Deposition preparation in a medical malpractice matter turns on the two paths and the apportionment between them. Opposing counsel will press the economist on whether the but-for path reflects the outcome proper care would have produced rather than full health, whether the underlying condition's own effect on earnings and life expectancy was accounted for, and whether the future care valued is incremental to the injury. The economist should be able to point to the causation and treating opinions for each input, explain what was taken as given, and show the result under alternative apportionment assumptions.
Checklist
Confirm the but-for path in the report matches the causation opinion on the expected outcome with proper care
Verify that only incremental future care was valued and that each item ties to a plan line or treating recommendation
Prepare the economist to explain the treatment of the pre-existing condition's own effect on earnings and life expectancy
Review the sensitivity analysis under alternative apportionment assumptions
Assemble the reliance file and the opposing report
Questions to ask the economist
Which medical opinion defines the but-for path, and what did you take as given from it?
How did you separate incremental care from the care the underlying condition would have required?
How does the result change under the opposing side's causation and life expectancy positions?
What did you rely on for the post-injury earnings path?
Timeline
One to two preparation sessions in the two weeks before the deposition, after the causation opinions and the report are final.
Required documents
The final report and the causation and treating opinions it relies on
The life care plan or treating recommendations with incremental items identified
The earnings and benefit records
The opposing economist's report
Common pitfalls
Comparing the injured path to full health, which overstates the loss and is the first point opposing counsel makes
Valuing the full life care plan when only part of it is incremental to the injury
Leaving life expectancy to the general tables when the medical opinions address the underlying condition
How does the economist handle a dispute between medical experts about the expected outcome?
By stating which opinion the report relies on and showing the result under the alternative. The economist does not resolve the medical dispute; the report makes the effect of each position visible so the fact finder can apply whichever it accepts.
What should the economist produce as reliance materials in a malpractice case?
The causation and treating opinions relied on for the but-for path, the life care plan or treating recommendations with the incremental items identified, the earnings and benefit records, and the data sources for growth, discount, and life expectancy. Because the report rests on medical opinions, the file should show which opinion supports each input. Counsel reviews the production before it goes out.
When should the economist's deposition be scheduled?
After the causation and treating experts have been deposed, so the economist's inputs are settled and the questioning can focus on the valuation. A deposition taken before the medical opinions are final invites questions the economist can answer only conditionally, and a later supplemental report may reopen the examination.
References
National Center for Health Statistics. (n.d.). Life tables. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved August 26, 2026. cdc.gov
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (n.d.). Consumer Price Index: Medical care [Fact sheet]. U.S. Department of Labor. bls.gov