Court Opinion

ID: 9909432
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-13 15:06:13.097693+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:18.520257
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
                               APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
        This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
     internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

                                                        SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                                        APPELLATE DIVISION
                                                        DOCKET NO. A-3951-21

SIOBHAN MCGOVERN,

          Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

REBECCA A. BASICH,

          Defendant-Respondent,

and

GEICO INSURANCE COMPANY, 1

     Defendant.
_______________________________

                   Argued November 28, 2023 – Decided December 13, 2023

                   Before Judges Mayer, Enright and Paganelli.

                   On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
                   Division, Bergen County, Docket No. L-5518-20.

1
  In the trial court, plaintiff stipulated to the dismissal of her claims against
defendant GEICO Insurance Company.
            John A. Conte, Jr., argued the cause for appellant
            (Meyerson, Fox, Mancinelli & Conte, PA, attorneys;
            John A. Conte, Jr., and Kyle D. Whittle, on the brief).

            Andrew G. Toulas argued the cause for respondent
            (Harwood Lloyd, LLC, attorneys; Andrew G. Toulas,
            of counsel and on the brief; Paul Edward Kiel, on the
            brief).

PER CURIAM

      Plaintiff Siobhan McGovern appeals from a July 22, 2022 order granting

summary judgment to defendant Rebecca A. Basich after the motion judge found

she failed to vault the verbal threshold 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. We affirm.

      We recite the facts from the summary judgment motion record. Plaintiff

was involved in a car accident on October 25, 2018. Plaintiff had a green light

when her car was struck by Basich's car. Plaintiff treated for neck, back, and

left shoulder symptoms after the October 25 car accident. According to the

treatment records, plaintiff had a cervical disc bulge, cervical facet syndrome,

and subjective complaints of pain in her left shoulder.      Plaintiff received

acupuncture and an injection to reduce the inflammation and address her pain

                                                                          A-3951-21
                                       2
complaints, attended physical therapy, and obtained a prescription for pain

medication. Plaintiff also underwent an MRI.2

      As a result of her injuries, plaintiff filed a complaint alleging she sustained

permanent injuries entitling her to recover damages under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8(a).

After the close of discovery, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment.

In opposing the motion, plaintiff asserted there were genuine issues of material

fact precluding judgment as a matter of law. In addition, plaintiff belatedly

submitted a certification of permanency from her primary care physician, Dr.

Michael Sabia. In Dr. Sabia's certification, he stated plaintiff's injuries were

permanent and would not improve with further treatment.

      On July 14, 2022, the judge heard oral argument on defendant's motion.

At the motion hearing, plaintiff's counsel requested permission to file April 2022

notes prepared by an advanced practice nurse (APN) in further support of Dr.

Sabia's certification of permanency.         Defendant did not oppose plaintiff's

request, and the motion judge agreed to continue the motion on July 22, 2022.

      After hearing counsel's arguments and reviewing plaintiff's supplemental

submissions in support of her claim to have suffered a permanent injury as a

2
  None of the MRIs revealed any cord impingement in plaintiff's neck, back, or
left shoulder.
                                                                               A-3951-21
                                         3
result of the October 2018 car accident, the judge granted summary judgment to

defendant. The judge considered Dr. Sabia's certification, even though it was

submitted after the close of discovery, and found the certification had no

"substantive weight or bearing." In reviewing the APN's certification, the judge

stated plaintiff's "constant and persistent [pain] [did] not rise to the level of a

certification of permanency as anticipated by the statute." Absent any evidence

of a permanent injury, the judge found plaintiff failed to vault the verbal

threshold imposed by statute and granted summary judgment to defendant.

      On appeal, plaintiff argues the judge erred in granting summary judgment

because there were genuine issues of material disputed facts. Additionally,

plaintiff asserts Dr. Sabia's certification of permanency established she suffered

a permanent injury. We reject these arguments.

      We review an order granting summary judgment "de novo and apply the

same standard as the trial court." Rios v. Meda Pharm., Inc., 247 N.J. 1, 13

(2021). Summary judgment will be granted when "the competent evidential

materials submitted by the parties," viewed in the light most favorable to the

non-moving party, show there are no "genuine issues of material fact" and "the

moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law." Grande v.

St. Clare's Health Sys., 230 N.J. 1, 24 (2017) (quoting Bhagat v. Bhagat, 217

                                                                             A-3951-21
                                        4
N.J. 22, 38 (2014)); see also R. 4:46-2(c). We owe no special deference to the

motion judge's legal analysis. RSI Bank v. Providence Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 234

N.J. 459, 472 (2018).

      In New Jersey, an individual seeking automobile liability insurance must

select one of two tort options: the "[l]imitation on lawsuit option" or the "[n]o

limitation on lawsuit option." N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8. A person covered by an

insurance policy with the limitation-on-lawsuit option, also known as the verbal

threshold, has "a limited right of recovery" for noneconomic damages sustained

in an automobile collision. DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477, 486 (2005). When

an individual elects the limitation-on-lawsuit option, they may recover in tort

for noneconomic damages only if the injuries "vault" the verbal threshold.

Davidson v. Slater, 189 N.J. 166, 189 (2007).

      To vault the verbal threshold, a plaintiff first must show that "as a result

of bodily injury" arising out of a defendant's operation of their automobile, the

plaintiff suffered "a permanent injury within a reasonable degree of medical

probability, other than scarring or disfigurement." N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8(a). A

"permanent injury" is one that "has not healed to function normally and will not

heal to function normally with further medical treatment."        Ibid.; see also

Sackman v. N.J. Mfrs. Ins. Co., 445 N.J. Super. 278, 290 (App. Div. 2016)

                                                                            A-3951-21
                                        5
(quoting N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8(a)). A plaintiff is required to prove the existence of

a permanent injury based on "objective clinical evidence." Escobar-Barrera v.

Kissin, 464 N.J. Super. 224, 234 (App. Div. 2020); DiProspero, 183 N.J. at 505-

06. Additionally, a plaintiff must show their injuries were proximately caused

by the defendant's negligence. Davidson, 189 N.J. at 185.

      To recover damages under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8, a plaintiff shall:

            within 60 days following the date of the answer to the
            complaint by the defendant, provide the defendant with
            a certification from the licensed treating physician or a
            board-certified licensed physician to whom the plaintiff
            was referred by the treating physician. . . . The
            certification shall be based on and refer to objective
            clinical evidence, which may include medical
            testing . . . . Such testing may not be experimental in
            nature or dependent entirely upon subjective patient
            response.

      Here, viewing the record in a light most favorable to plaintiff, the judge

correctly determined plaintiff's injuries failed to vault the verbal threshold. The

judge found plaintiff's claims were nothing more than her own subjective

complaints of pain without support by way of any objective credible medical

evidence.

      Despite being submitted well after the close of discovery, and after

defendant moved for summary judgment, the judge considered Dr. Sabia's

certification of permanency. Dr. Sabia's certification stated the following:

                                                                             A-3951-21
                                        6
            I hereby certify that I have personally examined
            [plaintiff] and have reviewed the [m]edical [r]eports,
            MRI result[s], and [o]bjective [f]indings as to the
            [p]atient and based on objective clinical evidence opine
            that the injuries sustained by [plaintiff] are permanent
            in nature, have not healed to normal function and will
            not heal with further medical treatment.

      While Dr. Sabia asserted plaintiff's injuries were permanent in nature, his

certification failed to satisfy the requirements under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8. Dr.

Sabia never indicated which injuries were permanent in nature. Additionally,

the doctor failed to cite to any specific medical tests, medical records, or medical

procedures supporting his assertion that plaintiff suffered permanent injuries.

Nor did he causally connect plaintiff's injuries to the October 2018 car accident.

      None of plaintiff's medical records, including those from Dr. Sabia ,

opined that the October 2018 car accident resulted in plaintiff suffering a

permanent injury within a reasonable degree of medical probability.

Additionally, plaintiff failed to supply any narrative medical report establishing

her injuries were causally connected to the October 2018 car accident. Plaintiff's

subjective complaints of pain were insufficient to establish objective credible

evidence of a permanent injury.

      Under the verbal threshold statute, plaintiff was required to provide

objective medical evidence that she suffered a permanent injury that would not

                                                                              A-3951-21
                                         7
heal with further medical treatment. Plaintiff presented no evidence from any

medical expert to satisfy the requirements of N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8(a) to be entitled

to recover damages.     Thus, we are satisfied the judge properly granted

defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiff's complaint

with prejudice.

      To the extent we have not addressed any arguments raised by plaintiff,

they lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-

3(e)(1)(E).

      Affirmed.

                                                                          A-3951-21
                                       8