Section 17 Future Medical and Hospital Expenses

• Library: Damages 2012

Missouri courts have reached a variety of results when considering the sufficiency of evidence to establish the necessity of future medical and hospital expenses.

Missouri courts have held that evidence of certain injuries is sufficient in and of itself to support a claim for future medical and hospital expenses. In Barger v. Green, 255 S.W.2d 127, 132 (Mo. App. W.D. 1953), the claimant was a 70-year-old man who had suffered a comminuted fracture of the upper femur. “His leg was causing pain at the time of the trial,” and he had been incapacitated by the injury for more than one year. Id. at 132. The Barger court cited Sang v. City of St. Louis, 171 S.W. 347, 349 (Mo. 1914), as on point and controlling
to establish that the evidence of the injury itself was sufficient to support the claim for future medical and hospital expenses.

When direct medical testimony is elicited at trial, it may be subjected to a very technical analysis of its sufficiency to support a claim for future medical expenses. See Crawford v. Chicago-Kansas City Freight Line, Inc., 443 S.W.2d 161 (Mo. 1969). In Crawford, the claimant’s physician testified that he “felt that [the plaintiff] might require decompression of the nerve roots if the pain persisted . . . .” Id. at 164. At trial, his testimony was developed to state that when he used the word “might,” he would intend to say “most likely.” Id. From that, it was developed that the physician intended “might” to mean “reasonable medical probability for attempted relief.” Id. The Court determined that this was competent, substantial evidence that the claimant would need surgery in the future.

It is interesting to note that it is apparently not necessary for a claimant to show the likely cost of any future medical or hospital services. The Court in Crawford stated that “it is of no consequence that plaintiff did not prove the cost of fusion or stabilization surgery.” Id. at 167. As authority for this position, the Crawford Court cited Gelhot v. City of Excelsior Springs, Missouri, 277 S.W.2d 650 (Mo. App. W.D. 1955), in which the court accepted evidence of the claimant’s condition as a helpless “paralytic” who would never improve her condition as substantial evidence to support a claim for future medical and nursing services. It is interesting that the court went on to dismiss the lack of any evidence of the value or extent of these future services as likely a matter of speculation. The court observed that is was unlikely that anyone knew...