 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
DiProspero v. Penn6/14/2005
Argued November 29, 2004
The 1998 Automobile Insurance Cost Reduction Act (AICRA), N.J.S.A. 39:6A-1.1 to --35, provides automobile insurance policyholders with a choice: lower premium payments in exchange for limiting their right (and the right of those covered by the policy) to sue for non-economic damages if injured in an accident. That option, known as the "limitation on lawsuit" threshold, restricts an accident victim covered by the policy from suing a defendant for non-economic damages unless she suffers "a bodily injury which results in death; dismemberment; significant disfigurement or significant scarring; displaced fractures; loss of a fetus; or a permanent injury within a reasonable degree of medical probability, other than scarring or disfigurement." N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8(a).
The 1988 verbal threshold, the predecessor to the limitation on lawsuit threshold, required the accident victim to prove that her injury satisfied at least one of nine statutory categories in order to qualify for recovery of non-economic damages. L. 1988, c. 119, ยง 6. In Oswin v. Shaw, we concluded that under the verbal threshold, in addition to proving that her injury fit within one of the applicable statutory categories, the accident victim had to prove that she suffered a serious life impact. 129 N.J. 290, 318 (1992). AICRA's limitation on lawsuit threshold, which is significantly different from the verbal threshold, has only six categories and does not contain language requiring that an accident victim prove that the injury caused a serious life impact.
In this appeal, we must decide whether Oswin's serious life impact standard applies to AICRA's limitation on lawsuit threshold. The plain language of the statute, a comparative analysis of the old and new lawsuit thresholds, and a survey of AICRA's legislative history persuade us that the Legislature did not intend to engraft the Oswin language onto the limitation on lawsuit threshold. We conclude that an automobile accident victim who is subject to the threshold and sues for non-economic damages has to satisfy only one of AICRA's six threshold categories and does not have the additional requirement of proving a serious life impact.
I.
The trial court granted, and the Appellate Division affirmed, defendant's motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, we review the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff.
R. 4:46-2(c); Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995).
On November 30, 1999, defendant Barbara Penn was driving a pickup truck owned by defendant Martha Turner. At the Route 73 traffic circle in the Borough of Berlin, Penn failed to observe a "yield" sign and crashed into a car operated by plaintiff Christina DiProspero. As a result of the accident, the twenty-one-year-old plaintiff developed back and neck pain. Six days later, plaintiff visited her family physician, Dr. Harris Twersky, who prescribed a treatment plan of stretching and exercise. Plaintiff followed the plan for four months, but her back pain grew progressively worse, and she began to suffer from jaw pain and headaches.
In April 2000, plaintiff consulted with Dr. Steven Scafidi, a chiropractor, who recorded plaintiff's complaints of jaw grinding and of neck, shoulder, and mid-and lower-back pain.
Dr. Scafidi x-rayed plaintiff and diagnosed her as having "a TMJ dysfunction" and "a strain/sprain injury that is accompanied by ligamentous instability, myofascitis and localized evidence of nerve root irritation." Plaintiff also underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of her cervical, lumbar, and thoracic spinal areas at MRImaging of South Jersey in Marlton. Accordi
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 New Jersey Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|