In Jefferson v. Freeman, 296 N.J.Super. 54, 685 A.2d 1357 (App.Div.1996), the issue before the Court was the appropriate jury instruction for a type 9 injury. In that case, there was no allegation of fracture, and plaintiff alleged surmounting the verbal threshold under type 7, 8 or 9. However, in its legal discussion the court did state in dicta as follows: While considering claims for permanent injuries under types four, six, seven or eight, we have consistently evaluated various proofs of the 'serious impact' on a plaintiff's life and have consistently held that subjective evidence of such impact combined with objective medical evidence of causation, would suffice. Typically that evidence is presented by certification accompanying the opposition to a defendant's pretrial motion for summary judgment. See, Sherry v. Buonansonti, 287 N.J.Super. 518, 671 A.2d 606 (App.Div.1996); Cavanaugh v. Morris, 273 N.J.Super. 38, 41, 640 A.2d 1192 (App.Div.1994); Moreno v. Greenfield, 272 N.J.Super. 456, 464-65, 640 A.2d 335 (App.Div.1994); Foti v. Johnson, 269 N.J.Super. 198, 635 A.2d 104 (App.Div.1993); Polk v. Daconceicao, 268 N.J.Super. 568, 576, 634 A.2d 135 (App.Div.1993).