From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stiles v. K Mart Corp.

Supreme Court of Louisiana
May 1, 1992
597 So. 2d 1012 (La. 1992)

Summary

remanding for a determination of "an award for future medical expenses which the medical evidence established that plaintiff, more probably than not, will be required to incur"

Summary of this case from Menard v. Lafayette Insurance

Opinion

No. 92-C-0373.

May 1, 1992.

APPEAL FROM 19TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE, STATE OF LOUISIANA.


The application is granted.

When the record establishes that future medical expenses will be necessary and inevitable, the court should not reject an award of future medical expenses on the basis that the record does not provide the exact value of the necessary expenses, if the court can examine the record and determine from evidence of past medical expenses and other evidence a minimum amount that reasonable minds could not disagree will be required. La. Code of Civ.Proc. art. 2164.

The judgment of the court of appeal as to future medical expenses is set aside, and the case is remanded to the court of appeal to fix an award for future medical expenses which the medical evidence established that plaintiff, more probably than not, will be required to incur.

COLE, J., would deny the application.


Summaries of

Stiles v. K Mart Corp.

Supreme Court of Louisiana
May 1, 1992
597 So. 2d 1012 (La. 1992)

remanding for a determination of "an award for future medical expenses which the medical evidence established that plaintiff, more probably than not, will be required to incur"

Summary of this case from Menard v. Lafayette Insurance

In Stiles v. K-Mart Corp., 597 So.2d 1012 (La. 1992), plaintiff proved that he would require future medical treatment, but did not present expert testimony as to the cost of the treatment.

Summary of this case from Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp.

remanding for a determination of "an award for future medical expenses which the medical evidence established that plaintiff, more probably than not, will be required to incur"

Summary of this case from Baack v. McIntosh

remanding for a determination of "an award for future medical expenses which the medical evidence established that plaintiff, more probably than not, will be required to incur"

Summary of this case from Leblanc v. City of Abbeville

In Stiles v. K–Mart Corp., 597 So.2d 1012 (La.1992), plaintiff proved that he would require future medical treatment, but did not present expert testimony as to the cost of the treatment.

Summary of this case from Levy v. Lewis

remanding to the court of appeal "to fix an award for future medical expenses which the medical evidence established that plaintiff, more probably than not, will be required to incur."

Summary of this case from Levy v. Lewis

referring to future medical expenses established by medical evidence

Summary of this case from Huntley v. 21st Century Premier Ins. Co.

remanding for a determination of "an award for future medical expenses which the medical evidence established that plaintiff, more probably than not, will be required to incur"

Summary of this case from Huntley v. 21st Century Premier Ins. Co.
Case details for

Stiles v. K Mart Corp.

Case Details

Full title:MURIEL STILES v. K MART CORPORATION

Court:Supreme Court of Louisiana

Date published: May 1, 1992

Citations

597 So. 2d 1012 (La. 1992)

Citing Cases

Salgado v. Elec. Ins. Co.

The next issue is whether Plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the future medical…

Levy v. Lewis

In support of this argument, Plaintiffs cite Youn v. Mar. Overseas Corp. , 623 So.2d 1257, 1262 (La. 1993),…