8.11 DAMAGES CHARGES — GENERAL
I. FUTURE
MEDICAL EXPENSES Civil Model Jury Charge
Plaintiff in this case seeks to recover
future medical expenses. Plaintiff has a
right to be compensated for any future medical expenses resulting from the
injuries brought about by defendant's wrongdoing.[2]
If it is reasonably
probable that plaintiff will incur medical expenses in the future then you
should also include an amount to compensate the plaintiff for those medical
expenses. In deciding how much to award
for future medical expenses think about the factors mentioned in discussing the
nature, extent and duration of plaintiff's injury. Also consider plaintiff's age today, his/her
general state of health before the accident, and how long you reasonably expect
the medical expenses to continue.
Obviously, the time period covering plaintiff's future medical expenses
cannot go beyond that point when it is expected that he/she may recover from
his/her injuries.[3]
You should also consider plaintiff's life expectancy in assessing
future medical expenses.[4]
But you should be aware that the
figures that you have been given on life expectancy are only statistical
averages. Do not treat them as necessary
or fixed rules, since they are general estimates. Use them with caution and use your sound
judgment in taking them into account.
For future medical expenses you must
base your decision on the probable amount that plaintiff will incur. It is the burden of the plaintiff to prove,
by a preponderance of the evidence, the probable need for future medical care
and the reasonableness of the charge for future medical care.
In deciding what plaintiff's future
medical expenses are, understand that the law does not require of you
mathematical exactness. Rather, you must
use sound judgment based on reasonable probability.
Once you have decided how much medical
care plaintiff will need in the future, you must then consider the effects of
inflation and interest. As to inflation,
you should consider the effects it probably will have in reducing the
purchasing power of money. Any award for
future medical expenses should be increased to account for losses due to
inflation. The consideration of interest
requires that you should not just award plaintiff the exact amount of medical
care that he/she will need in the future.
The reason for that is that plaintiff will have that money now even
though he/she will not have needed that money until some time in the
future. And that means that plaintiff
will be able to invest the money and earn interest on it now even though he/she
otherwise would not have had that money to invest until some future date.
To make up for this, you must make an
adjustment for having the money available now even though the expense will not
be experienced until the future. This
adjustment is known as discounting, and what discounting does is give you the
value of the money that you get now instead of getting it at some future
time. In other words, it gives you the
present value or present worth in a single lump sum of money which otherwise
was going to be received over a number of years at so much per year.
Your goal is to create a fund of money
which will be enough to provide plaintiff future medical care and which will be
used up at the end of the total period of need.
In arriving at the amount of that fund — the present value of future
need — you should consider the interest the fund would earn, the probable
amount by which taxation on the interest would decrease the money available to
plaintiff and the effect of inflation in decreasing the purchasing power of
money.
[1] If the attorneys will stipulate as a fact
that the interest and inflation rates will offset each other, only paragraphs
one, two and three of this section need be charged.
[3] The collateral source rule (see cases under
Model Civil Charges 8.11C and 8.11A) applies to loss of earnings as well as to
medical and hospital expenses. Plaintiff
may recover damages for loss of earnings although having been paid wages or
their equivalent by employer pursuant to sick or annual leave benefits or
retirement on half salary under a pension contract. Rusk v. Jeffries, 110 N.J.L.
307, 311 (E. & A. 1933). Chap.
326, L. 1987, eliminates the collateral source rule as to causes of
action arising on or after December 18, 1987.
Deduction of benefits, less premiums, is done by the court, not the
jury. See also N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(3) for similar effect for Tort
Claims Act causes of action. See Parker
v. Esposito, 291 N.J. Super. 560 (App. Div. 1996) for
application of collateral source rule to future benefits.
[4] This concept should be charged if there is
appropriate evidence received on the subject.
