OREST OSTASZ v. ERNEST M. HOWARD,
Annotate this CaseNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-3542-01T1
OREST OSTASZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ERNEST M. HOWARD,
Defendant-Respondent,
and
JUST FOUR WHEELS, INC.,
Defendant.
___________________________________
Submitted: December 18, 2002 - Decided: January 21, 2003
Before Judges Kestin, Fall and Weissbard.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Civil Part, Atlantic
County, L-3901-00.
Perskie & Wallach, attorneys for appellant
(Frank A. Tomasello, Jr., on the brief).
Powell, Birchmeier & Powell, attorneys for
respondent (Edward N. Romanik, on the brief).
The opinion of the court was delivered by
KESTIN, P.J.A.D.
We are in substantial agreement with the underlying principle of decision and with its application to the case at hand. We have already ruled that the requirements and approaches of Oswin v. Shaw, 129 N.J. 290 (1992), continue to govern the application of verbal threshold standards under AICRA. See James v. Torres, 354 N.J. Super. 586, 590-96 (App. Div. 2002; see also Rios v. Szivos, 354 N.J. Super. 578, 580 (App. Div. 2002). The reasoning which informed our opinions in James and Rios regarding the Legislature's design applies to the question raised in this appeal, even more compellingly given the nature of the precise issue before us herein.
With the adoption of AICRA and its revised formulation of the verbal threshold, it was logical that a plaintiff would argue__notwithstanding the legislative statement that nothing therein "was intended to repeal otherwise applicable case law," Statement, S.B. 3, 1 998 Leg. 208th Sess. (N.J. 1998)__that because the verbal threshold had been substantively modified, the standards for defining or determining the character of the qualifying injury needed to be re-addressed as well. The same notion does not apply to the comparative analysis requirement of Polk, however, because that case dealt exclusively with process as distinguished from substance. Nothing in the language or history of AICRA suggests a legislative aim to modify the proof requirements for a verbal threshold case. Indeed, the legislative statement quoted above bespeaks a contrary intendment.
Affirmed. Footnote: 1 * The complaint had been dismissed as to the other defendant, Just Four Wheels, Inc., via a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice filed on June 8, 2001.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.