Evidence – Expert – Future medical care

Listen to this article

Where a defendant has filed motion in limine to preclude the testimony of an expert regarding the plaintiff’s future medical treatment, the motion should be denied because the expert’s proffered opinion is not too speculative to be admissible.

“This case concerns a motor vehicle accident involving plaintiffs Kiera Greaves and her minor child S.C., defendant/third-party plaintiff David Davis, and third-party defendant Karyn Hall-Redcross. Before the court is Davis’s motion in limine to preclude the testimony of plaintiffs’ proffered experts, Dr. Nikhil Thakur and Alisa Dayanim. For the following reasons, the court will deny the motion. …

“… Davis does not dispute Dr. Thakur’s — a board-certified orthopedic spine surgeon — medical training or experience, but contends that Dr. Thakur fails to identify the methodology he applied and fails to reconcile his opinions with the facts of the case. … The court is not persuaded. …

“Second, Davis moves to preclude Dr. Thakur’s opinion regarding Greaves’s future medical treatment needs on the grounds that it is ‘merely precatory’ and is not expressed in terms of probability. …

“Two sessions of this court came to different conclusions about whether Dr. Thakur’s proffered opinion on future medical care was too speculative to be admissible. … This is unlike Arcudi [v. Builder Servs. Group, Inc., 673 F. Supp. 3d 9 (D. Mass. 2023)], in which Dr. Thakur ‘merely opine[d] that it would be to [the plaintiff’s] benefit if she were to visit a surgeon who would then evaluate her, and the surgeon would then consider whether they recommend … surgery.’ Arcudi, 673 F. Supp. 3d at 15. Here, Dr. Thakur has concluded that ‘[t]o a reasonable degree of medical probability, [Greaves] would benefit from both carpal tunnel and cubital tunnel releases in her upper extremities on the left side and cubital tunnel release on the right side’ and from follow up with her ‘Hand/upper extremity surgeon.’ … Having determined that such an opinion is not too speculative or likely to confuse a jury, the court will not exclude Dr. Thakur’s testimony.

“Third, Davis seeks to exclude Alisa Dayanim’s damages projections for Greaves’s future surgery solely because Dayanim’s projections rely on the contents of Dr. Thakur’s report. … Because the court will not exclude Dr. Thakur’s statements, it will not exclude Dayanim’s derivative testimony either. …”

Greaves, et al. v. Davis (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-329-25) (6 pages) (Stearns, J.) (Civil Action No. 24-11149-RGS) (June 20, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.