The recoverability of future medical damages is frequently a contested issue in personal injury cases involving alleged permanent injuries. In a recent decision, the New Jersey Appellate Division provided guidance on when a plaintiff may recover future medical expenses.
On January 16, 2026, the New Jersey Appellate Division, in an unpublished opinion in Terrell v. Chitra, vacated a $1.3 million judgment and remanded the case for a new trial, precluding the plaintiff from introducing certain evidence related to future medical expenses. The court reaffirmed that future medical expenses are recoverable only where supported by evidence demonstrating that the treatment is likely to occur.
Background
In Terrell v. Chitra, plaintiff Yvonne Terrell and defendant Penafranc Chitra were involved in a motor vehicle accident at an intersection in northern New Jersey. The plaintiff sustained injuries to her neck, spine, and shoulder. The defendant stipulated to liability, leaving damages as the sole issue for trial.
The plaintiff sought damages for pain and suffering, future lost wages, and future medical expenses—specifically, the cost of spinal surgery.
Following the accident, the plaintiff consulted several physicians, two of whom recommended cervical spinal surgery. Despite those recommendations, the plaintiff ultimately decided not to undergo the procedure at that time—a position she reiterated in her sworn deposition testimony and which was later reflected in her medical expert’s report.
Prior to trial, the trial court barred testimony from the plaintiff’s medical expert regarding the cost of future spinal surgery, finding that because there was no evidence the surgery would actually occur, there was no basis for expert testimony as to its cost.
At trial, however, the plaintiff altered her position and testified that she was “exploring having the surgery.” Based on that testimony, the trial court allowed her medical expert to testify regarding the anticipated cost of the procedure. The jury ultimately awarded $1 million for pain, suffering, disability, and loss of enjoyment of life, and $300,000 for future medical expenses.
The Appellate Division’s Decision
On appeal, the defendant challenged the trial court’s decision to admit evidence of speculative future medical expenses pertaining to the future spinal surgery. The plaintiff argued that her earlier deposition testimony was not definitive and should not have barred her from presenting evidence of surgical costs, particularly in light of her testimony that she was now considering the procedure.
The Appellate Division disagreed. The court held that future medical expenses are recoverable only where the evidence establishes a reasonable probability that the treatment will occur.
In reaching that conclusion, the court made two significant determinations:
- Discovery Obligations Matter. The plaintiff’s failure to amend her written discovery responses—while discovery was still open—to reflect any change in her position regarding surgery significantly prejudiced the defendant. That failure alone warranted preclusion of evidence relating to the cost of future surgery.
- A Changed Position Is Not Enough. The plaintiff’s revised trial testimony that she was now considering surgery did not justify admission of previously barred evidence because she offered no additional support for this change in position.
Notably, the court did not simply vacate the $300,000 award for future medical expenses. Instead, it vacated the entire damages award. The court reasoned that a claim for future medical expenses is so intertwined with a claim for pain and suffering that evidence of potential surgery likely influenced the jury’s overall damages calculation. As a result, a new trial on all damages was required.
Practical Implications
The decision provides guidance regarding the limited circumstances in which a claim for future medical expenses can be presented to a jury. Following Terrell, such damages are recoverable only when supported by satisfactory evidence demonstrating that such future medical expenses will likely be incurred and such a position is identified within the timelines of New Jersey’s discovery process.
Instances in which a plaintiff generally claims potential future medical expenses, without clear evidence to support the likelihood of incurring these expenses, should be barred as speculative.
Practitioners should keep this guidance in mind when:
- Drafting and responding to discovery requests
- Reviewing and supplementing written discovery responses
- Preparing for and defending depositions
- Evaluating medical expert reports and testimony
- Filing and opposing motions in limine
The Terrell decision provides meaningful support for motions to bar speculative future medical claims and expert opinions offering similar opinions. Counsel should also ensure that a clear record is developed regarding a plaintiff’s decisions concerning recommended care and future treatment options.
