*797 OPINION OF THE COURT
Thе question submitted is whether it constituted error in this personal injury action for plaintiffs doctors to testify that shе sustained (1) a "permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member” and (2) "significаnt limitation of use of a body function or system”, two of the statutory components of the "serious injury” threshold as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d). We conclude that it did not.
Plaintiff commenced this action seeking to recover damages for injuries to her right ankle and knee sustained when the vehicle she was driving collidеd with a vehicle driven by defendant Randy Green and owned by defendant Beverly Green. Plaintiff’s husband sought derivative damages. The testimony of which defendants complain was given during direct examination of plaintiff’s expert witnesses. To establish that plaintiff had sustained a serious injury, plaintiff’s two physicians were asked, in words tracking the statutory language, whether plaintiff sustained "a permanent consequential limitation” аnd "a significant limitation” of the use of a body member, function, organ or system. Over defendant’s objection both answered that she had. The doctors were also asked in nonstatutory language whether plаintiff had sustained a permanent injury and both answered that she had.
At the conclusion of the trial, the court asked the jury to determine whether plaintiff had sustained (1) permanent loss of a body organ, member, funсtion or system; (2) permanent consequential limitation of use of a body function or system; (3) significant limitation of use of a body function or system; or (4) a medically determined injury preventing normal activities for 90 out of the 180 days following the accident. The jury returned a verdict finding in plaintiff’s favor on questions 2, 3 and 4 and awаrded her damages.
Defendants claim the questions to the doctors were improper and inherently prejudicial because they posed the precise questions the jury was ultimately asked to answer in the interrogatories. They note that the jury answered the first question, asked of the doctors in nonstаtutory language, in the negative, implying that the jury exercised independent judgment only when not influenced by thе opinions expressed in the statutory words.
The admission of expert opinion evidence is a matter which rests within the discretion of the Trial Judge. Generally, an
*798
"expert” should be permitted to offer an opinion on an issue which involves " 'professional or scientific knowledge or skill not within the range оf ordinary training or intelligence’ ”
(Selkowitz v County of Nassau,
Whether an injury is permanent is usually a medical question beyond the knowledge of a lay jury. It was particularly so in this case in which plaintiff’s ankle and knee injuries could have been confused with effects of a hereditary orthopedic condition which required surgery on her right knee shоrtly after the accident. Whether a limitation of use or function is "significant” or "consequential” (i.e., imрortant;
see, Counter-mine v Galka,
Proof of the extent of plaintiff’s injury is necessary because the legislative intеnt underlying the No-Fault Law was to weed out frivolous claims and limit recovery to significant injuries
(see, Licari v Elliot,
The opinions of the physicians in this case, though framed in the language of questions submitted to the jury, were supported by objective evidence оf plaintiff’s condition and treatment
(see, Lopez v Senatore,
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should bе affirmed, with costs.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.
Order affirmed, with costs.
*800 I