of restitution. The state concedes that the trial court erred in imposing restitution for the victim’s mother’s lost wages and in ordering restitution based on future counseling expenses for the victim and her mother when there was no evidence presented that they would incur those expenses. We agree and accept the state’s concession of error. See State v. Donahue, 165 Or App 143, 146, 995 P2d 1202 (2000) (vacating trial court’s imposition of compensatory fine on the basis that, although “reasonably predictable and easily measurable future treatment expenses” are recoverable, “the mere fact that the victim was scheduled to go to a counseling appointment does not establish that she had incurred or would incur pecuniary harm”); State v. Gregory, 149 Or App 769, 770, 945 P2d 593 (1997) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we remand for resentencing. See
holding that the court erred in failing to inform the defendant that it could impose restitution but that the error did not affect the defendants substantial rights because the court informed the defendant that it could impose a maximum fine of an amount higher than the restitution amount imposed holding the trial court correctly ordered appellant to pay restitution for the full value of the vehicle holding that the trial court lacked authority under ors 137103 to impose restitution to pay the victims relatives for lost wages holding that restitution for lost income in property cases was improper under the plain language of the statute because restitution for lost income is authorized only for victims of bodily injury holding that criminal defendant was not entitled to a jury trial on the issue of restitution under ors 137106