Life Care Planning Expert’s Testimony Not Supported by Medical Diagnoses Excluded

On August 05, 2022, Antoinette Marie Plummer (“Plaintiff” or “Plummer”) sued IFH Hospitality Group, LLC d/b/a WoodSprings Suites Atlanta Conyers  and Rockdale Hospitality, LLC (“Defendants”) for premises liability. She claimed a kitchen cabinet fell inside her leased hotel room and caused her injuries. The Plaintiff claims negligence against the Defendants, along with other allegations. The lawsuit focuses on the Defendants’ alleged failure to properly install, inspect, and maintain the cabinets.

To support her damages claim, Plummer hired Steven Barnett to create a life care plan outlining her future medical needs and related costs. Defendants later moved to exclude Barnett’s testimony under O.C.G.A. § 24-7-702(b). They argued his opinions on life care plan were speculative and lacked a reliable basis.

Life Care Planning Expert Witness

Dr. Steven B. Barnett, DC, CBIS, A-CLCP, LCP-C, is a licensed chiropractor and certified life care planner. Barnett holds active chiropractic licenses in Georgia, Florida, and California. He has served in multiple advisory and consulting roles within the healthcare and medical device sectors.

He earned his Doctor of Chiropractic degree summa cum laude from Palmer College of Chiropractic in 1979, following a Bachelor of Science degree from Brooklyn College, City University of New York.

Discover more cases with Steven Barnett as an expert witness by ordering his comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report.  

Discussion By the Court

Initial Arguments

Defendants sought to exclude Barnett’s testimony, asserting that he lacked the medical expertise necessary to project future care needs. They emphasized that he failed to consult with Plaintiff’s treating physicians or base his recommendations on medical records or doctor assessments. Consequently, they argued that Barnett’s plan relied on speculation rather than scientific methodology, essentially creating an “abstract wish list” of future treatments.

Plaintiff countered by highlighting Barnett’s certification and extensive experience in life care planning. She maintained that Barnett’s methodology aligned with industry standards through his review of medical records and application of professional judgment.

Analysis

A. Qualifications

The Court determined Barnett qualified as a life care planner based on his knowledge, experience, and formal training. Barnett’s testimony regarding his life care plan is admissible if the plan is appropriately based on the medical records, opinions, and recommendations set forth in the medical files he reviewed and the recommendations of the treating physicians who treated the Plaintiff. Courts consistently acknowledge that certified life care planners are qualified to testify about the life care plans they develop, even if they lack a medical degree.

B. Reliability

However, the Court identified significant concerns regarding Barnett’s methodology. Specifically:

• Because Barnett is not a medical doctor, nor a licensed or certified radiologist, he lacked the qualifications to recommend or prescribe any procedures or medications included in the Plaintiff’s life care plan.

• Barnett acknowledged that he did not collaborate with any of Plaintiff’s treating physicians nor did he have them review and validate his life care plan and the related treatment recommendations.

Barnett admitted he wouldn’t always follow the treating physician’s advice and would make predictions even without medical record support. Consequently, despite never examining the Plaintiff directly and acknowledging his lack of qualification to recommend or prescribe treatments, Barnett’s life care plan includes multiple interventions not supported by medical records or the treating physicians’ recommendations.

While Barnett may be qualified to provide cost valuations, the Court held that those costs associated with treatments not prescribed or recommended by the Plaintiff’s treating physicians lack a proper foundation, making them unreliable and unhelpful for the jury. Presenting such testimony would improperly encourage the jury to base an award on a course of treatment that was never implemented, prescribed, or intended.

Barnett’s recommendations for non-medical expenses, such as household goods and services like cleaning and home health care, are admissible based on his expertise and the symptoms and conditions the Plaintiff reported to him. Additionally, the inclusion of ongoing medication in the life care plan is admissible because the Plaintiff’s medical records and her reports to Barnett confirm she was prescribed and taking this medication when the most recent plan was created.

Held

The Court granted in part Defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of Barnett to the extent such testimony and/or the life care plan are not supported by recommendations from Plaintiff’s treating physicians. 

Key Takeaway:

When offering expert testimony on future medical needs through a life care planner, courts expect the recommendations to reflect medical guidance—especially from treating physicians. A life care planner’s projections that lack corroboration from medical experts or records may be considered speculative and inadmissible under O.C.G.A. § 24-7-702 and the Daubert standard.

Case Details:

Case Caption:	Plummer v. Ifh Hosp. Grp., LLC
Doket Number:	22EV004388H
Court:	State Court of Georgia, Fulton County
Order Date:	March 3, 2025