Opinion ID: 3161725
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Medical Damages

Text: Under Louisiana law, a tort victim may recover both past and future medical expenses. Menard v. Lafayette Ins. Co., 31 So. 3d 996, 1006 (La. 2010). The plaintiff “shows the probability of future medical expenses with supporting medical testimony and estimations of their probable cost.” Id. “[F]uture medical expenses must be established with some degree of certainty”; that is, the plaintiff must prove “by a preponderance of the evidence the future medical expense will be medically necessary.” Id. Nevertheless, “an award for future medical expenses is in great measure highly speculative and not susceptible to calculation with mathematical certainty,” so fixing such awards generally “turn[s] on questions of credibility and inferences, i.e., whose experts and other witnesses does the jury believe?” Id. (citation omitted). Thus, a jury’s determination of the appropriate amount of future medical damages is “entitled to great deference on review,” and may only be disturbed if it lacks a reasonable basis and is clearly wrong. Id. at 1007. And where the jury’s findings depend on crediting the testimony of competing witnesses, its decision will almost never be clearly wrong. Id. at 1008. Defendants argue that Berry failed to prove that he would need rhizotomies for the rest of his life, and that the only future medical expenses that could reasonably be awarded are the costs of an annual ablation for the five additional years supported by medical literature described at trial. But it was undisputed at trial that Berry was injured by the accident, and his treating physician testified (1) that Berry would need some form of pain management for the rest of his life and (2) that he had personally given 6 Case: 15-30483 Document: 00513302416 Page: 7 Date Filed: 12/10/2015 No. 15-30483 patients annual rhizotomies for longer than seven years with good results. Defendants cross-examined Dr. Turnipseed and offered their own medical expert in an attempt to persuade the jury that Berry’s claimed future medical expenses were unsupported—but the jury evidently credited Berry’s evidence. See Menard, 31 So. 3d at 1007 (“Where there is conflict in the testimony, reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review.” (citation omitted)). On this record, we cannot say that the jury’s medical expenses award is unreasonable and clearly wrong, or that the district court abused its discretion in declining to disturb it.