Most New Jersey drivers carry the "limitation on lawsuit" option, better known as the verbal threshold. It means you cannot recover for pain and suffering after a crash unless you prove a permanent injury or one of five other listed categories. We reviewed each threshold ruling in our 76-decision corpus, including the published Law Division ruling Rashid: 13 rulings, 2018 to 2025. In 7 the threshold was not cleared, including cases that failed for lack of admissible proof and cases with a jury finding of no permanent injury. In 2 the jury found permanency and the verdicts (240,000 and 930,500 dollars) held up on appeal. In 4 the case turned on procedure before the threshold was decided. Here is what separated them.
The method in one table
| What | Value |
|---|---|
| Corpus | 76 NJ Appellate Division car-injury decisions: 52 published (CourtListener, 2018 to 2026) and 24 unpublished (Justia, 2025) |
| Rulings where the verbal threshold was in issue | 13 |
| Grouped as threshold outcomes | 9 (7 not met, 2 met) |
| Decided on procedure before reaching permanency | 4 |
| Verification | every ruling read at the threshold passages; every dollar figure located in the opinion text |
| Precedential weight | 2 published Appellate Division decisions, 1 published Law Division ruling (Rashid), and 10 unpublished decisions; publication alone does not make a Law Division ruling binding appellate precedent |
1. What the threshold requires
Under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8(a), a driver who chose the limitation on lawsuit option can recover non-economic damages only for: death, dismemberment, significant disfigurement or significant scarring, a displaced fracture, loss of a fetus, or a permanent injury within a reasonable degree of medical probability. Permanent means the body part or organ "has not healed to function normally and will not heal to function normally with further medical treatment". The plaintiff must serve a physician's certification of permanency within 60 days of the defendant's answer, and must prove permanency with objective, credible medical evidence (Serrano v. Serrano, 183 N.J. 508 (2005), quoted in several of the rulings below).
Economic losses are not limited by the threshold. Medical bills beyond PIP and lost income remain recoverable whether or not the injury is permanent.
2. The seven rulings grouped as not clearing the threshold
| Ruling | County | What ended the claim |
|---|---|---|
| Wallace v. McGinnis (12 Dec 2025, unpublished) | Middlesex | no medical expert report served before discovery closed; late amendment of interrogatories did not cure it; summary judgment affirmed |
| Orlando v. Williams (21 Oct 2025, unpublished) | Essex | hospital tests negative on the night; later MRI showed bulges and herniations, but "without any competent and admissible evidence showing permanence ... or causally linking them to the accident", the claim failed as a matter of law |
| Zavis v. NJM (15 May 2025, unpublished) | Union | 74-year-old passenger with a pre-existing lumbar condition who pleaded no aggravation; without a comparative analysis separating old from new, summary judgment for the insurer was affirmed |
| Williams-Siraj v. Schwartz (19 Mar 2025, unpublished) | Essex | alleged aggravation of a pre-existing back condition; no expert designated in discovery; failed to prove the defendants caused the injuries claimed |
| Joo v. Corless and Farmers (6 May 2025, unpublished) | Middlesex | UIM trial; the defence orthopaedist found "a cervical and lumbar strain, which were temporary injuries" healing in six weeks to six months; jury found no permanent injury; no aggravation charge because no evidence of a pre-existing condition was offered |
| Koukounias v. NJM (12 Mar 2025, unpublished) | Middlesex | hit-and-run, phantom vehicle, UM claim; jury answered "no" to permanent injury proximately caused by the accident; verdict for the insurer affirmed |
| NJ Transit v. Sanchez (4 Dec 2018, published) | Bergen | the injured employee had no permanent injury, so no pain-and-suffering claim; the court held his employer's compensation carrier could still recover the 33,625 dollars medical and 22,949 dollars wage loss it paid |
3. The two rulings where permanency was found and the verdict held
| Ruling | County | Injury | Verdict | On appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lamothe v. Huggins (21 Mar 2025, unpublished) | Burlington | cervical disc herniations at C5-6 and C6-7, lumbar bulges at L4-5 and L5-S1, cervical radiculopathy | 930,500 dollars (927,000 non-economic, 3,500 lost earnings); judgment with interest 954,344.07 | new-trial motion denied; affirmed |
| Presbery v. Willitts (17 Mar 2025, unpublished) | Burlington | acute and permanent C6-7 disc herniation, C5-6 radiculopathy, aggravation; rear-ended at a red light on Route 73, Maple Shade, March 2020 | 240,000 dollars non-economic; judgment with interest 250,885.48 | affirmed |
Both wins share the same shape: imaging that showed a herniation, a treating physician who tied it to the crash and called it permanent, and a jury that heard both sides. The gap between 240,000 and 930,500 for similar diagnoses is the clearest illustration in the corpus of why no "average" exists: same injury category, same county, same year, a 3.9 to 1 ratio.
4. The four rulings decided on procedure
| Ruling | What happened | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Escobar-Barrera v. Kissin (1 Jul 2020, published) | liability stipulated; mid-trial dismissal after a witness did not appear and the judge found neither permanency nor causation could be shown; supraspinatus tear on MRI | reversed, new trial ordered: the dismissal denied the plaintiff's substantial rights |
| McKoy v. Reese (4 Dec 2025, unpublished) | liability stipulated; jury found no permanent injury after evidentiary rulings on medical statements and a jury question answered "rely on your own recollection" | reversed, new trial ordered |
| Diero v. Kim (23 Jan 2025, unpublished) | the 60-day certification of permanency and discovery obligations were not met; dismissed with prejudice | affirmed: the trial court was "well within its discretion" |
| Rashid v. Reed (31 Jul 2018, published, Law Division) | at a permanency-only trial, the plaintiff wanted to testify that a passenger was also hurt | not relevant to whether the plaintiff's own injury was permanent |
5. What separated the winners from the losers
| Factor | In the 2 wins | In the 7 losses |
|---|---|---|
| Objective imaging | MRI herniations with radiculopathy | present in some (Orlando, Williams-Siraj) but not tied to permanency or cause by an admissible expert |
| Treating or expert physician who testified | yes, both | missing or late in 3; contradicted by the defence doctor in 2 |
| Pre-existing condition handled | aggravation pleaded and proved (Presbery) | pleaded as "no aggravation" despite strong evidence of one (Zavis); not pleaded at all (Joo) |
| Certification of permanency on time | yes | late or absent (Wallace, Diero, Williams-Siraj) |
| Who decided | jury, after both sides' doctors | summary judgment in 4, jury in 3 |
Threshold check: five questions before you rely on a pain-and-suffering claim
| Check | Fix if it fails |
|---|---|
| Does your policy carry the limitation on lawsuit option? | Read the declarations page; if yes, every item below applies |
| Has a physician certified permanency within 60 days of the defendant's answer? | Ask your lawyer for the certification date; Diero was dismissed over this |
| Is there objective imaging and a doctor who will testify that the injury is permanent and crash-caused? | An MRI alone lost in Orlando; the testimony is the proof |
| Did you have a prior injury to the same body part? | Plead aggravation and get a comparative analysis; denying it lost Zavis |
| Are your economic losses documented separately? | They survive even if the threshold is not met (NJ Transit v. Sanchez) |
Method and data
Download the dataset (CSV). Browse the complete 76-decision New Jersey case index.
The 13 rulings are every decision in our 76-case corpus where the verbal threshold was in issue. The corpus combines 52 published decisions indexed by CourtListener (including four Law Division rulings) and 24 unpublished 2025 Appellate Division decisions from Justia, coded for crash type, injuries, threshold issue and outcome, UM/UIM, PIP, amounts and appellate result, then de-duplicated by docket. Each threshold ruling was read at the relevant passages and each dollar figure was located in the opinion text. Unpublished opinions do not bind other courts; they are included because they show how 2025 trial decisions are being reviewed, and each is linked to its full text. Counts describe appealed cases, not all claims. Reviewed 5 November 2026.
Questions people ask
What is the verbal threshold in NJ?
The limitation on lawsuit option in N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8(a): with it, you recover pain and suffering only for death, dismemberment, significant disfigurement or scarring, a displaced fracture, loss of a fetus, or a permanent injury proved by objective medical evidence.
What are the exceptions to the verbal threshold in NJ?
The six listed categories above. There is no exception for severity of pain or length of treatment on its own; the injury has to fit a category, and "permanent" is the one most cases turn on.
Does a herniated disc meet the verbal threshold in New Jersey?
It can. Both affirmed verdicts in this corpus involved disc herniations with radiculopathy and a physician who testified they were permanent and crash-caused. One herniation case lost because no admissible expert tied it to permanency or to the crash.
What happens if I fail the verbal threshold?
Pain-and-suffering damages are barred. Economic losses such as medical expenses beyond PIP and lost wages remain recoverable, as NJ Transit v. Sanchez confirmed for a compensation carrier's claim.
Can I choose not to have the verbal threshold?
Yes, the "no limitation on lawsuit" option costs more in premium and removes the bar. The choice is made on the coverage selection form when the policy is bought or renewed.
Sources and scope
Statutes and rules: N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8(a); Serrano v. Serrano, 183 N.J. 508 (2005). Every ruling linked to its free full text (CourtListener for published, Justia for unpublished). Dataset: Download the article dataset (CSV), a slice of the NJ car-accident appeals index. General information from court decisions, not legal advice; we are not a law firm and no outcome is promised. Was your accident in New Jersey? The questionnaire is the next step.