C.O. VS. PINE HILL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION VS. D.C.M.(L-4862-13, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-2617-15T1

Background

In 2008 Carolyn (C.O.) was sexually abused by D.C.M.; he was later arrested, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced. After the criminal charges, D.C.M. stalked Carolyn and a restraining order issued.
In fall 2009 Carolyn entered Pine Hill High School; school staff met with her mother because D.C.M.'s daughter Arlene (A.M.) attended the same school and there was concern about safety and harassment.
Plaintiffs allege the school district placed Carolyn and Arlene in proximity (same homeroom, nearby lockers), allowed Arlene and other students to bully and harass Carolyn, and on occasions allowed D.C.M. onto school property despite the restraining order.
Carolyn and her parents sued the district and two school employees in 2013 for negligence and related claims; after discovery Carolyn sought to amend in 2015 to add a Law Against Discrimination (LAD) claim, which the trial judge denied as untimely.
The school-district defendants moved for summary judgment invoking the Tort Claims Act verbal threshold, N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(d), which bars pain-and-suffering damages against public entities/employees absent proof of a permanent and substantial injury; the judge granted summary judgment finding insufficient proof of permanent injury and no willful misconduct by the individual defendants.
The Appellate Division reversed: it held the motion to amend should have been allowed (no futility or prejudice), and that summary judgment was improper because Carolyn raised a genuine factual dispute that the school-related conduct aggravated preexisting PTSD sufficiently to satisfy the verbal threshold at the summary-judgment stage.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether leave to amend to add an LAD claim should be denied as untimely	Amendment merely adds a new legal theory against the same defendants and requires no new discovery or parties	Amendment is too late in litigation and would prejudice defendants	Reversed: amendment should have been permitted — no futility, no undue prejudice, no delay required
Whether N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(d) verbal threshold bars pain-and-suffering damages because plaintiff had preexisting PTSD from sexual abuse	Carolyn argued sexual molestation and ensuing PTSD (and alleged school-related aggravation) can satisfy the verbal threshold; expert reports assert permanent psychiatric injury tied to both the molestation and school harassment	Defendants argued plaintiff’s PTSD manifested before the school’s involvement so they cannot be held responsible for a permanent injury that predates their conduct; thus summary judgment should be granted	Reversed: at summary judgment plaintiff need not segregate injuries; allegations and expert reports that school conduct aggravated preexisting PTSD raise a triable issue sufficient to defeat summary judgment
Whether plaintiff was required at summary judgment to present a comparative-medical analysis distinguishing preexisting injuries from aggravation by school conduct	Plaintiff need only raise a genuine issue of causation that could permit a factfinder to conclude aggravation occurred	Defendants relied on precedents requiring comparative analysis to avoid summary judgment	Court applied Davidson framework: no comparative analysis required at summary stage — only enough evidence to create a triable issue; comparative proof needed at trial if plaintiff seeks to prove aggravation
Whether individual public employees can avoid the verbal threshold by claiming lack of willful misconduct	Plaintiff argued individual defendants acted willfully so verbal threshold doesn't apply to them	Defendants argued plaintiff did not plead willful conduct; trial court relied on absence of willfulness	Appellate court did not decide this issue on appeal and remanded for further proceedings

Key Cases Cited

Notte v. Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 185 N.J. 490 (2006) (motions to amend pleadings are liberally granted unless amendment is futile)
Prime Accounting Dep't v. Twp. of Carney's Point, 212 N.J. 493 (2013) (amendments allowed even when ultimate merits are uncertain)
Collins v. Union County Jail, 150 N.J. 407 (1997) (psychological injury from sexual assault can constitute permanent loss of bodily function under verbal threshold)
Brooks v. Odom, 150 N.J. 395 (1997) (verbal-threshold requires the alleged loss be substantial)
Davidson v. Slater, 189 N.J. 166 (2007) (at summary judgment a plaintiff need only raise a genuine issue of causation; detailed comparative analysis may be required at trial)
Polk v. Daconceicao, 268 N.J. Super. 568 (App. Div. 1993) (comparative-medical analysis required in preexisting-injury aggravation cases under prior no-fault approach)
Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (1995) (standard for accepting plaintiff’s factual allegations on summary judgment)
A.C.R. v. Vara, 264 N.J. Super. 565 (Law Div. 1992) (trial court opinion recognizing presumption that sexual molestation can meet verbal threshold)