Legal Opinion
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Hoang
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided September 5, 1996No. 95-CV-39, 95-CV-40PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FARRELL, Associate Judge:
These consolidated appeals present the primary issue of whether the trial judge correctly reserved to himself the threshold issue of whether plaintiff Hoang met the “medically demonstrable ... impairment” requirements of the No-Fault statute, D.C.Code § 35 — 2105(b)(1) (1993), thus enabling Hoang to maintain this civil action despite having received PIP (personal injury protection) benefits under the statute. Relying on language in our decisions and his (correct) understanding that § 35-2105(b) was intended as a screening device “to filter out undeserving cases,” the…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Licari v. ElliottNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
- Sere v. Group Hospitalization, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1982
- DiFranco v. PickardMichigan Supreme Court · 1986
- Oswin v. ShawSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1992
- Jonathan Woodner Co. v. BreedenDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Fireman's Fund Insurance v. CTIA—The Wireless Ass'nDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2007
- Harris v. Howard University, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 1998
- R.I. Pools, Inc. v. Paramount Concrete, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2014