by the Government of New Jersey

“ The Court observed in Kahrar that it is the nature or degree of the ongoing impairment that determines whether a specific injury meets the threshold requirement under the Tort Claims Act. Thus, there is no per se rule that would preclude finding a permanent and substantial loss of a bodily function merely because a claimant still is able to function reasonably well at work and at home, irrespective of the nature or degree of the impairment. Based on that standard, we held that the "plaintiff has adequately demonstrated a permanent and substantial loss of a bodily function." ”

“ Feldman's final assessment concerning plaintiff's knee stated that plaintiff had sustained
probable internal derangement of the knee, despite arthroscopic surgery [and] there can be recurring episodes of chondromalacia patella [,] which may be permanent in nature. . . . The knee has had ongoing symptoms and further evaluation can be considered in the future to see if there is any potential [chance] of additional surgeries giving him improvement over time. However, the patient had chondromalacia of the patella and this may progress despite surgical intervention as well. ”

“ The court further noted that in some instances, "there also could be a grey area between these two extremes, where the evidence is conflicting and neither party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." ”