Issue: Under Minnesota law, what evidence is required to adequately establish future medical expenses as an element of damages?
| Area of Law: | Litigation & Procedure, Personal Injury & Negligence |
| Keywords: | Future medical expenses; Evidence; Damages |
| Jurisdiction: | Minnesota |
| Cited Cases: | 450 N.W.2d 353 |
| Cited Statutes: | None |
| Date: | 04/01/2013 |
To recover future medical expenses, a plaintiff must show two elements by a preponderance of evidence. First, he must demonstrate that it is likely that future medical treatments will be required. Second, he must establish the amount the expenses are likely to be. Lind v. Slowinski, 450 N.W.2d 353, 358 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990); Kwapien v. Starr, 400 N.W.2d 179, 184 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987).
Expert testimony is not the exclusive means of proving future damage. See Pagett v. No. Elec. Supply Co., 167 N.W.2d 58, 65 (Minn. 1969); Gensler v. Paulson, No. A04-609 at *3 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2005) (unpublished) (noting that record containing evidence of past treatment and life expectancy was sufficient).
[…]