Knowles v. Mantua Township Soccer Ass'n, 176 N.J. 324

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the plaintiff presented sufficient objective medical evidence of a permanent injury and substantial loss of bodily function to satisfy the New Jersey Tort Claims Act threshold for pain-and-suffering damages. The court reversed summary judgment for the Township of Mantua and remanded the matter for trial. A dissent argued that the plaintiff's injuries were comparable to those in Brooks v. Odom and did not meet the statutory threshold.

Holdings

1. Knowles satisfied the first prong of the Brooks/Gilhooley test because abnormal EMG results and MRI evidence of lumbar disc herniation, together with medical opinions that the injuries were permanent, constituted objective medical evidence of a permanent injury.
2. Whether an injury constitutes a substantial permanent loss of a bodily function is determined through a fact-sensitive analysis focused on the nature and degree of the ongoing impairment; no per se rule controls all cases.
3. Knowles's objective medical evidence and alleged substantial functional limitations satisfied the Tort Claims Act threshold sufficiently to permit a jury to determine whether he was entitled to pain-and-suffering damages; summary judgment was therefore improper.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Knowles presented sufficient objective medical evidence of a permanent injury to satisfy the first prong of the New Jersey Tort Claims Act threshold under N.J.S.A. 59:9-2d.
2. Whether the alleged permanent impairment constituted a substantial permanent loss of a bodily function sufficient to permit recovery of pain-and-suffering damages under N.J.S.A. 59:9-2d.
3. Whether summary judgment for the Township was proper when the evidence, viewed favorably to Knowles, could permit a rational factfinder to find that the Tort Claims Act threshold was met.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded