"To recover the cost of future medical treatment, a plaintiff must furnish substantial proof of the necessity for future treatment and the cost thereof." Mossman v. Amana Society, 494 N.W.2d 676, 679 (Iowa 1993). The necessity for future medical treatment and the costs thereof should be testified to by someone qualified "upon which the jury may reasonably fix an allowance for this item".
SeeMatthess v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 521 N.W.2d 699, 703 (Iowa 1994) (explaining that where damages have been itemized, each itemization is a special jury finding that must be supported in evidence). " To recover the cost of future medical treatment, a plaintiff must furnish substantial proof of the necessity for future treatment and the cost thereof." Mossman v. Amana Society, 494 N.W.2d 676, 679 (Iowa 1993).
"To recover for future medical expenses, a plaintiff must demonstrate a need for future treatments and the costs associated with the future treatments." Nesbit v. Myers, 576 N.W.2d 613, 614 (Iowa Ct.App. 1998) (citing Mossman v. Amana Society, 494 N.W.2d 676, 679 (Iowa 1993)). The cost and necessity of future treatment must be supported by substantial evidence.
"To recover the cost of future medical treatment, a plaintiff must furnish substantial proof of necessity for future treatment and the cost thereof." Mossman v. Amana Soc'y, 494 N.W.2d 676, 679 (Iowa 1993) (citations omitted). "While a plaintiff does not have to accurately determine the cost of future medical expenses, there should be one or more qualified witnesses giving such an opinion upon which a jury may reasonably fix an allowance."
Likewise, the Supreme Court of Iowa has concluded that prejudgment interest applies to awards for future damages. In Mossman v. Amana Society, 494 N.W.2d 676 (Iowa 1993), the court found that future damages are not excepted from the plain language of the statute pertaining to prejudgment interest. At the time the plaintiff's suit was filed, the Iowa statute provided that interest "shall accrue from the date of the commencement of the action."
Allied argues the prejudgment interest awarded against it should not be computed from the date the original petition was filed against the tortfeasors but only from the date Allied was brought into the case approximately ten months later. Allied relies on Mossman v. Amana Society, 494 N.W.2d 676 (Iowa 1993). That case is inapposite. Mossman involved a defendant who was brought in by impleader after the original suit was commenced.
"Future damages are not excepted from the plain language of section 535.3. . . ." Id. at 674; see also Mossman v. Amana Soc'y, 494 N.W.2d 676, 677 (Iowa 1993); Thornton v. Guthrie County Rural Elec. Coop. Ass'n, 467 N.W.2d 574, 577 (Iowa 1991). In 1987 the legislature "fine-tuned" the prejudgment interest law in comparative fault actions. Vasquez v. LeMars Mut. Ins. Co., 477 N.W.2d 404, 408 (Iowa 1991).
This is not a case where prejudgment interest should commence with a later amended petition which added a party or claim that the defendant would be unaware of prior to the amendment. Cf. Wheelbarger v. Landing Council of Co-Owners, 471 S.W.3d 875, 892-93 (Tex. App. 2015) (email from nonplaintiff to subsequent board member who was not on board during relevant time did not trigger accrual of prejudgment interest); Mossman v. Amana Soc'y, 494 N.W.2d 676, 678 (Iowa 1993) (noting assessment of prejudgment interest should run from date defendant became third party to lawsuit rather than later date that petition amended to name defendant). Equitable principles here support an award of prejudgment interest to Respondents together as of the date of Khalil's demand letter.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing evidence regarding the permanent nature of Rath's injuries when it was relevant to issues of his future medical treatment and the expenses he would incur in receiving that treatment. See generally Mossman v. Amana Soc'y, 494 N.W.2d 676, 679 (Iowa 1993) (“To recover the cost of future medical treatment, a plaintiff must furnish substantial proof of the necessity for future treatment and the cost thereof.”). The issue of causation is also relevant to the jury's determination of Rath's future medical expenses.
A. Future Medical Expenses A plaintiff must provide substantial proof of the necessity of future treatment and its cost. Mossman v. Amana Soc., 494 N.W.2d 676, 679 (Iowa 1993). While a plaintiff does not have to accurately determine the cost of future medical expenses, there should be one or more qualified witnesses giving such an opinion upon which a jury may reasonably fix an allowance.