Virginia Long

“ The fact that a physician has jury-rigged the knee to function with pins and wires in no way inhibits the characterization of that injury as the permanent loss of a bodily function. The same would be true of a plaintiff whose vision is restored with a lens, one whose hearing is restored with a hearing aid, and one whose heart is operating efficiently with a pacemaker or implanted valve. ”

“ Although the legislative intent in the Tort Claims Act is not completely clear, we believe that the Legislature intended that a plaintiff must sustain a permanent loss of the use of a bodily function that is substantial. A total permanent loss of use would qualify. We doubt, however, that the Legislature in-tended that a claimant could recover only for losses that were total. As the Workers' Compensation Act demonstrates, the Legislature is aware of the distinction between permanent injuries that are total and those that are partial. ”

“ However, that every objective permanent injury results in substantial loss of a bodily function does not follow. An easy example is a completely healed fracture without any objective evidence of permanent substantial impairment. ”