In the civil case Hamilton v. Harlow, the presiding judge addressed multiple Daubert‑style motions and disputed expert opinions about future medical expenses and household services. Counsel for the plaintiff proffered a life‑care plan that estimates future medical costs and household‑services needs; defense counsel objected to testimony on household services because the causal link to the accident was not independently established by a treating physician.

The court said it was willing to allow testimony that establishes the increased probability of future medical treatment when supported by medical testimony, but expressed skepticism about permitting a life‑care planner or rehabilitation expert to testify about household‑service needs without a physician establishing causation. The judge stated, “I'm not gonna allow the household stuff,” noting the lack of a medical foundation tying those services directly to the injuries at issue.

Plaintiff counsel said the life‑care planner bases projections on medical records and a certified life‑care plan methodology and offered to proffer the witness outside the jury’s presence or in deposition before allowing live testimony. The court allowed limited probability testimony about medical needs (for example, an expert opinion that patients who undergo a given fusion face an increased likelihood of adjacent‑level disease), but declined to permit generalized household‑services valuations in front of the jury without an adequate causal predicate from a medical expert. The court invited counsel to proffer a short, pretrial showing so the court could revisit admissibility for limited testimony.

The parties discussed trial logistics and the court tentatively set jury selection and trial dates for a multi‑day trial in February, proposing jury selection and openings on a Wednesday with substantive trial days to follow; counsel agreed to exchange juror forms in advance and coordinate witness order to keep the trial within the court’s allotted two‑to‑three day window.

The ruling separates disputed household‑services allegations from medical expense testimony and narrows what the jury will hear about long‑term care absent further medical evidence; the court encouraged counsel to refine expert disclosures in light of the ruling and to propose limited proffers before the jury is empaneled.