In a medical malpractice action against providers for injuries negligently caused to a patient at birth, the First Circuit recently vacated the district court’s post-trial decision to exclude expert testimony on life care planning. The First Circuit reasoned that the district court granted the hospital’s Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 50 motion on the grounds that the expert's causation testimony was inadmissible, but admissibility had not been raised by the hospital in either its pre-verdict or post-verdict motions for judgment as a matter of law. Instead, the hospital affirmatively indicated that it had no objection to the admissibility of the expert's testimony on future medical costs. The First Circuit remanded for the district court’s consideration and determination of only the future-costs portion of the hospital’s motion.