In Oswin v. Shaw, 250 N.J.Super. 461, 470, 595 A.2d 522 (App.Div.1991), the Supreme Court considered the case of a plaintiff who had suffered a soft tissue injury. Oswin, supra, 129 N.J. at 294, 609 A.2d 415. Oswin addressed only two questions: whether the court or jury must decide the verbal threshold issue and whether Oswin's disability fell within one of the nine statutory categories. Id. at 302, 609 A.2d 415. See also Thomas P. Weidner and Michael J. Canavan, The "New" Verbal Threshold: But is it Improved?; 24 Seton Hall Legis. J. 122-23 ("The Oswin Court adopted what can be characterized as a 'summary judgment plus' standard. . . . Ultimately, the Oswin Court announced a three-part requirement for plaintiffs seeking to pierce the verbal threshold under types 6, 7, or 8").