Does change in New Jersey's PIP law entitle injury victims to future medical costs?
'The record shows the trial court was misled into error here and we are confident justice will ultimately be achieved,' plaintiffs attorney Gerald Clark said.
The New Jersey Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether a legislative amendment to the state’s personal injury protection, or PIP, law allows an accident victim to collect benefits for postcrash medical expenses.
The court will look at allegations that a trial judge applied an older version of the PIP statute, disregarding a recent revision to the law.
In Brehme v. Irwin, plaintiff Linda Brehme, then 64, was waiting at a red light in Paramus on Dec. 16, 2016, when a vehicle driven by Thomas Irwin struck her from behind, according to court documents. Her car was totaled and she was injured in her spine and wrists, according to court documents.
After a jury trial, Brehme was awarded $225,000 for pain and suffering and $50,000 for lost wages. With interest, the judgment came to $311,435.
However, Judge Robert Wilson of Bergen County Superior Court would not allow Brehme to be compensated for her future medical expenses, which were estimated at $236,000, said her attorney, Gerald Clark. The judge failed to apply a recent revision allowing such compensation, said Clark, of the Clark Law Firm in Belmar.
“The trial went well. We overcame on all the issues. We got a good award from the jury. We’re appealing the medical bills issue because it was wrong,” Clark claimed.
Clark said that in a 2019 Supreme Court ruling, Haines v. Taft, the Supreme Court said that in an auto injury trial with PIP medical benefits, medical bills are not admissible.
In other words, Clark said, if a patient had $100 in medical bills, but only $25 available in PIP coverage, the plaintiff could not claim the remaining $75 at trial.
The court’s ruling in Haines invited the Legislature to address the issue at hand, stating, “Should the legislature disagree with our restrained interpretation of its statutory scheme, we invite the legislature to make its intention to introduce fault-based suits into the no-fault medical reimbursement scheme more explicit.”
After the ruling in Haines, the Legislature amended a portion of the PIP statute, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12, to state that any medical bills beyond available PIP benefits are collectible at trial, Clark said.
But Wilson disregarded the amended version of N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12, and barred the claim for future medical bills, Clark said.
Wilson said the statute “specifically states that all uncompensated medical expenses not covered by personal injury protection limits applicable to the injured party are not compensable and not admissible,” according to Clark. But “[i]n fact N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 states the exact opposite,” Clark said in his petition for certification.
Clark appealed Wilson’s ruling, and an Appellate Division panel ruled that the right to appeal is waived by Brehme’s receipt and acceptance of the judgment and her adversary’s filing of a warrant of satisfaction. The panel did not address whether the trial judge properly applied the PIP statute.
Carl Mazzie of Foster & Mazzie in Totowa, who represents the driver who struck Brehme’s car, did not respond to a call about the case.
But Mazzie, in his brief opposing Supreme Court certification, cited a 1945 Court of Errors and Appeals case, In re Mortage Guaranty, which said, “It is a well-recognized rule that a litigant who voluntarily accepts the benefits of a judgment is estopped from attacking it on appeal.”
Clark argued the trial court decision “resulted in a stark unfairness, an unjustifiably uncompensated loss and a windfall for the defense. This was the very thing the Supreme Court invited the Legislature to correct in the Haines decision. The Legislature accepted this invitation and amended N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 later that same year. The trial court inexplicably disregarded this and should be reversed.”
Clark claimed the filing of a warrant of satisfaction on the plaintiff’s pain-and-suffering claim did not waive or abandon her claim for future medical expenses, which is a distinct issue. He cited Guarantee Insurance v. Saltman, a 1987 Appellate Division case, which said a plaintiff can accept a partial judgment and appeal the denial of a different element of a damages claim.
“We are humbled, optimistic and honored to advocate for Linda and many others like her before the highest court in our state,” Clark said. “The record shows the trial court was misled into error here and we are confident justice will ultimately be achieved.”
Related: