RPC has encountered a few life care planners in Texas personal injury cases who use what they call a “prognosis-based” method to derive the recommendations for future care. This method involves the life care planner selecting a primary diagnosis code and applying a standardized treatment template for the plaintiff’s remaining life expectancy.
RPC asked Dr. Brian Buck, a board-certified physiatrist, and Susan Farris, a certified nurse life care planner to analyze the prognosis-based method, which they did in a new white paper posted on RPC’s web site and available to download.
They find that while a patient’s prognosis is a useful data point, it does not dictate the same treatment plan for all patients with that diagnosis. Knowing the patient’s primary diagnosis does not eliminate the need for the plaintiff’s life care planner to:
- Review pre-injury and post-injury medical records
- Interview the plaintiff about his or her current condition, medications, providers, etc.
- Consult the plaintiff’s current treating physicians
- Document the reasonable basis for the timing, quantity, and duration of each service and medication recommended
The white paper should interest plaintiff attorneys who are selecting an expert to opine on future medical costs. It should interest defense attorneys who receive a “prognosis-based life care plan or medical cost projection and must depose or cross-examine that expert.
RPC’s Life Care Planners apply the Standards of Practice for Life Care Planners, Consensus and Majority Statements, and other best practices that guide the life care planning process. We apply the same standards whether a report we review is called a life care plan or a medical cost projection.