Whitaker v. Devilla __ NJ __ (A-60/61/62-96, 1997)
The Deemer statute does not violate the Equal Prosecution Clause of the United States or the New Jersey Constitutions; the Legislature expressly intended the Deemer statute to impose the verbal threshold on all out-of-state insureds that sustain automobile accident injuries in New Jersey and whose policies were issued by insurers authorized to transact business in New Jersey; although the finding of muscle spasms by Whitaker's medical experts may constitute an objective medical finding, the conclusion of both lower courts that the reports do not offer adequate evidence to overcome the verbal threshold will not be disturbed.
http://www.njlaws.com/deemer_statute_is_not_unconstitutional.html?id=157&a=
The Deemer statute does not violate the Equal Prosecution Clause of the United States or the New Jersey Constitutions; the Legislature expressly intended the Deemer statute to impose the verbal threshold on all out-of-state insureds that sustain automobile accident injuries in New Jersey and whose policies were issued by insurers authorized to transact business in New Jersey; although the finding of muscle spasms by Whitaker's medical experts may constitute an objective medical finding, the conclusion of both lower courts that the reports do not offer adequate evidence to overcome the verbal threshold will not be disturbed.
http://www.njlaws.com/deemer_statute_is_not_unconstitutional.html?id=157&a=
