--- title: "Life Care Planning Expert Allowed to Opine on the Costs of Specialized Healthcare" meta: "og:description": "The testimony of the life care planning expert will help familiarize lay jurors with the costs of specialized healthcare" "og:title": "Life Care Planning Expert Allowed to Opine on the Costs of Specialized Healthcare" author: "Shuva Guha Thakurta" description: "The testimony of the life care planning expert will help familiarize lay jurors with the costs of specialized healthcare" --- # Life Care Planning Expert Allowed to Opine on the Costs of Specialized Healthcare Posted on August 14, 2026 by Shuva Guha Thakurta In December 2020, Diana Dyer “was surgically implanted with an Aris™ Trans-Obturator Sling System (hereinafter the ‘Aris’), a pelvic mesh product and medical device designed, manufactured, and marketed by Defendants,” which “was intended to treat pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence.” Dyer claimed that she “has suffered, and continues to suffer, debilitating injuries” “as a result of being surgically implanted with Defendants’ unreasonably dangerous defective pelvic mesh device.” Dyer retained certified life care planner [Leigh Anne Levy](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Leigh-Levy/1519814) to opine on the costs of Dyer's future medical treatment and economist [Allyn B. Needham](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Allyn-Needham/1519389), Ph.D., CEA, to opine on Dyer's lost earning capacity and the present value of her life care plan. Coloplast sought to exclude the opinions of Levy and Needham. ![Life Care Planning Expert Allowed to Opine on the Costs of Specialized Healthcare](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_08_14T161208_6371.webp) ## Life Care Planning Expert Witness [Leigh Anne Levy](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Leigh-Levy/1519814) is a certified life care planner with nearly twenty years of experience. She received a Master of Science in Nursing from the University of Texas at Austin, is a Registered Nurse, and also holds certifications in Emergency Nursing. She is the author of several publications and has lectured extensively at local and regional conferences. [Want to know more about the challenges Leigh Anne Levy has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1519814&pId=3). ## Economics Expert Witness [Allyn Bryant Needham](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Allyn-Needham/1519389) brings more than twenty-five years of experience in the fields of banking, finance and risk management to his litigation support work. In addition, his experience as an Adjunct Professor of Economics at Texas Christian University and Weatherford College assists him in explaining the methodology and calculations related to each specific case. Needham received a B.A. in economics and business administration from Austin College (Sherman, TX.), a M.A. in economics from Texas Christian University (Fort Worth, TX.), and a Ph.D. in business administration from California Coast University (Santa Ana, CA.). He became a Certified Earnings Analyst (CEA) in 2000. [Get the full story on challenges to Allyn Needham’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1519389&pId=3). ## **Discussion by the Court** ### **Leigh Anne Levy** ### **_A. Qualifications_** Coloplast argued that, as Levy is not a medical doctor, she is not qualified to offer testimony regarding Dyer's future medical needs. The Court disagreed. The Court found that Levy, a certified life care planner with nearly twenty years of experience, is qualified to testify about Dyer's projected future medical care and the cost of such care. ### **_B. Reliability_** Coloplast argued that Levy's opinions and testimony are not reliable because she: (1) relied on outdated and inadequate information regarding Dyer's medical condition and (2) failed to account for the applicable Medicare reimbursement rates in calculating future medical costs. The Court is not persuaded. Coloplast's challenge to Levy's reliance on "outdated" opinions goes to weight rather than admissibility. Next, Coloplast argued that Levy's opinions are unreliable to the extent they are based on input from Dyer's causation expert. The Court is not convinced. Life care planners are permitted to testify where the expert relied on the diagnoses or prognoses of another expert, including a medical physician. Therefore, this is not grounds to exclude Levy's testimony. Coloplast further argued that Levy's opinions are unreliable because, "despite Dyer's status as a Medicare beneficiary, Levy failed to base future medical cost projections on Medicare reimbursement rates." The Court disagreed. Whether Dyer will be able to recover the full billed amount for a particular future medical expense is a separate issue from whether Levy's methodology is reliable. In sum, the Court found Levy's methodology sufficiently reliable. The alleged flaws in Levy's methodology raised by Coloplast should be addressed during cross-examination. ### **_C. Assistance to the Trier of Fact_** Finally, Coloplast argued that Levy's opinions will not assist the trier of fact because Levy ignores relevant evidence, and her opinions are purely speculative. The Court disagreed. Coloplast asserted that Levy's opinion is not supported by Dyer's medical records as Levy only relied on medical records provided by Dyer's counsel, which spanned from June 2020 until August 2023. Coloplast's challenges go to the weight rather than the admissibility of Levy's opinions. Therefore, this is not a basis for excluding Levy's testimony. Coloplast also argued that Levy improperly included the costs of future medical treatments that Dyer is not likely to pursue, such as pelvic floor therapy. Coloplast can examine the factual bases for Levy's opinions regarding projected future medical treatments in cross-examination. The Court found that Levy's testimony will be helpful as lay jurors are unfamiliar with the costs of specialized healthcare. ### Allyn Needham ### **_A. Qualifications_** Coloplast did not argue that Needham lacked the qualifications to opine on Dyer's lost earning capacity. Rather, Coloplast argued that "despite not being a vocational expert, Needham goes beyond the permissible scope of economic testimony by offering speculative opinions about Dyer's ability to return to the workforce." Coloplast contended that Needham "goes beyond the permissible scope of economic testimony by offering speculative opinions about Dyer's ability to return to the workforce." Yet Needham testified that he has not done "a vocational functional capacity assessment" of Dyer and will not opine "one way or the other whether or not she can work." Needham further testified that his opinion as to Dyer's lost earning capacity is for the trier of fact to consider if it believes Dyer's claim that she is unable to work. Accordingly, Coloplast has not demonstrated that Needham will testify as to matters outside his area of expertise. ### **_B. Reliability_** First, Coloplast argued that Needham's opinion about Dyer's "pre-injury earning capacity is inherently speculative and methodologically unsound because it relies on an incomplete and inaccurate depiction of Dyer's work history." The Court disagreed. Here, Coloplast's challenge to the factual sufficiency of the information upon which Needham relied in conducting his lost earning capacity analysis goes to weight rather than admissibility. Next, Coloplast argued that Needham's opinion regarding Dyer's work-life expectancy is unreliable because, in his report, "Needham assumes that Dyer will remain in the workforce until age 72," which "corresponds to the 75th percentile in the statistical work-life tables for females with a master's degree." Coloplast contended that "Needham's analysis did not account for any individualized, case specific basis to justify placing Dyer in this elevated percentile." The Court disagreed with Coloplast. Calculating an award for lost earning capacity "involves four steps: estimating the loss of work life resulting from the injury or death, calculating the lost income stream, computing the total damage, and discounting that amount to its present value." Coloplast did not argue that the statistical work-life table relied upon by Needham is unreliable. Rather, Coloplast challenged the factual basis for Needham's calculation of Dyer's lost earnings based on the assumption that she would have retired at age 72. Coloplast's argument regarding the factual basis for that opinion goes to the weight, rather than the admissibility, of Needham's testimony. Moreover, Needham also calculated Dyer's lost earning capacity based on a retirement age of 70, which corresponds to the fiftieth percentile in the work-life table, for the trier of fact's consideration if it does not believe that Dyer would have worked until age 72. Under the circumstances, exclusion is not warranted. Finally, Coloplast argued that Needham's opinions are unreliable to the extent they are based on the opinions of Dyer's life care planner, Leigh Anne Levy. However, the Court rejected Coloplast's argument that Levy's opinions are unreliable in denying Coloplast's motion to exclude Levy's opinions. Therefore, this is not grounds to exclude Needham's testimony. In sum, the Court found that Needham's methodology is sufficiently reliable. The alleged flaws in Needham's methodology raised by Coloplast should be addressed during cross-examination. ## **Held** The Court denied****Coloplast Corp.'s motions to exclude the opinions of Leigh Anne Levy and Allyn Needham. ## **Key Takeaway** The weaknesses in the underpinnings of the expert's opinion go to its weight rather than its admissibility. Vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking [debatable] but admissible evidence. Please refer to the blog previously published about this case: [**Gynecology Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Corporate Intent**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/gynecology-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-corporate-intent) [Polymers Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Content of Internal Documents](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/polymers-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-content-of-internal-documents) ## **Case Details:** | Case Caption: | Dyer V. Coloplast Corp. | | --- | --- | | Docket Number: | 8:24cv2867 | | Court Name: | United States District Court, Florida Middle | | Order Date: | August 11, 2026 | --- ## **You Might Also Like** ![Marine Operations Expert Partly Allowed to Opine on the Prospects of the Plaintiff](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_08_14T191254_466.webp) [**Marine Operations Expert Partly Allowed to Opine on the Prospects of the Plaintiff**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/life-care-planning-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-the-costs-of-specialized-healthcare/marine-operations-expert-partly-allowed-to-opine-on-the-prospects-of-the-plaintiff)![Life Care Planning Expert Allowed to Opine on the Costs of Specialized Healthcare](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_08_14T161208_6371.webp) [**Life Care Planning Expert Allowed to Opine on the Costs of Specialized Healthcare**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/life-care-planning-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-the-costs-of-specialized-healthcare/life-care-planning-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-the-costs-of-specialized-healthcare)![Human Factors Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Safety of the Flooring](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_08_13T192049_954.webp) [**Human Factors Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Safety of the Flooring**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/life-care-planning-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-the-costs-of-specialized-healthcare/human-factors-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-the-safety-of-the-flooring)![Insurance Expert Partly Allowed to Opine on Failure to Communicate](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_08_13T165322_4761.webp) [**Insurance Expert Partly Allowed to Opine on Failure to Communicate**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/life-care-planning-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-the-costs-of-specialized-healthcare/insurance-expert-partly-allowed-to-opine-on-failure-to-communicate)![Economics Experts Not Allowed to Opine on Pecuniary Damages](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_08_12T150127_262.webp) [**Economics Experts Not Allowed to Opine on Pecuniary Damages**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/life-care-planning-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-the-costs-of-specialized-healthcare/economics-experts-not-allowed-to-opine-on-pecuniary-damages)