The plaintiff retained a life care planner, who was also a neurosurgeon, to calculate future medical care, including epidural steroid injections and facet joint injections, that were not recommended by either a treating physician or medical expert. The plaintiff argued this information was admissible as the life care planner based his/her opinion on training and experience as a life care planner and neurosurgeon, review of medical records, and clinical evaluation of the plaintiff. The trial court agreed and allowed this information at trial. The Appellate Court reversed, holding that the life care planner’s opinion lacked a factual basis as it was not recommended by either a treating physician or another disclosed medical expert. Of note, the life care planner was not presented as a dual specialty expert. The practical implication is to analyze a plaintiff’s life care plan, which is often used to heavily inflate the value of a case, to ensure that the source of each future medical recommendation is supported directly by a correlating recommendation from a treating physician or retained medical expert.