On Monday I argued an extremely interesting issue before the Superior Court of New Jersey-Appellate Division.  One of the issues on appeal was whether or not neuropsychological testing is objective as defined by New Jersey’s verbal threshold law.

In New Jersey, in order for an injured person, who selected the limitation of lawsuit threshold on their automobile insurance policy, to recover damages for non-economic damages, that person must show that he/shesustained a permanent injury based upon objective medical testing.  That diagnosis must then be certified as permanent by a treating doctor. 

Under New Jersey’s threshold requirement, the objective proof of injury necessary to succeed cannot be dependent entirely upon subjective patient response.  Defense counsel argued that since neuropsychological testing requires the input of the patient, it does not meet the statutory definition. 

On behalf of the injured plaintiff, I asserted that neuropsychological testing is objective as defined by the statute.  In support of that, I introduced and presented statements from various medical literature as well as pointing out that defendant’s own neuropsychologist conceded that the testing was not based solely upon the patient’s subjective responses.

I trust we will get the court’s decision within the next six months.