Recent Connecticut Personal Injury Settlement Demonstrates the Power of Future Damages Experts

Written by: Evan M. O’Hara, Esq.

While testimony on future care and treatment (and the associated costs) is nothing new in personal injury litigation, a popular trend for some time now has been plaintiffs retaining expert witnesses specifically to provide opinions on the subject rather than relying on the testimony of the plaintiff’s treating medical providers.  This strategy can involve a single expert, or include a team of people including medical providers, life care planners, and economists, who each play a role in the larger picture.  These witnesses can potentially increase both verdict and settlement values substantially.  The recent Connecticut case Luup-Blaney v. Jenkins is an example of this effect.

The amended complaint alleged that a truck driven by Jenkins struck the rear of a car driven by Luup-Blaney, with her daughter riding as a passenger, while both were traveling south on a Connecticut highway headed home to New Jersey.  Luup-Blaney claimed to have undergone five surgeries as a result of the incident, and continued to receive pain management treatment, chiropractic care, and epidural injections.  The defendants’ initial settlement offer was $100,000.  However, a pain management doctor from Arizona was prepared to testify that Luup-Blaney would require ongoing pain management care for the rest of her life that would cost in excess of $3 million.  According to the plaintiff’s attorney, the expert’s anticipated testimony convinced the defendants to settle the claim for $1.95 million four weeks after their initial offer.

While this sort of expert testimony can add value to a plaintiff’s case and increase leverage for settlements, the potential benefit this sort of testimony can also bring to a defendant should not be overlooked.  Damages experts retained on behalf of defendants can evaluate and, when needed, refute the opinions of a plaintiff’s expert on projected future care and treatment; providing a jury with an alternative valuation of future damages and potentially helping to limit overall exposure.

Source: https://www.law.com/ctlawtribune/2021/08/09/from-100000-to-1-9-million-how-connecticut-plaintiff-counsel-secured-settlement-after-car-crash/