---
title: "Testimony of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Expert Witness Concerning Plaintiff’s Life Care Plan Is Not Entirely Based on Speculation"
meta:
  "og:description": "Testimony of physical medicine & rehabilitation expert witness concerning Plaintiff's life care plan is based on his medical expertise"
  "og:title": "Testimony of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Expert Witness Concerning Plaintiff’s Life Care Plan Is Not Entirely Based on Speculation"
  author: "Expert Witness Profiler"
  description: "Testimony of physical medicine & rehabilitation expert witness concerning Plaintiff's life care plan is based on his medical expertise"
---

# Testimony of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Expert Witness Concerning Plaintiff’s Life Care Plan Is Not Entirely Based on Speculation

Posted on October 28, 2024 by Expert Witness Profiler

Plaintiff Towanda R. Futrell filed this personal injury action on August 28, 2023. The action arises from a motor vehicle accident on Interstate 64 on December 16, 2022, when a tractor-trailer owned by AV Leasing, LLC, leased by Triton Logistics, Inc., and driven by Daniel Cramer, collided with a bus on which Futrell was a passenger.

Pursuant to [Rule 26(a)(2)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_26) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on May 28, 2024, Futrell disclosed [Dallas Lea, II, M.D. (“Dr. Lea”)](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Dallas-Lea/1510937), as an expert witness in the field of orthopedic surgery who may be called to testify at trial. Futrell disclosed that Lea was expected to testify to: (a) Futrell’s injuries, including a broken right ankle, sprained left ankle, broken eye socket, and broken left jaw; (b) Futrell’s ankle surgeries; (c) Futrell’s “extensive physical medicine and rehabilitation”; and (d) his opinion that Futrell’s injuries, medical treatment, hospitalizations, “past and future pain and suffering, past and future medical expenses and medical costs and life care medical costs, and economic or non-economic related damages” are “a proximate cause of Defendant Daniel Cramer’s negligence.”

Futrell provided Defendants with a copy of Lea’s curriculum vitae. On or before July 9, 2024, Futrell also provided Defendants with Lea’s expert report-a life care plan for Futrell. The life care plan outlines Futrell’s treatment following the accident, Lea’s opinion that Futrell “will have chronic symptoms and residual disabilities resulting from the accident,” and a table containing Lea’s recommendations for Futrell’s “current and future care needs.”

On September 17, 2024, Defendants filed the pending motion _in limine_ to exclude Lea’s opinion because he was not properly designated as an expert in life care planning and the opinions in his life care plan lack the requisite foundation.

#### **Lea was not properly designated as an expert in life care planning**

First, the Defendants asserted that Lea was not properly designated as an expert in life care planning. The Defendants noted that Lea was designated as an expert in orthopedic surgery who was expected to testify about Futrell’s injuries, Futrell’s treatment, and his opinion that Futrell’s injuries, treatment, past and future pain and suffering, past and future medical expenses, and life care costs were proximately caused by Defendant Daniel Cramer’s negligence.

#### **Lea’s opinions lack the proper foundation and are speculative**

Next, Defendants argued that Lea’s opinions lacked the proper foundation and were speculative. Lea never treated Futrell and did not interview her or her treating physicians prior to developing the life care plan. The life care plan was drafted based on Lea’s review of Futrell’s medical records.

## **Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Expert Witness**

[Dallas Alexander Lea, II M.D.](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Dallas-Lea/1510937)is an internationally recognized spinal cord injury physician, fellowship-trained, and double-boarded in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PM&R) and Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) Medicine.

[Get the full story on challenges to Dallas Alexander Lea’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.](https://app.expertwitnessprofiler.com/login?eId=1510937)

## **Discussion by the Court**

#### **Errors in the Rule 26(a)(2) disclosure are harmless as Dr. Lea’s CV, life care plan, and deposition clarify his expertise and outline his proposed expert testimony**

Futrell asserted that Defendants were provided with a copy of Lea’s CV, which put them on notice that Lea was a life care planner, board certified in physical medicine and rehabilitation, and Defendants were provided with his life care plan on July 5, 2024. During Lea’s deposition, Futrell’s counsel clarified that the designation of Lea as an orthopedic surgeon was due to a “typographical error.” Lea testified that he was not an orthopedic surgeon, but a specialist in spinal cord injury and in physical medicine and rehabilitation. Lea explained that he would not be testifying about causation or negligence, rather he would testify to Futrell’s “injuries and future care and needs,” and that he was asked to “review records, review the case, and produce a life care plan.”

The Court found that Futrell’s failure to identify Lea as an expert to testify about Futrell’s life care plan in the Rule 26(a)(2) disclosure served on May 28, 2024, was harmless. The Rule 26(a)(2) disclosure was inaccurate. Futrell’s explanation for the inaccurate disclosure—that it was a “typographical error”—is less than satisfactory.** **The inaccuracy also goes beyond simply misstating that Lea is an orthopedic surgeon, by wrongfully disclosing that Lea will testify about the _cause_ of Futrell’s injuries. The disclosure did, however, include Lea’s expected testimony about Plaintiffs future medical care and expected costs over her lifetime. The provision of Lea’s CV and life care plan clarified his expertise and proposed testimony and Defendants were further able to clarify this with his deposition taken September 6, 2024.

#### **Lea’s proposed testimony concerning Futrell’s life care plan is based on his medical expertise and will be helpful to a jury**

Defendants also challenged several of the line items in Lea’s life care plan table, specifically house cleaning, ophthalmologist evaluations, an ear, nose, and throat evaluation, yearly visits to her primary care physician, and psychological counseling.

Defendants argued Lea did not know whether Futrell has familial support to take care of house cleaning or to what extent she has suffered emotional injuries and needs counseling. They concluded that the life care plan is speculative and not tailored to Futrell’s unique needs, and Futrell “provides no indication why Lea’s life care plan is _more_ plausible than other possibilities of what she will require in the future.”

Lea explained that: (1) Futrell’s chronic symptoms and residual disabilities “were evident” in her medical records (2) the monthly housecleaning expense is for deep cleaning (3) the ophthalmologist evaluation and ear, nose, and throat evaluation were a precaution due to her jaw fracture and broken eye socket (4) the yearly visit to her primary care physician would be in addition to a routine yearly physical and would be necessary for pain management and pain management medications and (5) psychological counseling was included because of the mention of Futrell’s anxiety in the medical record.

The Court held that Lea reviewed and summarized Futrell’s past treatment, current treatment regimen, and future treatment recommended by her physicians. Lea then developed a life care plan projecting Futrell’s future costs based on this review.  A certain amount of speculation is inherent in a life care plan that projects what will be needed in the future and hinges on future events. Permitting cross-examination regarding the facts and data Lea relied on to arrive at the future costs will allow the fact finder to determine the appropriate weight to assign to Lea’s testimony.

## **Held**

- The Court held that permitting Lea to testify about the life care plan he outlined for Futrell would not disrupt the trial. Lea, however, will not be permitted to testify about the cause of Futrell’s injuries and his testimony will be limited to the opinions outlined in his life care plan.

- The Court found that Lea is qualified to testify as an expert witness and he is proposing to testify to relevant medical knowledge that will assist the trier of fact in understanding a fact in issue. Nor does the Court find that the probative value of such testimony is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury. The Court found that Defendants’ concerns about the reliability of Lea’s testimony may be properly raised during cross-examination, but they are insufficient to persuade the Court to exclude Lea.

The Court denied Defendants’ motion _in limine_ to exclude the expert opinions of Dallas Lea, II, M.D.

## **Key Takeaways:**

- The Rule 26(a)(2) disclosure was inaccurate. Futrell’s explanation for the inaccurate disclosure—that it was a “typographical error”—is less than satisfactory.** **The inaccuracy also goes beyond simply misstating that Lea is an orthopedic surgeon, by wrongfully disclosing that Lea will testify about the _cause_ of Futrell’s injuries.

- A certain amount of speculation is inherent in a life care plan that projects what will be needed in the future and hinges on future events.

## **Case Details:**

---

## **You Might Also Like**

![Intellectual Property Expert&#39;s Opinion on Misappropriation Excluded](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-13T205412.117.jpg) [**Intellectual Property Expert’s Opinion on Misappropriation Excluded**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/testimony-of-physical-medicine-rehabilitation-expert-witness-concerning-plaintiffs-life-care-plan-is-not-entirely-based-on-speculation/intellectual-property-experts-opinion-on-misappropriation-excluded)![Automotive Industry Expert&#39;s Testimony on Pricing Practices Excluded](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-13T191143.335.jpg) [**Automotive Industry Expert’s Testimony on Pricing Practices Excluded**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/testimony-of-physical-medicine-rehabilitation-expert-witness-concerning-plaintiffs-life-care-plan-is-not-entirely-based-on-speculation/automotive-industry-experts-testimony-on-pricing-practices-excluded)![Consumer Credit Expert Allowed to Opine on Mixed Files](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-13T160600.039.jpg) [**Consumer Credit Expert Allowed to Opine on Mixed Files**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/testimony-of-physical-medicine-rehabilitation-expert-witness-concerning-plaintiffs-life-care-plan-is-not-entirely-based-on-speculation/consumer-credit-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-mixed-files)![Appraisal Expert&#39;s Testimony on Deceptiveness Excluded](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-11T194055.299.jpg) [**Appraisal Expert’s Testimony on Deceptiveness Excluded**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/testimony-of-physical-medicine-rehabilitation-expert-witness-concerning-plaintiffs-life-care-plan-is-not-entirely-based-on-speculation/appraisal-experts-testimony-on-deceptiveness-excluded)![Psychology Expert Allowed to Opine on EMDR Therapy](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-11T153456.164.jpg) [**Psychology Expert Allowed to Opine on EMDR Therapy**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/testimony-of-physical-medicine-rehabilitation-expert-witness-concerning-plaintiffs-life-care-plan-is-not-entirely-based-on-speculation/psychology-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-emdr-therapy)