Retaining an economist in a medical malpractice matter requires coordinating the engagement with the causation and treating experts, because the economist's but-for path is defined by their opinion on the outcome proper care would have produced. The scope should state which components are claimed, whether the incremental future care will come from a life care plan or from treating recommendations, and how the pre-existing condition's own effect on earnings and life expectancy will be handled. The records request covers the earnings and benefit records and the medical opinions on both paths.
Checklist
Run the conflict check on the patient, the providers, the institutions, and counsel
Confirm the causation opinions on the expected outcome with proper care and share them with the economist
Agree on the components in scope and the source of the incremental future care figure
Request the earnings, benefit, and household records
Set the report deadline against the other experts' deadlines so their opinions arrive first
Questions to ask the economist
How do you present the two paths so the fact finder can see the incremental loss?
How do you handle a life expectancy shortened by the underlying condition rather than by the injury?
What do you need from the treating providers to define the care the patient would have required regardless?
Will you show the result under alternative apportionment assumptions?
Timeline
About one week for retention and the records request, then two to four weeks of analysis after the records and the causation opinions arrive, then one to two weeks for the draft and final report.
Required documents
Tax returns, W-2s or 1099s, and pay stubs for the years before and after the injury
Employer benefit plan documents
Causation opinions on the expected outcome with proper care
Medical records and opinions bearing on the pre-existing condition, work capacity, and life expectancy
The life care plan or the treating recommendations for incremental future care
Common pitfalls
Retaining the economist on a deadline that falls before the causation opinions are final
Asking the economist to value total care rather than the incremental care attributable to the injury
Ignoring the earnings effect of the underlying condition, which the opposing side will quantify if the report does not
What does the economist need that a personal injury engagement would not require?
A medical opinion on the outcome the patient would have had with proper care, including its effect on work and life expectancy, and a clear statement of which future care is incremental to the injury. Those inputs define the but-for path, and without them the report compares the injured path to full health, which overstates the loss.
Which experts should be retained before the economist?
The causation and treating experts who will describe the outcome proper care would have produced, and whoever will author the incremental care projection. The economist's but-for path is built from those opinions, so the economic report is sequenced after them. Retaining the economist at the same time is fine as long as the report deadline is set after the medical opinions are due.
How is the engagement scoped when the pre-existing condition is disputed?
The engagement letter states that the report will present the loss under each apportionment position the medical opinions support, with the assumptions labeled. That scope adds sensitivity tables rather than a second report, and it keeps the economist out of the medical dispute. Counsel should identify the alternative positions at retention so the tables can be built once.
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
National Association of Forensic Economics. (n.d.). NAFE's ethics statement. Retrieved August 27, 2026. nafe.net