Occupational Medicine Expert's Life Care Planning and Future Cost Testimony Admitted

This case arises from Plaintiff's alleged slip and fall in Defendant's store. In her Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleged there was liquid on the floor of Defendant's store, and Plaintiff stepped on the liquid, causing her to fall and suffer bodily injury.

In June 2026, Plaintiff filed her Amended Expert Witness Disclosure. The Witness List identified Dr. Greg Smith ("Dr. Smith"), who is expected to testify both as a medical expert and a life care planner. Plaintiff explained that he will testify as an expert regarding Plaintiff's life care plan, including "the reasonable future medical care of Plaintiff, necessitated by the injuries sustained in the incident that gives rise to this case and the cost thereof; issues of general causation, specific causation, acuteness, chronicity, permanency, aggravation and the medical terminology necessary to properly convey and explain his opinions." Smith is also expected to testify to the facts and circumstances of the incident and medical care provided to Plaintiff as it relates to his preparation of the life care plan.

Defendant filed the Daubert motion and motion in limine to preclude the testimony of Gregory Smith, arguing that Smith cannot properly testify on causation, relatedness, or recommendations for future care, and there is no record evidence that Smith "possesses the requisite expert credentials to testify that the incident would within a reasonable degree of medical probability give rise to 'predictions' of future medical care."

Occupational Medicine Expert Witness

Dr. Gregory Luke Smith, M.D., M.P.H., C.L.C.P. is residency-trained and board-certified in Occupational Medicine. He has over 30 years of clinical practice treating injuries. He has over 20 years of experience using evidence-based medical (EBM) nationally recognized treatment guidelines to pre-certify the treatment and rehabilitation of injuries for various insurance companies. He has written scores of Life Care Plans and Medical Cost Analyses discussing future medical care issues and is certified in Medical Cost Analysis.

Want to know more about the challenges Gregory Smith has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

Discussion by the Court

The parties agreed that Smith should not testify regarding causation or permanency. To the extent Plaintiff's Witness List indicates to the contrary, the Court precluded Smith from testifying regarding causation and permanency.

A. Smith's Qualifications

Here, Smith is board-certified in occupational and environmental medicine and a certified life care planner with over 40 years of experience. He has written on the subjects of "Functional Assessment and Work Capacity Testing" and "Determining the Validity of Intense Pain," has practiced across multiple areas of medicine, and has worked as a physician reviewer in a life care plan organization for over seven years. The Court found that Smith's lack of experience in orthopedic surgery, urology, and psychiatry does not render him unqualified to offer an opinion regarding Plaintiff's future medical needs and associated costs.

Moreover, the Court does not find that Smith had "insufficient data regarding the incident" such that he is unqualified to offer an opinion. While Defendant asserted that Smith has "insufficient data," Defendant does not develop a basis to find such, and it is "well-settled that 'perfunctory, undeveloped arguments without discussion or citation to pertinent legal authority are waived.'"

But more significantly, the record reflects that Smith reviewed records related to the incident and, in preparing his report, he represents that he reviewed nearly 1,700 pages of records covering doctors' visits from May 2022 to January 2026. Those records include those from November 16, 2023, the date of the alleged incident, and dozens of additional records from the days immediately after the alleged incident. He describes that Plaintiff "fell at Hobby Lobby because the floor was wet," displaying a solid grasp of the basic contours of the incident. Accordingly, the Court found that Smith possesses the requisite qualifications to testify to future care and associated expenses for Plaintiff.

B. Reliability of Smith's Methodology

Defendant argued that Smith's methodology is insufficiently reliable and his report and proposed testimony do "not set forth a reliable foundation for his proposed testimony and opinions" insofar as Smith "does not provide concrete information on the methodologies he applied to formulate his conclusions." Instead, there is a reasonable probability that Smith relied on subjective interpretation.

Here, Smith's conclusions and opinions are based upon Plaintiff's medical records, interviews with Plaintiff and one of Plaintiff's medical providers, Social Security Administration data regarding life expectancy, databases used in preparing the Medical Cost table, and a range of other references relevant to life care planning. Smith's report specifically addresses whether the theory or techniques underpinning his report can be tested, whether the science he relies upon has been peer-reviewed, whether the error rate is acceptable, whether the methodology applied enjoys widespread acceptance, and whether the opinion is relevant to the issue.

The Court found the anticipated testimony associated with Smith's life care plan is sufficiently reliable to satisfy the second step of the Daubert inquiry.

C. Whether Smith's Opinions Will Assist the Trier of Fact

Defendant argued that because Smith's opinions are improperly drawn, they will not assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or determine a fact that is at issue. Specifically, Defendant contended that Smith should be barred from testifying (i) "that the alleged incident caused a need for any future care for Plaintiff" or (ii) "that any future medical treatment is related to the incident."

Defendant's essential argument is that, insofar as Smith is unqualified and his opinions are based on improper methodology, he cannot assist the trier of fact. However, the Court has already determined that Smith is qualified, and his opinions are based on standard life care planning methodologies that are well-documented in his life care plan. Moreover, the Court found that his testimony would directly aid a factfinder in determining the nature and cost of Plaintiff's future medical needs, an issue for the jury to determine.

Therefore, Smith's life care planning and future cost testimony is relevant and admissible under Rule 702.

Held

The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion. Smith is precluded from testifying as to causation or permanency. Smith is permitted to testify as to anticipated life care planning and future costs.

Key Takeaway

As a general matter, an expert is qualified when he has sufficient knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education to form a reliable opinion about the issue at hand. The expert must have professional experience related and relevant to the opinion that the expert seeks to offer. As such, an expert cannot testify to issues that "lie outside of his competence." But the Eleventh Circuit has instructed that an expert need not be a specialist in a particular discipline to render expert opinion relating to that discipline.

Case Details: