Opinion ID: 2622540
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Award of Future Medical Expenses Lacked a Sufficient Evidentiary Basis.

Text: Lynden asks that the jury's award of future medical expenses be reversed, arguing that there was precious little evidence of any such expenses, and [that] there was no evidence with which the jury could determine any such expense. Directed verdicts on future medical expenses, as on other subjects, are reviewed to determine whether the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, supports the verdict. [52] Although Walker presented enough evidence to prove a reasonable probability of future medical expense, [53] we conclude that he failed to give the jury sufficient information to estimate reasonably the amount of his likely future expenses. A party seeking damages for future medical expenses bears the burden of proving damages. [54] The fact of damages must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. [55] The amount of damages needs to be proven only to such a degree that the finder of fact can make a reasonable estimate. [56] Dr. Richard Cobden testified that Walker would need more surgery on the ankle, that he would have pain for the rest of his life, and that he will have future complications from his injury. But Dr. Cobden testified that Walker would only need one additional surgery. Except as to that surgery, Dr. Cobden did not testify that Walker would probably require future medical attention. For example, he testified that there was a fifty percent chance Walker would require antibiotics for the rest of his life. He testified that there was a risk of future arthritis. He testified that Walker's ankle would break more easily than before the injury, but not that it would probably break. Lynden argues that Walker therefore failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that he would have future medical expenses, except as to antibiotics and occasional pain medication, and except for the one surgery anticipated by Dr. Cobden. But a jury could have considered all of the possible complications described by Dr. Cobden and decided that Walker would incur significant future medical expenses. Because reasonable persons could differ in their judgments whether Walker will require future medical treatment, we will not overturn the trial court's denial of Lynden's motion for a directed verdict. [57] Lynden asserts that even if Walker had proved that he would incur future medical expenses by a preponderance of the evidence, he failed to give the jury data upon which to make a reasonable estimate of Walker's future medical costs. The proponent of a damage award for future medical expenses must give the fact finder a means by which to reasonably estimate the amount of such damages. [58] In support of its contention, Lynden argues that the only future medical expenses Walker proved to a reasonable probability were antibiotic and pain medication, and monitoring for infection. [59] Lynden then argues that, based on what was reasonably shown, the award of $200,000 was excessive. In Sherbahn v. Kerkove , we upheld a $15,000 award of future damages for medical expenses. [60] In that case, the plaintiff offered expert testimony that he would require trigger-point injection therapy, with a potential cost of $8,000-$15,000. [61] Because a plaintiff need only present some data ... upon which [the jury] might reasonably estimate the amount of future medical expenses, we found that the award was supported by the evidence. [62] By contrast, Walker did not present the jury with evidence, even in the form of estimates, of the costs of the various future medical procedures he would require. Except for $3,376.82 of past expenses for transportation and prescription drugs, Walker provided no data on the cost of his potential future medical costs. He presented the court with a lump sum of $92,757.56 of past medical expenses, but did not break down the lump sum to demonstrate what various procedures or therapies cost. The jury therefore did not have adequate information before it on which it could have based an award of future medical costs, except for prescription drugs. Even though Dr. Cobden testified that Walker would require at least one more surgery, he did not estimate the cost of that procedure. We therefore vacate the award of future medical expenses and order a remittitur. [63]