Future Medical Costs and Lost Earning Capacity: How They're Proven in Utah

Short answer: A Utah jury can award medical costs you will probably incur in the future and the income you have lost the ability to earn, but only if both are backed by evidence rather than guesswork. The proof usually comes in layers: a treating doctor's opinion on what care you will need, a life-care plan that prices that care, a vocational assessment of the work you can still do, and an economist who converts the totals into present cash value. Utah's model civil jury instructions tell jurors how to weigh each piece.

The standard: probable, and reasonably estimated

Utah's Model Utah Jury Instructions, Second Edition (MUJI 2d), published by the Utah courts, include a set of model damages instructions for civil cases. MUJI CV2002 tells jurors the plaintiff must prove two separate things. First, that damages occurred, meaning a reasonable probability and not speculation. Second, the amount, where the bar is lower: the evidence has to support a reasonable estimate, and the law does not demand mathematical certainty.

For medical care, CV2005 says economic damages include reasonable and necessary medical expenses incurred in the past and those that "will probably be incurred in the future." That word "probably" is the target. A chart note saying a patient "may someday need surgery" rarely gets there. A physician explaining why a procedure is more likely than not, and roughly when, usually does.

Step one: a doctor has to say it

Every future-care claim starts with medical opinion. The treating physician, or a specialist who has examined you, should be able to explain what care is expected, how often, for how long, and why it is medically necessary. Without that foundation, a life-care planner or economist has nothing reliable to build on, and the defense will say so.

This is one reason timing matters. Future needs are often unclear until you reach maximum medical improvement, which is why we discuss that milestone in settle early or wait: the tradeoffs in a Utah injury claim.

The life-care plan

In a serious injury case, the medical opinions are often organized into a life-care plan. It is an itemized projection, typically prepared by a nurse or rehabilitation professional working from the physicians' recommendations, that lists each expected need and attaches a cost, a frequency, and a duration. Depending on the injury, it may cover:

• Follow-up physician visits, therapy, and medication
• Injections, future surgeries, and replacement of implanted hardware
• Durable equipment such as braces, wheelchairs, or mobility aids, and how often each wears out
• Home or vehicle modifications
• Attendant or household help

Duration ties into life expectancy. MUJI CV2022 allows jurors to consider mortality-table life expectancy along with evidence about the person's health, occupation, and habits, measured from the date of trial rather than the date of injury. The committee's references also cite Florez v. Schindler Elevator, 2010 UT App 254, for the point that missing life-expectancy evidence does not by itself bar an award for future medical costs.

Not every case needs a formal plan. A soft-tissue injury that has fully resolved has no future-care component to project. See whiplash and soft-tissue claims for how those are usually handled.

Past bills after Gardner v. Norman

In 2025 the Utah Supreme Court decided Gardner v. Norman, 2025 UT 47. The MUJI committee amended its notes on January 12, 2026 to explain that, for an insured plaintiff, past medical expenses are measured by the negotiated amount actually owed, not the hospital's full gross charge. The same committee reference flags that Gardner "only relates to past medical expenses." Future care is still a projection of reasonable and necessary cost, and how it gets priced is argued case by case. Our guide to damages in Utah covers the other categories.

Lost earnings versus lost earning capacity

These sound alike and are treated differently. MUJI CV2006 has jurors calculate past lost earnings from the date of the harm to trial, and future lost earnings from trial forward, including lost benefits. Lost earning capacity is broader: the instruction defines it as "the lost potential to earn income," and lists what jurors should consider:

1. The person's actual earnings
2. Their work before and after the injury
3. What they could have earned had they not been hurt
4. Any other facts related to their employment

The committee notes say the earning-capacity portion should be given only when evidence supports it, and give the example of a student who was not working when injured but whose future employment prospects are proved. The notes also direct that the verdict form separate losses before trial from losses after, because the pre-trial amounts accrue interest from the date of injury and the future amounts do not.

What vocational and economic experts do

A vocational expert starts from the physical restrictions the doctors have set and looks at your education, work history, transferable skills, and the jobs realistically available to someone with those limits. The output is an opinion about what you could have earned and what you can earn now.

An economist then turns those opinions into money. That usually means projecting the earnings gap over your remaining work life, adding lost benefits, pricing the life-care plan over your life expectancy, and discounting everything to present value. The defense commonly retains its own experts to challenge each assumption. These experts are case costs; at our firm, case costs are advanced and repaid from the recovery, as our hypothetical sample settlement statement illustrates.

Present cash value

Future economic losses are paid today in a lump sum, so MUJI CV2021 tells jurors to reduce them to present cash value: the amount needed now that, reasonably and safely invested, would cover the future loss. A cost that will not be incurred for ten years requires less than its face amount today because the money can earn a return in the meantime; inflation pushes in the other direction.

The committee notes are candid about the open questions. Utah law is silent on whether inflation is factored into the discount; the notes point to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Pfeifer, 462 U.S. 523 (1983), holding that it should be. Utah law is also silent on which side bears the burden of proving present value. The notes cite Brinkerhoff v. Fleming, 2023 UT App 92, for the observation that expert testimony on the calculation is usually preferred but not required, and older authority allowing annuity tables without an expert.

The duty to mitigate

MUJI CV2020 tells jurors that an injured person must use reasonable diligence to minimize their damages, and that the defendant carries the burden of proving a failure to do so. In practice, following prescribed treatment and making reasonable efforts to return to suitable work protect a future-damages claim from that attack.

Why this matters before any trial

Most injury cases settle, but adjusters and defense counsel price the same evidence a jury would see. A future-care claim without a physician's opinion, or an earning-capacity claim without vocational support, gets little weight at the negotiating table. For a rough sense of how value comes together, see the settlement calculator and the steps in a Utah personal injury case.

Common questions

Do I need a life-care plan?

Only if you have significant ongoing needs. For an injury that resolved within months, it adds cost without adding value. For a spinal, brain, or orthopedic injury with lasting effects, it is often the backbone of the damages case.

Can I claim lost earning capacity if I was not working when I was hurt?

Potentially, yes. The committee's own example is a student whose future prospects are proved. The claim rests on evidence of what you realistically would have earned.

Is pain and suffering reduced to present value?

The present-cash-value instruction, CV2021, speaks to future economic losses. Noneconomic damages are addressed under a separate instruction.

What if the insurer says my future surgery is speculative?

That is the standard objection, and the answer is medical evidence: a clear opinion that the surgery is more likely than not, with a reasonable estimate of cost.

Talk to our legal team

If your injury is likely to affect your health or your work for years, our legal team can review what proof your file has and what it still needs. Call (801) 921-5134 or contact us online.

Free consultation. No attorney fees unless we win. Hablamos Español.