McGovern v. Basich, No. A-3951-21, 2023 WL 8613540 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Dec. 13, 2023)

This case arose from a motor vehicle accident in which the plaintiff had a green light when her car was struck by the defendant’s car. The plaintiff sustained numerous physical injuries. She filed suit, alleging she sustained permanent injuries, thus entitling her to recover damages under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8(a) of the Automobile Insurance Cost Recovery Reduction Act, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-1.1 to -35.

The defendant filed for summary judgment at the close of discovery. The trial judge granted summary judgment to the defendant, noting that the certification of permanency submitted by the plaintiff had no “substantive weight or bearing” and that the plaintiff’s “constant and persistent [pain] [did] not rise to the level of a certification of permanency as anticipated by the statute.” The trial judge found that, absent evidence of a permanent injury, the plaintiff failed to vault the verbal threshold imposed by statute.

On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the grant of summary judgment. Looking to the record, the court noted that the plaintiff’s claims were nothing more than her own subjective complaints of pain without support by way of any objective, credible medical evidence. Specifically, the court noted that, while the plaintiff’s certification of permanency asserted that her injuries were permanent in nature, it failed to satisfy the statutory requirements because it: (1) never indicated which injuries were permanent in nature; (2) failed to cite any specific medical tests, medical records or medical procedures supporting the assertion of permanent injuries; and (3) did not causally connect the plaintiff’s injuries to the subject motor vehicle accident.