Major Car Accident Verdict in the NJ State Supreme Court won by Franklin
Solomon of Weitz & Luxenberg
Christina DiProspero v. Barbara J. Penn, et
al. (A-66-03)
This is part 6 of major car collision verdict won by Franklin Solomon of Weitz & Luxenberg. VI.In conclusion, we hold that the plain language of N.J.S.A. 39:6A- 8(a) does not contain a serious life impact standard.Nothing in AICRA ’s preamble, its legislative history, or its policy objectives suggests that the Legislature intendedthis Court to write in that standard. We will not torture the legislative history in this case to create an ambiguity in anotherwise clear statute. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division affirming the trial court ’s entryof summary judgment in favor of defendants, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES LONG, ZAZZALI, andWALLACE join in JUSTICE ALBIN ’s opinion.JUSTICE RIVERA- SOTO filed a separate concurring opinion. JUSTICE LaVECCHIA did not participate. 1 "‘Noneconomic loss' means pain, suffering and inconvenience." N.J.S.A. 39:6A-2(i). return2 "Abbreviation for temporomandibular joint dysfunction." Stedman's Medical Dictionary 1605 (25th ed. 1990). The temporomandibular joint "relat[es] to the temporal bone and themandible." Id. at 1560. The temporal bone is a "three-partbone[] forming the side[] and base of the skull." Webster's II New College Dictionary 1135 (2001). The mandible is the "lower jaw . . . ." Id. at 664. return 3 "Myositis fibrosa" is a hardening "of a muscle through aninterstitial growth of fibrous tissue." Stedman's Medical Dictionary, supra, at 1016, 1018. return 4 We note that a doctor at MRImaging and a chiropractor at the Rocky Mountain Chiropractic Radiological Center in Colorado bothreviewed the MRI scans and found them to be normal.return 5 In granting summary judgment, the trial court did not reach theissue of whether plaintiff's injuries were permanent. return 6 The Oswin Court noted that the serious life impact "requirementseems to comport with the New York cases." 129 N.J. at 318 (emphasis added).New York's comparable no fault statutecontained the identical nine verbal threshold categories. Id. at 303, 315. The New York verbal threshold statute, however,specifically defined "serious injury" as an injury described inone of its nine statutory categories. Id. at 303. Our review of current New York case law indicates that in New York a plaintiff need only prove that the injury fits into one of itsnine statutorily defined categories to be deemed serious and tovault the threshold. See, e.g., Pommells v. Perez, ___ N.E.2d ___, ___, ___ n.1 (N.Y. 2005) (explaining that "[o]nly in theevent of ‘serious injury' as defined in the statute, can a person initiate suit against the car owner or driver for damagescaused by the accident" and that N.Y. Ins. Law § 5102(d) defines"serious injury" as one of nine statutorily defined categories);Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 774 N.E.2d 1197, 1200-02(N.Y. 2002). From our historical vantage point, we cannot findin New York case law since Oswin, supra, a requirement that, inaddition to satisfying one of the nine statutorily definedthreshold categories, the plaintiff must prove that the injuryhad a serious life impact. return 7 The basic policy under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-3.1 provides less PIP coverage than in a standard policy, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4. return 8 See James, supra, 354 N.J. Super. at 594-96; Rios, supra, 354 N.J. Super. at 580, 584. return 9 Senators Donald T. DiFrancesco and John H. Adler sponsored thebill. There also were a number of co-sponsors. return 10 This section of the Sponsors' Statement to the Senate versionof AICRA relating to the verbal threshold is identical to theSponsors' Statement to the General Assembly version of the bill.Compare Sponsors' Statement to Senate Bill No. 3, supra, at 59,with Sponsors' Statement to Assembly Bill No. 1970, at 66 (Apr.16, 1998), available at http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/9899/Bills/a2000/1970_i1.pdf. return 11 The "teeth" referred to the requirement that a physicianattest to the plaintiff's injury in a certification underpenalty of perjury and to the criminal penalty attaching to thefiling of a false certification. See N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8(a). return see also: Part 3  Major Car Crash Verdict in New Jersey State Supreme CourtFREE Major car crash verdict information Opinion Major Car Accident Verdict in New Jersey State Supreme CourtFREE information on New Jersey State Supreme Court major car accident verdict Major Car Accident Verdict Major Car Accident Verdict in the NJ State Supreme Court won by Franklin SolomonOur own Franklin Solomon in the NJ State Supreme Court won a major car accident verdict |
