An appeals court has struck most of $230,000 future medical expenses award in UM benefits case, ruling the evidence was speculation rather than reasonable certainty. 

The Second District Court of Appeal partially reversed a jury verdict on September 18 in a case arising from a December 2019 collision involving an underinsured or uninsured driver. The insured had sued her UM carrier, Progressive Select Insurance Company, to recover benefits. 

At trial, the insured's life care planner - a physician board certified in occupational and preventative medicine - estimated $233,478 in future costs spanning 30 years, covering pain management, physical therapy, diagnostic studies, a TENS unit, radiofrequency ablation and injections. He never spoke to a surgeon about her potential future surgery and never physically examined her. 

The language underpinning those estimates is what unraveled the award. The planner's testimony leaned on "may," "could" and "if" throughout. Radiofrequency ablation - a nerve-burning procedure that relieves pain for roughly 16 to 18 months - made the plan because providers called it a "possibility," though the planner admitted he did not know whether it was currently recommended. Physical therapy was included despite the insured refusing it, on the basis her attitude "may" change. 

The insured's own testimony cut further. She had no plans for physical therapy, no intention of further injections, and was not ready for the ablation - largely because her husband had complications with it. Her treating physician's assistant was blunter: medication management only, future injections "very doubtful," and no expectation the ablation would happen. 

Under Florida law, future medical expenses must be "reasonably certain" to be incurred. A mere possibility is not enough. The court found the planner's hedged testimony, stacked against what the treating provider and the insured herself said, left no evidentiary basis for the bulk of the award. Progressive had conceded $17,850 in future medication costs was supported. Everything beyond that was struck. 

The jury's $1,190,000 noneconomic damages award survived. The court found the insured's counsel had primarily anchored that claim to her loss of time and quality of life rather than tying it to the medical expenses. 

A partial dissent agreed on future medical expenses but would have also found error in admitting the life care planner's testimony. 

For claims teams handling UM files, the case is a reminder: a life care planner's bottom-line certainty statement will not cure speculative underpinnings, and a claimant's own reluctance can sink the award.