Opinion ID: 2291678
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Expert Testimony Regarding the Cost of Future Medical Treatment

Text: In her final point, Ms. Deck claims the trial court erred in excluding Dr. Bennoch's testimony regarding the costs of her possible future medical treatment. Specifically, Ms. Deck asserts that [t]he trial court erred in excluding expert testimony pertaining to appellant's possible future medical condition and treatment because such evidence is clearly admissible under Missouri law, in that it assists the trier of fact in evaluating the nature and extent of appellant's injuries. Because the case is remanded, the Court need not decide whether the trial court's exclusion of Dr. Bennoch's testimony constituted reversible error. Nevertheless, because the issue may arise on remand, it will be discussed briefly. The facts that give rise to this point revolve around Dr. Bennoch's testimony regarding Ms. Deck's possible need for surgery on her injured shoulder. Specifically, Dr. Bennoch testified he would recommend a repeat MRI of Ms. Deck's shoulder; if the MRI showed further deterioration, then a more extensive arthroscopic surgery would be required. When Dr. Bennoch was questioned about the cost of such surgery, Mr. Teasley's attorney objected on the basis that the question called for speculation. In response, Ms. Deck's attorney argued that future medical treatment conditioned on the outcome of care is admissible. Ultimately, the trial court sustained Mr. Teasley's objection and disallowed evidence of the cost of Ms. Deck's possible future surgery as speculative because Dr. Bennoch did not testify to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that surgery would be needed. In an offer of proof, Dr. Bennoch estimated that future surgery would cost between $15,000 and $20,000 and that physical therapy would cost several thousand additional dollars. On cross-examination, Dr. Bennoch confirmed his earlier testimony that Ms. Deck's need for future medical treatment was dependent on the results of a future MRI; therefore, surgery was only a possibility and future treatment was speculative. At the end of the offer of proof, Ms. Deck again sought admission of Dr. Bennoch's testimony regarding the cost of her future care, which the trial court denied. Because of the passage of time since trial, the circumstances surrounding Ms. Deck's need for future medical treatment may have evolved. For example, Ms. Deck's condition may have changed or she may have had intermittent MRI scans, which could alter Dr. Bennoch's testimony regarding the possibility of future treatment. In the event Ms. Deck offers the same testimony from Dr. Bennoch on remand, the trial court's decision to admit or deny such evidence should be informed by this Court's decision in Swartz v. Gale Webb Transp. Co., 215 S.W.3d 127 (Mo. banc 2007). Swartz involved the testimony of two physicians regarding the possibility of a plaintiff's need for future surgery. Id. at 129. While each physician testified the plaintiff had an increased risk of surgery, neither could testify to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that surgery would be needed. Id. at 130. In fact, one of the physicians testified that the need for future surgery was speculation. Id. Nevertheless, the Court held the testimony of both physicians, which included an estimate of the cost of the future surgery, was admissible for the purpose of establishing the nature and extent of the plaintiff's present injuries. Id. at 133. In reaching its holding, the Court distinguished between present injuries and future consequences. The Court noted that a plaintiff only is entitled to recover for an injury not yet occurring if the injury is reasonably certain to occur in the future. Id. at 130. However, the Court noted that expert testimony regarding a plaintiff's increased risk of future consequences is admissible to aid the jury in assessing the extent and value of the plaintiff's present injuries even if those future consequences are not reasonably certain to occur. Id. at 131. The Court noted that other Missouri cases [3] have admitted expert testimony regarding the possibility of future surgery and the potential costs of such treatment, despite the fact that such treatment was not reasonably certain to occur. Id. On remand, the trial court should consider the effect of Swartz and the cases cited therein to determine the admissibility of evidence regarding Ms. Deck's possible future medical treatment.