The Louisiana Court of Appeals dealt with the appeal of a personal injury suit in which a police officer, Hankton, was attacked and injured while guarding a prisoner at a hospital. One of the grounds for the appeal was the calculations performed by the defendant’s expert witness life care planner.

On the issue of future medical expenses two opposing life care planners testified: Sapp for the plaintiff and Kocke for the defense.

The Court found that the defendant’s expert witness life care planner’s testimony was unreliable as he admitted his calculations were “screwed.”

Specifically, the Court stated:

The parties presented expert witnesses to testify regarding the cost of Officer Hankton’s future medical care. Officer Hankton’s expert life care planner, Ms. Sapp, testified that Officer Hankton’s medical cost would range from $557,738.10 to $827,880.96. Appellants’ expert life care planner Mr. Kocke projected substantially lower costs for Officer Hankton’s future medical expenses, saying Officer Hankton’s costs would be within the range of $25,542.00 to $60,954.00. Appellants argue that Dr. Boudreaux, Appellants’ economist, also testified to similar ranges as Mr. Kocke and that Dr. Boudreaux estimated that Officer Hankton’s future medical and rehabilitation costs are within the range of $41,802.65 to $50,573.16, with a midpoint of $46,187.86.

We find that Appellants’ experts were unreliable. Mr. Kocke admitted that his calculations were “screwed” and Dr. Boudreaux’s initial calculations were based on Mr. Kocke’s calculations. Further, the trial court based the amount it awarded for future medical treatment for the attack, including an award for “a psychiatrist, pain management, gym membership, medication, testing and labs and equipment and supplies,” which the record shows was medically necessary. Based on Ms. Sapp’s calculations, which the record does not show are unreliable, we find that the record supports the trial court’s award. Thus, we find the trial court’s award for future medical expenses was reasonable.


For the Court’s complete opinion, visit: