Last week, the New Jersey Appellate Division issued a decision rejecting a defense attack on the objectivity of neuropsychological testing. The Court held, that the defendant’s argument was totally without merit.
In the case, DiBartolomeo v. Drexel Herman, plaintiff sustained a traumatic brain injury as a result of a motor vehicle collision. Under New Jersey law, since plaintiff had selected the “verbal threshold” on her insurance policy, she was required to prove at trial that she had sustained an objectively documented permanent injury. At trial, defendant moved to dismiss her claim asserting that plaintiff failed to produce any competent objective evidence that she had sustained a brain injury. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that neuropsychological testing was objective and satisfied the verbal threshold. At trial, the trial court ruled that the issue was one for the jury but that on its face, neuropsychological testing would meet the threshold.
On cross-appeal, defendant argued that the trial court erred in not dismissing plaintiff’s complaint again arguing that neuropsychological testing was not objective. On appeal, the Appellate court rejected this argument. A reading of the entire case can be found here.