Under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act, a plaintiff suing a public entity is required to prove through objective medical evidence that he suffered a permanent injury resulting in a substantial loss.  In Gibson v. New Jersey Transit, plaintiff failed to do that, and his case was dismissed.

The plaintiff had an attorney file a notice of claim for an injury he sustained riding a New Jersey Transit Bus.  Then plaintiff acted pro se in filing the complaint, and throughout the discovery period.  Through discovery, the plaintiff provided limited evidence of treatment of his alleged injuries.  After the completion of discovery, New Jersey Transit moved for summary judgment under the Torts Claims Act, on the ground that the plaintiff could not show a permanent injury as required by the Act.   Plaintiff filed a cross-motion to re-open discovery to obtain additional medical evidence.  The trial court granted New Jersey Transit’s motion for summary judgment, and the Appellate Court affirmed.

The Court noted that there was nothing in the record to indicate that the plaintiff sustained a substantial, permanent injury.  Moreover, the trial court properly denied plaintiff’s motion to re-open discovery to obtain additional medical evidence since arbitration was already scheduled, and the plaintiff failed to show “exceptional circumstances” as required by the court rules.

Different jurisdictions handle the discovery process differently.  If you have a plaintiff dragging their feet and not providing timely discovery in New Jersey, dismissal might be a viable option.

Thanks to Heather Aquino for her contribution to this post.  For any questions contact ">.