ISIDRO RODRIGUEZ et al. v. SHERI L. HOPEWELL
Annotate this CaseNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-1727-04T21727-04T2
ISIDRO RODRIGUEZ
and JESSENIA RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
SHERI L. HOPEWELL,
Defendant-Respondent,
TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP.,
GIOVANNI'S and
STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants.
________________________________
Argued November 15, 2005 - Decided
Before Judges Lisa and S.L. Reisner.
On appeal from the Superior Court of
New Jersey, Law Division, Morris
County, L-3864-02.
Howard D. Popper argued the cause for appellants.
Brian R. O'Toole argued the cause for respondent (O'Toole & Couch, attorneys;
Mr. O'Toole, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
This is a verbal threshold case. Plaintiffs appeal from a trial court order granting summary judgment dismissing their complaint. We reverse and remand for trial.
The facts may be summarized as follows. On December 19, 2000, defendant's car ran a stop sign and hit plaintiffs' car. On March 22, 2001, an MRI of Mr. Rodriguez's spine revealed at least one herniated disc at L4-L5 and L5-S1 with nerve root compression, herniated discs at T1-T2 and T3-T4, and a herniated disc at C5-C7 with compression on the thecal sac. His treating chiropractor provided a certification that he suffered a permanent injury caused by the accident. Defendant also provided a report from a neurological surgeon opining that his symptoms were due to the accident. Mrs. Rodriguez also underwent an MRI which showed a herniated disc and she also filed a certificate of permanency.
The trial judge granted summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiffs "have not shown that level of objective, permanent injury sufficient to overcome the first prong of the Oswin theory. And even if they did, a serious impact on their lives simply is not there." See Oswin v. Shaw, 129 N.J. 290 (1992).
Having reviewed the record, we find that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, readily permits an inference that they each suffered a permanent injury caused by the accident. Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995). And, since the "serious impact" prong of the Oswin test is not applicable, following the Supreme Court's holding in DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477 (2005), we must reverse and remand this matter for trial.
Reversed and remanded.
(continued)
(continued)
3
A-1727-04T2
November 23, 2005
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.