What evidence satisfies Utah's no-fault tort threshold for permanent impairment? Pinney v. Carrera Explained

Utah’s no-fault insurance statute creates significant barriers for personal injury plaintiffs seeking general damages. Under Utah Code section 31A-22-309(1)(a), plaintiffs must demonstrate they have sustained specific threshold injuries, including “permanent disability or permanent impairment based upon objective findings.” The Utah Court of Appeals’ decision in Pinney v. Carrera provides crucial guidance on what evidence satisfies this demanding standard.

Background and Facts

After defendant ran a stop sign and struck plaintiff’s vehicle, plaintiff sued for personal injuries, focusing exclusively on non-economic damages. Plaintiff’s chiropractor testified that she suffered a herniated disc that was “permanent” and would “plague” her for the rest of her life. While physical therapy restored most of plaintiff’s range of motion, the chiropractor explained they “couldn’t ever get 100 percent” and the scar tissue would not disappear. An MRI corroborated the disc herniation, and lay witnesses testified about plaintiff’s ongoing limitations.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether plaintiff’s evidence satisfied Utah’s no-fault tort threshold for permanent impairment based on objective findings. Defendant argued that “objective findings” required expert testimony from someone other than the treating physician and formal impairment ratings. The court also addressed whether the $300,000 general damages award was excessive and whether the trial court erred in refusing defendant’s “proximate cause” jury instruction.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court conducted a plain language analysis of the statutory terms. “Permanent” means conditions “reasonably certain” to continue throughout the person’s life. “Impairment” refers to loss of bodily function, while “objective findings” are those “based on externally verifiable phenomena” rather than the plaintiff’s subjective perceptions. Critically, the court held that objective findings need not come from someone other than the treating physician—they simply must be demonstrated through evidence beyond the plaintiff’s own testimony.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that treating physicians can provide sufficient objective findings when their testimony is based on reproducible examinations and supported by diagnostic evidence like MRI results. Practitioners should ensure treating physicians testify specifically about permanence and loss of function, not merely injury existence. The court’s rejection of formal impairment rating requirements provides flexibility but demands careful attention to the objective nature of medical findings and their corroboration through diagnostic testing and lay witness testimony.