“May,” “Could,” and “If” Are Not Enough: A New Florida Decision on Future Medical Expenses
A life-care plan can project decades of treatment. It can list physicians, medications, therapy, diagnostic studies, injections, procedures, equipment, and the expected cost of each item. In a serious Florida injury case, that kind of planning can be essential.
But a projected cost is not the same thing as legally recoverable future medical damages.
The Second District Court of Appeal made that distinction unusually clear in Progressive Select Insurance Company v. Reinberger, No. 2D2024-2657 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 18, 2026). The jury had awarded $230,000 in future medical expenses in an uninsured-motorist case. The appellate court struck almost all of that award because much of the projected care rested on possibilities—what the plaintiff may, could, or might do someday—rather than treatment reasonably certain to occur.
For people pursuing a Florida personal injury claim, the decision is a useful reminder that future damages require more than a spreadsheet. The medical evidence, the care plan, and the injured person’s actual treatment intentions have to fit together.
The case began as an uninsured-motorist claim
Reinberger arose from a 2019 automobile crash involving an underinsured or uninsured driver. The injured plaintiff pursued benefits from her own UM carrier, Progressive. Liability, causation, permanency, and damages were disputed.
The plaintiff retained a physician who also worked as a life-care planner. He reviewed records, spoke with the plaintiff and some providers, and prepared a plan estimating future care over the plaintiff’s remaining life expectancy. The plan included future specialist visits, physical therapy, diagnostic studies, a TENS unit, radiofrequency ablation procedures, injections, medication management, and other projected care.
The total life-care estimate was $233,478. The jury ultimately awarded $230,000 for future medical expenses.
Those numbers looked precise. The problem was the proof underlying many of them.
The words behind the numbers mattered
The appellate court focused heavily on how the future treatment was described. The life-care planner testified that some care may become useful, that certain diagnostic work could be needed, and that procedures might be appropriate if symptoms or treatment preferences changed.
The treating physician’s assistant gave more concrete testimony in the other direction. He planned to treat the plaintiff with medication management, considered future injections very doubtful, and did not anticipate that she would undergo the radiofrequency-ablation procedure she had previously declined.
The plaintiff’s own testimony also mattered. She said she was not then willing to undergo the RFA, did not plan additional injections, and did not plan to attend physical therapy. She acknowledged that she could change her mind later, but the Second District held that a possible change of mind did not transform possible treatment into reasonably certain treatment.
The court summarized the governing rule directly: future medical expenses are recoverable only when they are reasonably certain to be incurred, and the evidence must provide a basis from which the jury can determine the amount with reasonable certainty.
A life-care plan is not self-proving
The important point is not that Florida law rejects life-care plans. It does not.
The majority in Reinberger did not announce a categorical rule excluding life-care planners or life-care-plan testimony. Progressive separately challenged the expert’s qualifications, and the majority stated that it found no merit in that argument. The reversal instead turned on the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the particular future treatments included in the damages claim.
That distinction matters. A well-supported plan can organize future medical needs and costs in a catastrophic injury case. But the plan works best when it is built from actual medical recommendations, supported frequencies and durations, and treatment that the patient is reasonably expected to receive.
A planner cannot turn a conditional possibility into a recoverable future expense merely by assigning it a price and placing it in a table.
The plaintiff’s own treatment choices can become part of the damages proof
Future medical damages are inherently forward-looking. That makes the injured person’s testimony unusually important.
If a doctor recommends a procedure and the patient intends to undergo it, the evidence may point one way. If the patient has repeatedly declined the procedure, says she has no plans to undergo it, and the treating provider does not expect it to happen, the evidence may point another way.
Reinberger does not mean that a patient must promise under oath to undergo every treatment before the cost can ever be claimed. Medical decisions change, symptoms evolve, and reasonable care can depend on future developments. The decision does mean that a damages claim cannot be built on speculation merely because a treatment is medically conceivable.
For a serious Florida car accident claim, the future-care analysis should therefore begin with the medical record: What is actually recommended? How often? For how long? What alternatives exist? What has the patient accepted or declined? What is the treating provider’s present expectation?
Florida law asks two different questions about future medical expenses
There is another layer that can be easy to miss.
Section 768.0427, Florida Statutes, governs evidence of the amount of past and future medical expenses in personal injury and wrongful-death actions. For future care, the statute identifies evidence that may be used to establish what future charges could be satisfied for under applicable health coverage, Medicare or Medicaid benchmarks in certain circumstances, and reasonable future amounts to be billed for medically necessary treatment.
Reinberger addresses a different but related question: whether the future treatment itself is sufficiently certain to occur.
Those issues should not be collapsed into one. A party can have excellent evidence showing what a future procedure would cost and still fail to prove that the procedure is reasonably certain to happen. Conversely, proof that a future procedure is medically necessary does not by itself establish the amount that may be presented to the jury under section 768.0427.
Florida’s current Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases likewise separate the damages concepts. Jurors may consider reasonable future medical care shown by the evidence, and future economic damages are reduced to present value where applicable.
Medication survived where the other future-care items did not
Progressive conceded that the evidence supported $17,850 in future medication expenses. The Second District left that portion intact.
That result illustrates what was missing from the rest of the award. The appellate court did not say the plaintiff would never need additional treatment. It held that the evidence presented at trial did not establish the disputed future care with the level of certainty Florida law requires.
The court therefore reversed the future-medical award except for the medication component and instructed the trial court to strike the unsupported portion from the judgment.
Future pain and suffering was treated differently
The decision also contains an important caution against assuming that every category of future damages rises or falls together.
The jury had awarded $1.19 million in future noneconomic damages. Progressive asked the appellate court to disturb that award as well, but the Second District declined. The court concluded that the arguments and evidence supporting future pain, loss of independence, insomnia, and changes in daily life were not dependent solely on the future-medical-expense calculation.
So although most of the future medical award was removed, the future noneconomic award remained intact.
That distinction is important in any significant injury case. Medical costs are one component of damages. Pain and suffering, disability, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, lost earning capacity, and other legally recoverable harms involve different evidence and different legal standards.
The practical lesson is to build future care from the recommendation outward
For plaintiffs, Reinberger is less a warning against life-care planning than a warning against disconnected proof.
A future-care claim is strongest when the treating providers, medical records, life-care planner, cost evidence, and injured person’s testimony point in the same direction. The more conditional the treatment becomes, the more important it is to identify what event would trigger it and whether the evidence makes that event reasonably likely rather than merely possible.
That can matter greatly in cases involving spinal injuries, chronic pain, repeated injections or ablations, future surgery, rehabilitation, durable medical equipment, home modifications, or long-term medication. Tucker Law’s Personal Injury Information Center explains how medical evidence, insurance, damages, and litigation fit together in a Florida injury claim.
If a crash or other negligent act has left you facing years of treatment, the future cost of care should be evaluated early and supported carefully. Contact Tucker Law to discuss the medical, insurance, and damages issues affecting your claim.
This article discusses the September 18, 2026 decision as issued. The opinion states that it is subject to revision before official publication. This article provides general information and is not legal advice.
