Opinion by
1 1 Defendant, Prestige Maintenance USA, Ltd. (Prestige), appeals the trial court's judgment awarding future damages to plaintiff, Target Corporation (Target).' We affirm.
12 We publish this opinion because we conclude that, as matters of first impression in Colorado, for choice of law purposes: (1) the sufficiency of evidence supporting a damages award is a substantive issue; and (2) whether an issue is preserved for appeal is an issue of judicial administration.
I. Facts and Procedural History
3 Prestige had contracted with Target to provide cleaning services at Target stores. The contract provided that Prestige would indemnify Target for, among other things, all injuries or damages relating to or arising out of Prestige's performance of its services.
T4 While using a vacuum cleaner, a Prestige employee caused Johanna Cleveland, a Target employee, to fall and injure her right knee while working in a Colorado Target store.
T5 A doctor recommended that Cleveland undergo total knee replacement surgery. She filed a workers' compensation claim against Target to cover the costs stemming from the injury. An administrative law judge found that Target was liable for the injury and directed Target to pay for the surgery.
T6 Following the surgery, Cleveland continued to have stability problems. Her knee later buckled, causing her to fall and tear her left rotator cuff, She then underwent a partial knee replacement, which wаs also unsue-cessful. Doctors recommended that she undergo shoulder surgery and another knee surgery.
T7 Target filed a breach of contract action against Prestige, seeking, pursuant to their contract, indemnification for Cleveland's injuries and damages. Prestige denied that the contract required it to indemnify Target.
T8 After a bench trial, the trial court ruled in Target's favor. The court made numerous findings, including:
@the Prestige employee, acting in the scope of her emрloyment, caused Cleveland's injuries;
ethe Prestige employee was negligent in causing Cleveland's injuries;
® Cleveland and Target were not negligent in any respect; and
@ Prestige was contractually required to indemnify Target for its past and future damages.
9 The court awarded Target damages for the costs it had already incurred and for the. costs it would continue to incur in compensating Cleveland. However, the court declined to award Target the full amount of damages it sought. Specifically, the court did not award damages for further independent medical examinations because it found that the need for such examinations was speculative. It also reduced the total award by $56,827.26 because that amount duplicated Social Seeu-rity retirement payments that Cleveland was receiving.
IL. Future Damages
11 Prestige contends that the trial court erred in awarding Target future damages in three categories: (1) future medical treatment; (2) future disаbility payments; and (8) future medical management costs
{12 As an initial matter, there are two threshold questions we must answer: (1) Which state's law applies? (2) Did Prestige preserve the future damages question for appellate review?
A. Governing Law
13 The parties' cleaning contract contains a choice of law provision, which states that Minnesota law shall "govern all matters arising out of or relatеd to this Agreement, including its interpretation, construction, performance or enforcement."
114 Consistent with the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 187 (1971) (Restatement), we will apply the law chosen by the parties unless there is no reasonable basis for their choice or unless applying the chosen state's law would be contrary to the fundamental policy of the state whose law would otherwise govern. Hansen v. GAB Bus. Services, Inc.,
{15 Accordingly, we will apply Minnesota law to all substantive legal matters. See id. However, we will apply Colorado law to all matters of judicial administration, including the procedures by which controversies are brоught into Colorado courts and the rules prescribing how litigation shall be conducted.
116 A state's substantive law generally concerns parties' rights and liabilities, whereas a state's rules of judicial administration generally concеrn how litigation must be conducted and how court processes will be administered. Restatement § 122 emt. a. Unlike a state's substantive law, parties do not usually consider a state's judicial administration rules when contractually selecting a particular state's law. See id. Thus, "there is no danger of unfairly disappointing their hopes by applying the forum's rules in such matters." Id.
{ 17 Here, we must determine under Colorado law whether the following three matters are substantive legal matters requiring us to apply Minnesota law, or whether they are simply matters of judicial administration permitting us to apply Colorado law: (1) Prestige's contention that there is insufficient evidence to support the future damages award; (2) Target's contention that the future damages issue is not preserved for appellate review; and (8) the applicable standard of review.
119 We conclude that the remaining two issues-the legal standards governing preservation for appellate review and the standard of review-are matters оf judicial administration. See, eg., Arkoma Basin Exploration Co. v. FMF Associates 1990-A, Lid.,
B. Issue Preservation
120 Target contends that Prestige failed to preserve for appellate review its challenge to the sufficiency of evidence supporting the court's future damages award. Regardless of whether a party must raise a sufficiency of the evidence challenge to a trial court to preserve the issue for appellate review, we conclude that Prestige sufficiently preserved the issue here.
21 In its closing argument, Prestige argued the following:
[Wle do not believe that Target has proven its damages, especially with respеct to its future damages. Dr. Aschberger ... testified that regarding the future, he doesn't know what's going to happen. A lot of it is unknown.... We don't know how she [Cleveland] is going to do, and so, for this Court to base a damage award on pure speculation without some good-faith basis, would cause us substantial injustice in this matter....
Now Target wants this Court to believe that it's going to pay another half a million or more in the future. The evidence just simply does not support that. The evidence does support the fact that future medical services provided for Ms. Cleveland, which are unknown, will be provided at a discounted rate. The numbers just don't add up when you look at Target's damages compared to what's been paid in the past, what may occur in the future, and that there's no evidence supporting future surgeries. So, we would leave the Court with the thought that there's many unknowns, and it's all about speculation interms of future damages. And we would ask that the Court find that the indemnity prоvision has not been triggered in this matter.
€ 22 Moreover, in its oral ruling, the court stated:
The big issue here is future damages. The defense has argued that damages are too speculative and that Target did not prove the damages in this case. And the Court would note that the same argument can be made in any personal injury case that damages in the future, even if they are deemed to be necessary, you might not have an exact figure, but that doesn't make them speculative damages. The things that we do know for surе are, [court details its findings and the supporting evidence].
123 Prestige's argument, together with the court's ruling, sufficiently preserved the issue for appeal. See Estate of Keenan v. Colorado State Bank & Trust,
C. Standard of Review
[ 24 Following a bench trial, we defer to a trial court's factual findings unless they are so сlearly erroneous as to find no support in the record. See Bockstiegel v. Bd. of County Commissioners,
125 The amount of damages is likewise within the trial сourt's sole province, and we will not disturb an award unless it is completely unsupported by the record. Boulder Meadows v. Saville,
D. Sufficiency of Evidence Supporting Future Damages
126 To recover future damages under Minnesota law, a plaintiff must satisfy two requirements: ;
(1) He or she must show that future damages are more likely than not to occur, Pietrzak v. Eggen,295 N.W.2d 504 , 507 (Minn.1980); and
(2) He or she must present expert testimony estimating the amount of future damages, Kwapien v. Starr,400 N.W.2d 179 , 184 (Minn.Ct.App.1987).
127 As to the first requirement, a plaintiff need not present evidence that is unequivocal or establishes future damages to an absolute certainty. Pietrzak,
128 Moreover, although medical evidence may be helpful, expert medical testimony is not the exclusive means of proving that a plaintiff will suffer future damages or ongoing injuries. See Pageit v. N. Elec. Sup
129 As to the second requirement, a fact finder cannot blindly speculate how much future medical expenses will be. Kwapien,
130 Here, as stated, Prestige contends that the trial court erred in awarding Target future damages in three categоries: (1) medical treatment; (2) disability payments; and (3) medical management costs. Prestige argues that there is no evidence supporting such damages. We reject each argument in turn because, as explained below, the trial court's future damages awards for these categories are not "completely unsupported by the record." Boulder Meadows,
1. Future Medical Treatment
131 Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Target and drawing every inference deducible from thе evidence in Tar- ~- get's favor, we conclude there is sufficient evidence to support the damages award for future medical treatment. See Averyt,
132 First, Target presented evidence showing that it will, more likely than not, incur damages for Cleveland's future medical treatment. Four witnesses each spoke to varying degrees of Cleveland's need for future medical treatments. Most nоtably, Cleveland testified by video because she was having surgery that morning. She also testified, as did plaintiff's other witnesses, that another total knee replacement surgery was planned. Cleveland's physician also testified that Cleveland will need additional surgeries and rehabilitation. Likewise, Target's workers' compensation claims expert testified that Cleveland has additional surgeries, therapy, and medications "that are due."
133 This evidence is sufficient to show that Tаrget will incur future medical costs. Cf. Pietrzak,
34 Second, Target's workers' compensation claims expert testified to the amount of damages that Target will incur for Cleveland's future medical treatment. He testified that he calculated the medical expenses by considering Cleveland's past medical costs, the future medical treatment that is due, and
135 Nevertheless, Prestige argues that, for three reasons, there is insufficient evidence supporting the damages awarded for future medical treatment: (1) no evidence suggests that future medical expеnses necessarily will be incurred; (2) there was no medical testimony about the need for specific procedures to be repeated at specific intervals, or about each procedure's estimated cost; and (8) there was no medical evidence establishing that the cost of future medical treatments will be the same as they had been up to that point. *
T 36 However, none of these propositions is required under Minnesota law to recоver future damages. See Pietrzak,
2. Future Disability Payments
137 Applying the same standard of review as in subsection 1 above, we conclude that there is sufficient evidence to support the damages award for future disability payments. See Averyt,
138 First, Target presented evidence showing that it will, more likely than not, incur damages for future disability payments. Target's workers' compensation legal expert-not the workers' compensation claims expert-testified that Cleveland's claim fits the profile for permanent total disability benefits, which would entitle her to lifetime disability payments. He based his opinion on her age, work restrictions, knee and shoulder problems that were caused by the workplace injury, and vocational background. He also testified that, based on similar cases, she will qualify for an award of ongoing medical care, follow-up visits with her physician, and prescription medication coverage. Likewise, Target's workers' compensation claims expert testified that, based on the facts of Cleveland's case, she will receive permanent total disability benefits.
1 39 Moreover, the trial court received evidence regarding Cleveland's injuries, her past and planned surgeries, her other medical treatment, her previous position stocking shelves at Target, her age, and the fact that she had not worked since her first surgery. Taken together, the evidence is sufficient to support the trial court's finding that Target will ineur damages for future disability payments. CL Dornberg,
1 40 Second, Target's workers' compensation claims expert testified to the amount of damages that he calculated the amount of Cleveland's disability payments by taking the weekly rate under the workers' compensation statute and multiplying it by the number of weeks that Target will be expected to pay the benefits. This evidence is sufficient to support the amount of damages awarded to Target for future disability payments. CJ. Kwapien,
3. Future Medical Management Expenses
141 Again, applying the same standard of review as in subsections 1 and 2 above, we conclude that there is sufficient evidence to support the damages award for future medical management expenses. See Averyt,
42 First, Target's workers' compensation claims expert testified that the medical management expenses reflect the process by which medical bills "are sent through [Tar
48 Second, Target's workers' compensation claims expert testified that he expects Target will have to pay in medical management expenses the "reserve" amounts listed in the documentary exhibit he prepared. The exhibit contained the $1,859.30 figure that Prestige challenges here. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Target and drawing every inferenсe deducible from the evidence in Target's favor, as we must, this evidence is sufficient to support the amount of damages awarded for future medical management costs. See Averyt,
1144 The judgment awarding future damages is affirmed.
Notes
. In its appellate briefs, Prestige asserts that there is no evidence supporting the damages awarded for "future attorney fees." However, in its briefs and at oral arguments, Prestige challenged an $1,859.30 annual expense. As acknowledged by Prestige at oral arguments, this expense is nоt for "attorney fees," but is for "medical management expenses." Accordingly, we address the sufficiency of evidence supporting damages for future medical management costs and not future attorney fees.
. We use the term "judicial administration" instead of "procedure" because, as noted in Restatement § 122 comment b, the substance-procedure dichotomy has "led some courts into an unthinking adherence to precedents that have classified a given issue as 'procedural' or 'substantive,' regardless of what purposes were involved in the earlier classifications." "[FJor example, a decision classifying burden of proof as 'procedural' for local law purposes, such as in determining the constitutionality of a statute that retroactively shifted the burden, might mistakenly be held controlling on the question whether burden of proof is 'procedural' for choice-of-law purposes." Restatement § 122 comment b.