Search Rutgers Law Library N.J. Court Opinions

106 JESSE L. MICKENS, JR. v. TIMOTHY S. MISDOM and CITY OF ELIZABETH January 7, 2015 -- rank: 559

... conclusion, the jury found a permanent injury, as necessitated by N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(d), and awarded plaintiff $2,400,000 in damages for ...

docket:	a0326-13
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2015-01-07
status:	published
citation:	438 N.J.Super. 531 105 A.3d 1163
Document Size:	41966

107 ARTHUR WILDONER V. THE BOROUGH OF RAMSEY, RAMSEY POLICE DEPT., ET ALS -- rank: 559

... against plaintiff; and (6) determining that defendants were immune under N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(d).     We conclude plaintiff raised genuine issues of material facts ...

docket:	a1730-97
court:	njappellate
decided:	1998-12-08
status:	published
citation:	<a href=
Document Size:	40662

108 ANNA I. BOLZ v. JOSEPH BOLZ -- rank: 557

... medical treatment expenses are in excess of $3,600.00. . . . [ N.J.S.A. 59:9-2.] See generally Knowles v. Mantua Twp. Soccer Ass'n , 176 ... suffering damages when the injured party has not met the N.J.S.A. 59:9-2 threshold, but that does not mean a public employee is ...

docket:	A0916-06
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2008-05-08
status:	published
citation:	400 N.J.Super. 154 946 A.2d 596
Document Size:	70529

109 KATHLEEN FISHER v. KEAN UNIVERSITY -- rank: 557

... the pain and suffering threshold under the Tort Claims Act,' N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(d), 'a plaintiff must satisfy a two-pronged 1 Plaintiff ... inappropriate. She also contended her injuries met the requirements of N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(d). In a comprehensive written opinion, Judge Mary F. Thurber ...

docket:	a2520-20
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2022-03-29
status:	Unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	20904

110 MARIA M. HOLMAN v. CITY OF ATLANTIC CITY -- rank: 557

... the loss of a bodily function" within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(d), and noted that he saw no "evidence supporting [any ... she has sustained a permanent loss of a bodily function. N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(d). To establish a permanent loss of a bodily function ...

docket:	a3971-10
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2012-03-07
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	16738

111 ERIKA TYREE v. ORANGE BOARD OF EDUCATION -- rank: 552

... permanent disfigurement or dismemberment" where medical expenses exceed $3,600. N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(d). To defeat a motion for summary judgment a plaintiff ... limitations do not meet the threshold required for recovery under N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(d). Affirmed. 1 Although the order under appeal granted partial ...

docket:	a3695-10
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2012-02-09
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	19393

112 CHRISTINA VAZQUEZ v. RAMON F. MERCADO -- rank: 552

... to non-economic damages, which the court granted, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(d)'s verbal threshold. 2 NJT subsequently filed another motion ... balance of plaintiff's claims were later dismissed, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(e)'s collateral source rule, because plaintiff could have recovered ...

docket:	a6235-12
court:	New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2015-08-18
status:	Published
citation:
Document Size:	20118

113 JAMES SANDS v. BOROUGH OF BAY HEAD -- rank: 549

... his injury was substantial pursuant to the Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(d), we reverse. This matter comes before us on Bay ... a substantial injury; and (2) disfigurement within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(d). We agree and reverse. When reviewing a grant of ... permanent loss of a bodily function, permanent disfigurement or dismemberment[.]" N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(d). Thus, in order to defeat a motion for summary ...

docket:	a0084-10
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2011-08-18
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	20628

114 TRACEY JACKSON v. DANIEL CONTENTO -- rank: 546

... limitations do not meet the threshold required for recovery under N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(d). Affirmed. This archive is a service of Rutgers School ...

docket:	a5699-08
court:	superior court appellate division
decided:	2010-10-06
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	21371

115 JOHN R. THOMAS, JR v. CITY OF EAST ORANGE -- rank: 546

... income that would be recoverable through worker's compensation. See N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(e); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Collella , 169 N.J. Super ... is the third-party tortfeasor, the Tort Claims Act (TCA), N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(e), bars subrogation by the employer or its worker's ... A. 34:15-40(f). However, in enacting the TCA, N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(e), the Legislature intended that the cost of worker's ... S.A. 34:15-40(f) -- is expressly prohibited by N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(e), in order to 'limit the exposure to liability of ...

docket:	a1468-10
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2011-06-22
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	10201

116 Potente v .County of Hudson -- rank: 546

... ā€¯ [ Coleman , supra , 87 F.3d 1491 , 1511-12 (citing N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(a)).] Coleman and Hurley misread Rule 4:42-11(b ... of judgment against a public entity or public employee.ā€¯ N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(a). Therefore, TCA claims are not subject to Rule 4 ...

docket:	a-56-05
court:
decided:	2006-06-06
status:
citation:	*CITE_PENDING*
Document Size:	59571

117 KELLY McFARLAND v. BOROUGH OF COLLINGSWOOD -- rank: 544

... medical treatment expenses are in excess of $3,600.00. [N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(d).] To establish a permanent loss of bodily function, 'a ...

docket:	a4795-16
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2018-05-11
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	73532

118 ROBERT PONTE et al. v. RICHARD OVEREEM et al. -- rank: 544

... medical treatment expenses are in excess of $1,000.00.         [ N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(d).]     The issue here is whether defendants have established as ...

docket:	a3300-99
court:	njappellate
decided:	2001-02-26
status:	published
citation:	337 N.J.Super. 425
Document Size:	25951

119 DANIEL KUDELKA v. CITY OF SOUTH AMBOY -- rank: 533

... J.S.A. 59:1-1 to 12-3, specifically N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(e). We find no foundation in the law for either ... 162 , 170 (App. Div. 1995). South Amboy also argues that N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(e) bars reimbursement. In pertinent part, N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(e) provides, "[n]o insurer or other person shall be ...

docket:	a4953-09
court:	superior court appellate division
decided:	2011-02-16
status:	Unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	15643

120 RICHARD BEVILACQUA et al. v. TOWNSHIP OF VERONA -- rank: 533

... suffering was barred for failure to meet the requirements of N.J.S.A. 59:9-2. Judge Marie P. Simonelli rendered an oral decision holding that ...

docket:	a4140-05
court:	njappellate
decided:	2007-03-02
status:	unpublished
citation:	*CITE_PENDING*
Document Size:	31567