“May,” “Could,” and “If” Cost More Than $200,000 in Future Medical Damages
Three words appeared again and again in the testimony about an injured driver’s future treatment: “may,” “could,” and “if.”
She may change her mind about physical therapy. Her neck could become more important. She might need a procedure if another treatment provided temporary relief. A life care planner placed those possibilities into a plan extending through the woman’s remaining life expectancy, and a Florida jury awarded $230,000 for future medical expenses.
On September 18, 2026, the Second District Court of Appeal removed nearly all of that award. The lesson from Progressive Select Insurance Company v. Reinberger is not that future care has no value. It is that Florida law requires proof the care is reasonably certain to be incurred—not simply medically possible, available, or worth preserving as an option.
That distinction matters in every serious injury case involving future therapy, injections, medication, surgery, medical devices, specialist visits, or long-term assistance.
A life care plan projected $233,478
The case arose from a December 24, 2019 automobile crash involving an uninsured or underinsured driver. Marrietta Reinberger pursued uninsured motorist benefits through Progressive. Her life care planner reviewed records, interviewed her, spoke with providers when possible, and prepared a plan intended to map her medical costs over the remainder of her life.
The plan included medications, specialist visits, physical therapy, diagnostic studies, a TENS unit, injections, radiofrequency ablation procedures, and a medication-weaning program. The total estimate was $233,478.
But the underlying testimony did not treat every item as a probable part of Reinberger’s future. The planner said some treatment “may” occur, “could be” useful, or would be needed “if” another event happened. He did not know whether some procedures were currently recommended. He also acknowledged that he lacked a complete medical history and had not spoken with an orthopedic surgeon, neurosurgeon, or other physician about potential surgery.
The treating physician assistant’s testimony pointed in a different direction. He expected to manage Reinberger with medication, considered future injections very doubtful, and did not anticipate that she would undergo the recommended radiofrequency ablation. Reinberger herself testified that she had no current plans for physical therapy, further injections, or the ablation procedure. She was afraid of complications and tired of being “poked and prodded,” although she acknowledged that she might change her mind.
The jury nevertheless awarded $230,000 in future medical expenses.
Florida requires reasonable certainty, not an open possibility
The Second District began with a settled damages rule: a plaintiff may recover only those future medical expenses that are reasonably certain to be incurred. There also must be an evidentiary basis from which the jury can determine the amount with reasonable certainty.
The court emphasized that a mere possibility of treatment is insufficient. An expert cannot transform speculation into reasonable certainty by adding the phrase “reasonable degree of medical certainty” after opinions built on “may,” “could,” and “if.” The facts supporting the conclusion still have to show that the treatment will probably occur.
Progressive conceded that the evidence supported $17,850 in future medication costs. The appellate court therefore directed the trial court to strike the remainder of the future-medical award—slightly more than $212,000—while leaving the supported medication component in place.
The governing principle also appears in Florida’s standard civil jury instructions. Jurors may consider medical care and treatment reasonably or necessarily obtained in the future, but the broader damages instruction limits future recovery to damages the claimant is reasonably certain to incur or experience.
A doctor discussing treatment is not always proof the patient will receive it
Medical treatment rarely follows a straight line. A doctor may discuss an injection as one option, recommend surgery only if conservative treatment fails, or leave physical therapy available for future flare-ups. That is good medicine: the patient’s response, preferences, risks, and condition may change.
A damages claim asks a different question. Is the patient reasonably certain to incur the expense?
A recommendation can help answer that question, but its wording and context matter. “The patient will require twelve therapy visits each year” is different from “therapy might help if symptoms worsen.” A scheduled procedure is different from one the patient has repeatedly declined. Continuing medication supported by an established treatment pattern is different from a device the patient has never been prescribed.
None of this means an injured person should accept unwanted treatment to improve a legal claim. Medical choices should be made with qualified providers based on health, risks, and informed consent. But when a patient does not intend to pursue a proposed treatment, Florida law may not permit a jury to award its projected cost merely because the patient could reconsider someday.
A life care planner maps care; the medical foundation still matters
Life care plans can be essential in catastrophic injury cases. They can organize dozens of anticipated services, calculate frequency and duration, identify equipment replacement cycles, and translate medical needs into a lifetime cost projection. For a person with a brain injury, spinal cord damage, amputation, or other permanent impairment, that work may be the only practical way to present the full economic impact.
But a life care plan is not self-proving. The cost calculation must rest on competent evidence that the identified care is reasonably certain to be needed and obtained.
That point was central in Anderson-Moody v. Wilson. The First District reversed awards for future injections where the life care planner supplied the medical need without supporting recommendations from treating physicians or another disclosed medical expert. The court explained that life care planners ordinarily rely on admissible medical evidence when projecting future needs.
Reinberger adds another dimension. Even when a life care planner’s testimony reaches the jury, the evidence must still establish reasonable certainty for each claimed category. A detailed spreadsheet cannot cure an uncertain medical premise.
The patient’s own testimony can strengthen—or undercut—the projection
Future medical proof is not limited to expert vocabulary. The patient’s course of treatment and stated intentions matter too.
Evidence of consistent therapy, scheduled follow-up, successful prior procedures, and a willingness to continue recommended care can support the inference that future expenses will occur. Delays caused by insurance approval, recovery time, pregnancy, medical contraindications, or the need to complete conservative care first may also explain why treatment has not yet happened.
Conversely, a patient who says the treatment is unnecessary, ineffective, too risky, or something they do not plan to pursue creates a proof problem. That does not erase the injury. It may, however, defeat the particular economic claim for that treatment’s future cost.
The answer is not coached testimony. It is a complete and honest record. Providers should document what is recommended, why it is recommended, when it is expected, what conditions must occur first, and whether there are reasonable alternatives. The patient should explain genuine concerns accurately rather than guessing about what may happen decades later.
Reasonable certainty and exact certainty are not the same
Florida law does not require a crystal ball. A treating physician does not have to identify the exact calendar date of every future appointment, and long-term care naturally involves medical judgment. Reasonable certainty permits fair inferences from the evidence.
What it does not permit is stacking contingencies. A procedure that might be recommended if symptoms worsen, after another treatment is tried, if that treatment provides only temporary relief, and if the patient reverses a current decision may remain too speculative. The more conditional steps between today and the expense, the more important the medical explanation becomes.
Cost proof is separate as well. The claimant must establish both that care is reasonably certain to occur and a reasonable value or expense for that care. Tucker Law’s overview of damages after a Florida car crash explains how future care fits among lost earnings, property damage, and noneconomic losses. Questions about how current bills are paid involve a different analysis, discussed in our guide to medical bills after a crash.
The court did not erase the future pain-and-suffering award
The opinion contains an important limit that should not be lost in the headline. The jury also awarded $1.19 million in future noneconomic damages. Progressive asked the appellate court to disturb that award after challenging the future medical expenses, but the court declined.
Future medical expenses and future noneconomic damages answer different questions. One compensates for reasonably certain financial costs of care. The other may compensate for future pain, disability, mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life when the governing legal requirements are met.
A person can live with continuing pain and limitations even if they decline an invasive procedure. The failure to prove the future cost of that procedure does not necessarily disprove the underlying injury or its continuing human effects. In Reinberger, the unsupported medical-cost categories were removed while the future noneconomic award remained.
What a well-supported future-care claim should show
The strongest presentation connects the medical and financial evidence without asking the jury to fill gaps. The diagnosis and crash-related need should be clear. A qualified provider should explain the recommended treatment, anticipated frequency, duration, and medical probability. The patient’s history and intentions should be consistent with the plan—or any inconsistency should have an honest medical explanation. Then the life care planner, economist, billing expert, or other appropriate witness can address cost and present value.
The records also need to distinguish a present recommendation from an option discussed years earlier. Old templates, copied problem lists, and unaccepted referrals can make a chart look more definite than the actual treatment plan. Tucker Law’s Personal Injury Information Center provides additional guidance on the medical and evidentiary record used in an injury claim.
The future should be documented before a case is valued
A settlement or verdict is expected to account for future losses only once. If the future-care component is understated, the injured person generally cannot reopen a released claim years later because treatment became more expensive. If it is overstated without reliable support, an insurer can attack the claim as speculative.
Reinberger shows the balance. Florida law allows recovery for care that has not happened yet, but the bridge from possibility to compensation must be built with evidence.
If a Florida crash has left you facing continuing treatment, specialist care, or a possible procedure, Tucker Law can examine whether the medical record supports the future costs before an insurer or jury is asked to value them. Review our Florida car-accident practice or contact Tucker Law for a case evaluation.
