visit. The Appellate Division unanimously reversed an order of the trial court, which had denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, stating: "There are no objective findings contemporaneous with the accident showing any initial range-of-motion restrictions on plaintiff's cervical spine"; but added, however, that "the most significant flaw in the plaintiff's arguments is his failure to address causation". In that regard the court observed that "plaintiff failed to raise an inference that his injury was caused by the accident ... by not refuting defendants' evidence of a preexisting degenerative condition of the spine"; and stated that: "Absent an explanation of the basis for concluding that the injury was caused by the accident, as opposed to other possibilities evidenced in the record, an expert's conclusion that plaintiff's condition is causally related to the subject accident is mere speculation, insufficient to support a finding that such a causal link exists." [59 AD3d 184 at 185, 873 N.Y.S.2d 537]