In Venegas v. Signh, 103 A.D.3d 562 (1st Dept. 2013), the Court held that plaintiff raised an issue of fact as to his shoulder injury by submitting the affirmation of his treating orthopedic surgeon, who opined that the MRI films showed evidence of a tear, diagnosed a rotator cuff tear and impingement after surgery, and measured significant limitations in range of motion at a recent examination. Based upon his examinations, observations made during arthroscopic surgery, and review of the MRI films, he opined that plaintiff's left shoulder injuries were caused by the accident. The First Department held that contrary to defendants' contention, plaintiff's orthopedist sufficiently addressed causation by proffering a "different, yet equally plausible" opinion from that of defendants' experts.