Background
Emily Schultz was stopped in interstate traffic when Wayne Clark’s motorcycle struck another vehicle, became unmanned, and then hit the rear of Schultz’s vehicle. Schultz alleged that the crash caused permanent neck pain and migraine headaches.
A jury found Clark 100% negligent and awarded Schultz $2,437,243.24, including $1,428,750 for future medical expenses. Clark and his insurer sought a new trial, challenging the future-expense award, accident-reconstruction evidence, jury instructions, and alleged trial misconduct.
The Court’s Holding
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the negligence verdict and all damage awards except future medical expenses. It held that Schultz’s physician supplied sufficient expert support for future Botox injections and physical-medicine-and-rehabilitation visits, but the record lacked competent expert evidence establishing the need, nature, or extent of future chiropractic care and physical therapy caused by this crash.
Because the jury returned a single future-medical-expense figure, the court could not tell whether it included unsupported chiropractic or physical-therapy costs. The error was therefore not harmless. The court ordered a new trial limited to the amount of Schultz’s future medical expenses.
Key Takeaways
- A future-care award requires expert proof of the permanent injury, necessary future treatment, and treatment costs.
- A life-care planner may estimate costs but cannot supply missing medical proof of the need for treatment.
- The court upheld admission of the Wisconsin Motorcyclists’ Handbook and related reconstruction testimony, subject to a limiting instruction that the handbook is not itself a legal standard.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that a plaintiff cannot rely on treatment history or a life-care plan alone to recover future medical costs for specialized care. The necessary connection between the accident, the future treatment, and its expected scope must be supported by qualified expert testimony.
It also illustrates why an undifferentiated lump-sum future-expense verdict can require a targeted retrial when some components of the claimed care lack evidentiary support.