Ramiah Berri Douglas, Individually v. Nina Colvin, as Parent and Statutory Guardian on Behalf of W.M.C., Minor, 2023-CA-1158

A minor (W.M.C.), through her parent Nina Colvin, sued Outer Loop Child Care, Inc. and her teacher, Ramiah Berri Douglas, after Douglas wrapped painter’s tape around the child's wrists for forty minutes during naptime at daycare.
Colvin claimed future medical expenses including more than $11 million and hired a psychologist, Dr. Meyers, who diagnosed the child with PTSD and testified about the possible lifelong impacts and need for intermittent therapy.
The trial court granted summary judgment for the defense on some claims, and later, at trial, granted a directed verdict on Colvin's claim for future medical expenses, finding Dr. Meyers’ testimony speculative.
Both Douglas and Outer Loop cross-appealed, arguing Dr. Meyers’ future medical expense testimony should be excluded entirely as speculative.
The jury found for Colvin on liability for negligent training and false imprisonment, awarding $55,000 for past and future pain and suffering, but did not award any future medical expenses.
The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding the directed verdict error was harmless because the testimony about future medical expenses was speculative and improperly admitted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exclusion of Meyers’ testimony on future medical expenses	Meyers’ testimony on PTSD and lifetime therapy sufficient for jury consideration	Testimony was speculative, lacking certainty on need, duration, cost	Testimony was speculative and should have been excluded; trial court abused discretion
Granting of directed verdict on claim for future medical expenses	Error to grant directed verdict; evidence from both experts should be considered	No admissible evidence to support future medical expenses claim	Error was harmless; no substantial possibility of different outcome
Sufficiency of evidence for jury instruction on future medical expenses	Evidence met threshold due to expert’s opinion of long-term therapy	Experts failed to specify treatment type, cost, or duration	No instruction warranted due to insufficient, speculative proof
Prejudice from trial court’s procedural timing	Trial court’s delayed rulings prejudiced Colvin’s claim	Defense contributed to delay by proceeding without seeking immediate ruling	No resulting injustice; procedural error was harmless

Rogers v. Sullivan, 410 S.W.2d 624 (Ky. 1966) (Recovery for permanent injuries must be shown with reasonable certainty, not speculation)
Combs v. Stortz, 276 S.W.3d 282 (Ky. App. 2009) (Expert’s opinion must be sufficiently certain to warrant jury consideration)
Walton v. Grant, 194 S.W.2d 366 (Ky. 1946) (No jury instruction for future medical expenses where physician cannot specify type, cost, or duration of treatment)
Kentucky & Indiana Terminal R.R. Co. v. Mann, 312 S.W.2d 451 (Ky. 1958) (Vague testimony on future needs is insufficient for jury instruction on future expenses)