ANA L. PAZ VS. STATE OF NEW JERSEY (L-0991-14, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3290-15T3

Paz tripped on a broken concrete sidewalk at the Rahway MVC facility on March 21, 2012 and alleged cervical and lumbar injuries.
Imaging (May 2012 MRIs) showed cervical disc herniations (C4-5, C5-6) and lumbar pathology including L4-5 disc bulge and L5-S1 posterocentral herniation.
Paz underwent an L4-5 microdiscectomy in September 2012 with early postoperative improvement; surgeon reported "good" outcome and discharged her at maximum medical improvement in early 2013.
She returned to work and remained employed until 2014; she stopped medical treatment after December 2012 and used only OTC analgesics by the time her October 2015 exam.
Plaintiff’s experts diagnosed permanent conditions and opined the injuries were permanent, but offered limited objective proof of specific functional losses or quantified range-of-motion deficits.
Trial court granted summary judgment for the State under the Tort Claims Act (TCA) limitation on pain-and-suffering recovery, finding plaintiff failed to prove a "permanent loss of a bodily function that is substantial." Appellate division affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Paz proved the TCA exception permitting pain-and-suffering damages (permanent and substantial loss of bodily function)	Paz argued MRIs, surgery, and expert opinions show permanent disc herniations and chronic pain that substantially limit bending, walking, standing, sitting and other activities	State argued Paz’s objective evidence is insufficient: good surgical outcome, returned to work, no ongoing medical restrictions, only OTC meds, and experts did not quantify functional deficits	Held: No. Although injury was permanent, plaintiff failed to show a permanent, substantial loss of bodily function required by TCA; summary judgment affirmed

Knowles v. Mantua Twp. Soccer Ass'n, 176 N.J. 324 (2003) (framework for TCA recovery: objective permanent injury plus substantial permanent loss of bodily function)
Gilhooley v. County of Union, 164 N.J. 533 (2000) (examples of inherently objective, permanent impairments meeting TCA threshold)
Brooks v. Odom, 150 N.J. 395 (1997) (subjective pain and limited motion insufficient where plaintiff functioned in work and home roles)
Ponte v. Overeem, 171 N.J. 46 (2002) (no physical manifestation of permanent, substantial knee impairment)
Kahrar v. Borough of Wallington, 171 N.J. 3 (2002) (rotator cuff repair producing permanent substantial loss of range of motion met TCA threshold)
Ayers v. Township of Jackson, 106 N.J. 557 (1987) (limits on recovery for mere subjective discomfort under TCA)