These numbers include a variety of different types of accidents on New Jersey roadways such as: 

Different laws may be applicable and different insurance coverages implicated depending on the type of accident, the type(s) of vehicles involved, and your injuries. Verp & Leddy can review your case and help you to determine your options. Contact us today at (973) 256-900 to schedule your free consultation or fill out the form here. 

You may be entitled to payment of your medical costs, hospital bills, lost wages, loss of future earnings, and medical bills. You may also be entitled to millions of dollars for your pain and suffering, as well as punitive damages. You need a lawyer experienced in aggressively pursuing cases against those who choose to break the law. Contact Verp & Leddy now. 

Under AICRA , plaintiffs are eligible for non-economic damages only under narrowly defined circumstances. N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8(a). In order to recover, plaintiffs must demonstrate that they:

[s]ustained 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. An injury shall be considered permanent when the body part or organ, or both has not healed to function normally and will not heal to function normally with further medical treatment. Ibid. The statute also specifies the way in which plaintiffs must prove their purported injury. It provides that the injury must not only be proven by: “Objective clinical evidence, which may include medical testing […] and the use of valid diagnostic test” but also, such testing may not be experimental in nature or dependent entirely upon subjective patient response. 

Pain, complaints of numbness and tingling, and range of motion limitations are subjective, and cannot amount to objective evidence of a permanent injury to a body part that will never function normally, as required by the statute. In Jacques v. Kinsey, 347 N.J. Super. 112 (Law Div. 2001), the court explained:

The loss of range of motion findings, without more, are not based on objective evidence, but depend on the patient's response. “Because most range-of-motion tests are based only on patients' pain responses, they ordinarily will not suffice unless the restricted mobility is verified by physical examination and observation.” (citation omitted) Due to the inherent subjective nature of most loss of range of motion tests, findings of limitation of range of motion alone have not presented sufficient credible medical proofs to pass the verbal threshold. Polk v. Daconceicao, 268 N.J. Super. 568, 573, 634 A.2d 135 (App.Div.1993). As a result, these are subjective tests, which do not meet the statutory requirement for objective clinical evidence.

Subjective complaints of pain do not constitute a permanent injury under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8(a). And, if your injuries have healed to function normally they are not permanent as required under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8(a).

Therefore, you must retain a skilled personal injury attorney who can produce evidence to establish of objective bodily injury. Verp & Leddy can carry your burden!