NY Ends 90/180-Day Injury Rule: What Victims Need to Know
For decades, New York’s serious injury law allowed certain car accident victims to pursue compensation for pain and suffering by proving that a medically determined injury prevented them from performing all of their usual and customary daily activities substantially for at least 90 of the first 180 days after the accident. That category, commonly called the “90/180-day rule,” was eliminated as part of New York’s 2026 automobile insurance and tort reforms.
The change applies to actions and proceedings commenced on or after May 26, 2026. That effective date has significant consequences. The new law does not simply apply to accidents occurring after May 26, 2026. An accident victim injured months or even years earlier may be subject to the amended serious injury threshold if the lawsuit was commenced on or after the effective date. For some injured people, that means a category that might previously have provided a path to recovering pain-and-suffering damages is no longer available.
Eliminating the 90/180 category does not mean only catastrophic injuries qualify as serious injuries, nor does it mean every qualifying injury must be permanent. Eight statutory categories remain under New York Insurance Law § 5102(d), including the significant limitation of use of a body function or system category. Determining whether an injury meets the new threshold requires a careful review of the medical evidence, the injury’s functional consequences, causation, and the specific statutory category claimed. If you were injured in a New York motor vehicle accident and have questions about how the new law affects your claim, call Greenstein & Pittari, LLP at 1-800-VICTIM2 (1-800-842-8462) for a free consultation. No fee unless successful.
What was New York’s 90/180-day serious injury rule?
The former 90/180-day rule allowed an accident victim to potentially establish serious injury through a medically determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature that prevented the person from performing all of the material substantially acts constituting their usual and customary daily activities for at least 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the injury. The category was particularly important because it focused on the disabling effect of an injury during the six months following an accident rather than requiring the claimant to establish that the injury itself was permanent. Courts developed substantial case law concerning what constituted “substantially all” customary activities, what medical proof was required, and whether the claimed restrictions lasted for the required period. For actions governed by the 2026 amendments, that statutory category is no longer available.
When was the 90/180-day rule eliminated in New York?
The amendment eliminating the 90/180-day category applies to actions and proceedings commenced on or after May 26, 2026. The effective-date language is critical because it focuses on the commencement of the legal action rather than the date the motor vehicle accident occurred. An accident victim injured before May 26, 2026 who commenced a lawsuit before that date may therefore be situated differently from someone injured on the same date who did not commence an action until May 26, 2026, or later. Anyone with a motor vehicle claim spanning the effective date should have counsel determine which version of Insurance Law § 5102(d) applies rather than assuming that the accident date alone controls.
Does the new law apply if my car accident happened before May 26, 2026?
It can. The 2026 legislation provides that the relevant amendments apply to actions and proceedings commenced on or after May 26, 2026, making the commencement date potentially decisive even when the accident occurred earlier. For example, a person injured in a 2025 accident who commenced a lawsuit before May 26, 2026 may have a different serious-injury analysis from a person injured in a 2025 accident whose lawsuit was not commenced until after the amendment became effective. This makes the procedural history of an older automobile claim particularly important. Before determining which legal standard governs, review the accident date, commencement date, applicable statute of limitations, identity of the defendants, and any special filing requirements.
Can I still use the 90/180 rule if I missed three or more months of work?
No, not as an independent serious-injury category in an action governed by the amended statute. Missing 90 or more days of work does not restore the former statutory category, and the old rule never operated as a simple “90 days out of work” test in any event. The former statute required a medically determined injury or impairment that prevented the claimant from performing substantially all of the material acts constituting their usual and customary daily activities for the required period. Under the amended law, the legal question is instead whether the injury satisfies one of the eight categories that remain in § 5102(d). Time missed from work and restrictions on daily activities may still provide relevant evidence of an injury’s consequences and value. Still, they no longer independently establish serious injury under the deleted 90/180 category.
Does eliminating the 90/180 rule mean my injury must now be permanent?
No. The amended statute contains several categories that expressly require permanence, but the “significant limitation of use of a body function or system” category remains and does not contain an express permanence requirement. That distinction is important. A claimant should not assume that a case fails merely because a physician cannot state that the injury is permanent. At the same time, pain or a temporary inconvenience does not automatically establish a significant limitation. The medical evidence must be analyzed to determine the nature and extent of the limitation, how the affected body function or system has been impaired, whether objective findings support the claimed restriction, and whether the motor vehicle accident caused or aggravated the condition.
What serious injury categories remain after the 2026 change?
Eight categories remain under Insurance Law § 5102(d): death; dismemberment; significant disfigurement; 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; and significant limitation of use of a body function or system. These categories are alternatives, meaning an injured person does not need to satisfy all of them. A documented fracture, for example, remains expressly included in the statute. Other injuries may require a more detailed medical and functional analysis to determine whether they constitute a significant limitation, permanent consequential limitation, or another remaining statutory category.
What happens to people who have serious temporary injuries that would have qualified under the old rule?
An injured person can no longer rely solely on the former 90/180-day category in an action governed by the amended law, even if the injury substantially disrupted daily life for three months or longer. This may have particular significance for people who suffer substantial injuries requiring months of treatment and rehabilitation but eventually experience considerable improvement. Under the former statute, the 90/180 category provided a separate route that focused on the person’s inability to perform all customary activities substantially during the first 180 days. Under the new law, counsel must determine whether the medical evidence independently establishes one of the eight remaining categories. The practical impact therefore depends on the actual diagnosis, objective findings, functional limitations, prognosis, and medical evidence rather than simply the number of days the injured person was unable to work or participate in ordinary activities.
Can a herniated disc still qualify as a serious injury under the new law?
A herniated disc can potentially support a serious-injury claim. Still, an MRI showing a herniation does not, by itself, establish that the statutory threshold has been met. In cases governed by the amended law, the evidence must establish one of the remaining § 5102(d) categories. For spinal injuries, the significant limitation and permanent consequential limitation categories may become particularly important depending on the facts. Medical evidence of quantified range-of-motion restrictions, neurological deficits, diagnostic imaging, EMG findings (where appropriate), injections, surgery, treatment history, functional impairment, and prognosis may help establish the nature and degree of the injury. Defendants and insurance companies may argue that disc findings are degenerative, preexisting, unrelated to the collision, or insufficiently limiting, making medical causation and objective documentation important components of the claim.
Can a torn rotator cuff, torn meniscus, or ligament injury still meet the serious injury threshold?
Yes, depending on the medical and functional evidence, orthopedic injuries such as rotator cuff tears, meniscus tears, and ligament injuries may potentially satisfy one of the remaining serious-injury categories. The diagnosis alone, however, should not be treated as automatically establishing the threshold unless the particular injury falls within a category expressly identified by the statute, such as a fracture. In a disputed orthopedic case, relevant evidence may include MRI findings, orthopedic examinations, quantified limitations in motion, surgical findings, physical therapy records, injections, operative reports, continuing restrictions, and medical opinions concerning causation and prognosis. The central issue is not simply whether an abnormality appears on an MRI, but whether the injury and resulting limitation satisfy the requirements of a remaining statutory category.
Are my limitations on daily activities still relevant after the 90/180 rule was eliminated?
Yes. Eliminating the 90/180 category does not make evidence of daily limitations irrelevant. How an injury affects walking, lifting, bending, sleeping, driving, working, exercising, caring for children, performing household tasks, or participating in other ordinary activities can illustrate the real-world consequences of the medical condition and may be relevant to damages. The critical difference is that those restrictions no longer create a separate statutory route to serious injury based simply on satisfying the former 90/180 formulation. In a case governed by the amended statute, medical and functional evidence must establish one of the categories that remains in § 5102(d). In contrast, evidence of daily limitations may help show the nature, severity, and consequences of that qualifying injury.
Why is objective medical evidence particularly important after the 2026 change?
Objective medical evidence is particularly important because claimants who previously might have relied upon the former 90/180 category must now establish that their injuries satisfy one of the remaining statutory definitions. Depending upon the injury claimed, objective evidence may include diagnostic imaging, measured range-of-motion restrictions, neurological testing, surgical findings, documented muscle weakness, clinical testing, and other medically recognized findings. The exact evidence required depends on the asserted category and the specific injury. Consistent medical documentation also matters when an insurer argues that the claimed limitation is based primarily on subjective pain complaints, that imaging abnormalities existed before the collision, or that the medical record fails to establish a sufficiently significant functional impairment.
What if I had arthritis, degeneration, or a prior injury before the accident?
A prior condition does not automatically prevent an injured person from establishing a serious-injury claim. Still, causation can become a major issue when medical records or diagnostic studies show degeneration or previous injuries involving the same body part. Insurance companies frequently argue that disc abnormalities, joint damage, arthritis, or other findings predated the accident and therefore were not caused by the collision. The medical evidence may need to distinguish preexisting conditions from traumatic injuries or explain how the accident aggravated or exacerbated a prior condition. Comparing prior and post-accident imaging, reviewing earlier treatment records, evaluating the person’s symptoms and functional status before the collision, and obtaining a medically supported causation opinion can become particularly important when the defense raises degeneration or a prior accident.
Can a gap in medical treatment hurt a serious injury claim?
A significant unexplained treatment gap can become an issue because defendants may argue that discontinuing treatment demonstrates that the injury was not as serious or persistent as claimed. A gap does not necessarily defeat a case, and there may be legitimate reasons why treatment stopped or became less frequent. A doctor may determine that further therapy would be merely palliative, insurance may deny benefits, the patient may reach maximum medical improvement, or other circumstances may explain the interruption. What matters is that the treatment history is accurately documented and that any material gap can be evaluated in context. With the 90/180 category eliminated, maintaining clear medical documentation of an injury’s nature, extent, causation, and continuing consequences may matter even more when a claimant relies on a significant or permanent limitation category.
Does the new serious injury law affect No-Fault medical benefits?
Eliminating the 90/180 serious-injury category does not eliminate an injured person’s entitlement to qualifying New York No-Fault benefits. The serious-injury threshold governs the ability to recover non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering, in actions subject to Article 51. At the same time, No-Fault insurance addresses specified first-party economic losses, such as qualifying medical expenses and lost earnings. An injured person therefore should not assume that failing to establish serious injury means medical treatment is automatically excluded from No-Fault coverage. These components of New York’s automobile insurance system have different requirements, procedures, and deadlines.
Does meeting the serious injury threshold mean I automatically win my car accident case?
No. Serious injury, liability, causation, and damages are separate legal issues. Establishing a qualifying injury under Insurance Law § 5102(d) addresses the statutory threshold for pursuing non-economic damages in a covered automobile case. However, the injured person must still establish the defendant’s legal responsibility for the collision and connect the claimed injuries to that accident. The 2026 reforms also changed comparative-fault rules for actions subject to Insurance Law Article 51, making fault allocation potentially even more consequential. A case therefore should not be evaluated solely by looking at an MRI or deciding whether an injury appears severe. The circumstances of the collision, comparative fault, medical causation, serious-injury evidence, damages, and available insurance coverage all require separate analysis.
Why should an older accident claim be reviewed under the new law?
Older unresolved automobile accident claims deserve particular attention because the 2026 amendment applies based upon when the action or proceeding was commenced. Someone injured before May 26, 2026 may understandably assume that the law in effect on the accident date governs the serious-injury question, but that is not necessarily how the amendment operates. If the action was commenced on or after May 26, 2026, the new statutory framework may apply, including elimination of the 90/180 category. You must also consider the statute of limitations and any shorter claim-specific deadlines. Waiting to investigate the applicable law, medical proof, insurance coverage, and procedural history can create problems that extend well beyond the serious-injury threshold itself.
Why Choose Greenstein & Pittari, LLP?
Eliminating New York’s 90/180-day serious injury category changes how certain automobile injury cases must be investigated, documented, and litigated. A case that once might have relied substantially on evidence showing that an injured person could not perform customary daily activities for at least 90 of the first 180 days must now be evaluated under the eight categories remaining in Insurance Law § 5102(d). That requires careful attention to medical diagnoses, objective findings, functional limitations, causation, prior medical history, treatment continuity, prognosis, and the particular statutory category supported by the evidence.
Greenstein & Pittari, LLP has decades of experience representing seriously injured people throughout New York. Our attorneys investigate motor vehicle accidents, preserve evidence, analyze medical and diagnostic records, identify applicable insurance policies and coverage, and prepare claims to confront the defenses raised by insurance companies. For accidents and lawsuits with an effective date of May 26, 2026, we also examine when the action was commenced and which version of New York’s serious-injury and comparative-fault laws applies.
We represent injured people throughout Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, Staten Island, Westchester, Long Island, and throughout New York. Our attorneys and English- and Spanish-speaking staff provide personalized attention while preparing serious cases for aggressive litigation when necessary.
Don’t Be a Victim Twice. If you were injured in a New York motor vehicle accident and want to understand how elimination of the 90/180-day rule affects your rights, call Greenstein & Pittari, LLP at 1-800-VICTIM2 (1-800-842-8462) for a free consultation. No fee unless successful.