[brief] RESPONSE TO APPELLANTS’ PRELIMINARY STATEMENT  Appellants’ Brief refers to a “Preliminary Statement”.  It does not contain one.  RESPONSE TO APPELLANTS’ STATEMENT OF FACTS  1.  Admitted.  2.  Admitted.  3.  Admitted that there was a collision between plaintiffs’ and defendant’s vehicle and that the police officer found that defendant was at fault.  Respondent denies that police officer’s conclusion on liability is admissible evidence or is germane to the issue on Appeal.  The fact that a collision occurred and the officer’s opinion on “fault” are not dispositive of any issue raised by respondent’s summary judgment motion or the Appeal.  Admitted that damage estimates refer to fact that plaintiff’s vehicle was “totaled”.  The fact that damage estimates refer to a “totaled” vehicle is not dispositive of any issue raised on defendant’s summary judgment motion or on the present Appeal.  4.  Denied that plaintiffs produced objective credible medical evidence of permanent injury in response to defendant’s summary judgment motion.  5.  Denied.  Appellants contend that they “keep seeing doctors”.  The brief supporting defendant’s motion for summary judgment (which was based on discovery exchanged during the time allotted by the trial court for discovery) refers to a discovery end date of July 29, 2022, and that plaintiffs’ treatment ended earlier ([...] and [...] on November 8, 2021) (Pa26).  The narrative reports of plaintiffs’ medical expert [...], confirm that both plaintiffs were discharged by him on August 16, 2021 (Pa47 and Pa163).  Plaintiffs never moved to extend discovery to address continuing treatment, either in response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, or at any other time.  Therefore, respondent objects to plaintiffs’ reference to treatment administered after the dates identified in respondent’s summary judgment brief and to “continuing treatment” which was not part of the record below.  6.  This paragraph referring to [...] and an “IME”, cannot be admitted or denied because it is unintelligible.  Neither party produced evidence of an IME obtained by [...] for [...]’s consideration in deciding defendant’s motion for summary judgment.  7.  Plaintiffs’ subjective complaint of an inability to secure work because of the need to pursue treatment is not dispositive of any issue raised on defendant’s summary judgment motion or on the Appeal.  No claim of lost wages was alleged in the case below.  The narrative reports of plaintiffs’ expert [...] make no reference to inability to work or occupational disability.  8.  Plaintiffs’ subjective complaints involving difficulty with childcare, inability to live a “good married life”, “financial difficulties” and “physical discomfort” are not dispositive of the question whether objective credible medical evidence of permanent injury was presented in opposition to the motion or whether a rational fact finder could reasonably decide there was a permanent injury based on plaintiff’s proofs.  The contentions addressed in Paragraph 8 of Appellants’ Statement of Facts were not addressed in the narrative reports of their medical expert, [...] (Pa47 and Pa163).  RESPONDENT’S PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND GENERAL STATEMENT