Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
I. You have been contacted by an attorney to review a life care plan and provide specific information on the author’s credentials and professional background. The attorney wants to know if anything is “wrong” with the plan and if there is anything they can use to cross examine the other life care planner. The referral source is not interested in adding anything to the plan related to future needs that is not included by the other planner - only items that can be eliminated from or reduced in the current plan. 1. 2. An attorney sends an email to you in follow-up to a telephone call: “I was struck by your comment that the life care planner should facilitate the independence of the individual. I have rarely (if ever) seen that personally. Maybe that is because most of the life care plans I have dealt with involve people with totally disabling injuries.” 1. 3. An economist calls about a report that you have written and says, “In several cases I have been struck by the vast difference in what goes into the life care plan developed by the life care planner retained by the plaintiff and life care plan developed by the life care planner retained by the defense. I have seen a few cases where the difference was a factor of 10 to 1. I would like to discuss why that happens and specifically how the roles may differ in terms of which side hires you. I am not saying the numbers are deliberately manipulated. Just that the perspective of the attorneys (or care planners) appear different. There are definite differences in the role of the economist whether hired by plaintiff or defense.” As a life care planner, what is your role in each of the above scenarios? If asked only to eliminate or reduce items, is this a full critique or just a review? If precluded from calling sources to verify costs, is this a full analysis of the items in the plan? Is it appropriate to evaluate an opposing expert’s report in the first place?
Ann Neulicht (2025) studied this question.