PAULA DLADLA v. GEORGE VOLLMER

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
 
 
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-7104-03T5

PAULA DLADLA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

GEORGE VOLLMER,

Defendant-Respondent.
_______________________________

Text Box
 
September 26, 2005

Submitted: September 13, 2005 - Decided:

Before Judges Axelrad and Kimmelman.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, L-960-03.

Nicholas A. Mattera, attorney for appellant.

Edward Hoagland, Jr., attorney for respondent (Jeffrey S. Raefski, on the brief).

 
PER CURIAM

Plaintiff, Paula Dladla, appeals from the grant of summary judgment dismissing her complaint for personal injuries for failure to satisfy the verbal threshold for noneconomic losses under the Automobile Insurance Cost Reduction Act of 1998 (AICRA). The trial judge found plaintiff failed to establish she suffered a serious injury from the subject accident and the injury made a significant or severe impact on her life. He also found plaintiff submitted no comparative analysis of her pre- and post-accident injuries. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the grant of summary judgment on both prongs of Oswin v. Shaw, 129 N.J. 290 (1992), as applied to AICRA by James v. Torres, 354 N.J. Super. 586 (App. Div. 2002), certif. denied, 175 N.J. 547 (2003). The judge's decision and counsels' briefs on appeal predated our Supreme Court's decisions in DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477 (2005) and Serrano v. Serrano, 183 N.J. 508 (2005).
On March l8, 200l plaintiff's vehicle was struck on the driver's side by an SUV owned and operated by defendant. She experienced neck and lower back pain and was treated at the emergency room following the accident. After consulting with her family physician, she was treated by a chiropractor, neurologist, pain management specialist, physical therapist and orthopedic surgeon. Two MRIs of plaintiff's lumbar spine performed in May and June of 2001 revealed "[d]iffuse bulging discs of the L2-L3 through the L5-S1 discs" and "[m]arked facet hypertrophy with evidence of synovial cyst formation and active inflammatory changes of the right facet joint at L5-S1." An EMG study performed in May 200l of plaintiff's "right lower extremity and associated paraspinal muscles was consistent with right-sided L5-S1 radiculopathies." Plaintiff also presented medical opinion of permanent injury causally related to the accident.
Plaintiff had a preexisting condition of osteoarthritis since l993. Furthermore, she injured her "left and/or right side of her back and aggravated her low back pain" in a June 22, 2002 motor vehicle accident during which the car she was operating was rear-ended. The May 15, 200l report of her neurologist, Dr. Arthur Rothman, referenced plaintiff's prior arthritis and concluded that "[t]he problem in the cervical spine represents an exacerbation of a previous condition in that area. However, her lumbar radiculopathy is simply causally related to the recent accident." Plaintiff also submitted a March 25, 2004 report from Dr. Mary Swajian, a physician who is Board Certified in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Electrodiagnosis. It summarized plaintiff's subjective complaints and treatment pertaining to both the subject and subsequent accidents and the MRIs performed for each accident, and contained diagnostic impressions relative to both accidents. Plaintiff also presented evidence to support her second-prong claim of substantial impact on her lifestyle.
Under the current case law, "an automobile accident victim who is subject to the [verbal] threshold and sues for noneconomic damages has to satisfy only one of AICRA's six threshold categories and does not have to have the additional requirement of proving a serious life impact." DiProspero, supra, 183 N.J. at 481. Such a victim "has to prove only an injury defined in N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8(a), and does not have to clear the additional hurdle of proving a 'serious injury.'" Serrano, supra, 183 N.J. at 510. The trial judge analyzed defendant's summary judgment motion in the context of the two-prong requirement of the prior case law. He made findings as to plaintiff's inability to establish "serious injury" and significant impact on lifestyle. Accordingly, a reversal of summary judgment and remand is warranted for presentation and analysis of this case in light of the holdings of DiProspero and Serrano.
Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.

Text Box
 
 


A-