Trial testimony in a motor vehicle accident matter scales with the claim. For a bounded loss the economist may need only a short direct examination on the past wages and a modest future period. For a catastrophic crash the testimony covers every component and the present value of each, with demonstratives showing the earnings gap by year, the household services replacement cost, and the life care plan's present value by category. In either case the jury needs to see where the numbers came from, and the opposing economist's differences should be explained on direct rather than discovered on cross.
Checklist
Scale the demonstratives to the claim: a single timeline for a bounded loss, component boards for a catastrophic one
Prepare the earnings gap by year and the present value explanation
Identify the source of the post-injury path on direct; where that opinion was coordinated with a vocational specialist, say so plainly
Prepare a comparison of the two economists' assumptions and what each difference moves
Confirm every board figure ties to a report table
Questions to ask the economist
How will you present a continuing loss for a person who has returned to work?
How will you explain the growth and discount rates so the jury sees them as a pair?
Which of the opposing economist's differences matter most, and how will you address them on direct?
How will you handle cross on an unusual earnings year?
Timeline
One preparation session in the week before testimony for a bounded loss; one to two sessions for a catastrophic claim.
Required documents
The final report and its tables
Draft demonstratives
The employer records and the work-capacity opinions relied on
The opposing economist's report and deposition transcript
Common pitfalls
Overbuilding demonstratives for a modest claim, which suggests the loss is being inflated
Presenting the return to work as irrelevant rather than explaining why the reduced earnings continue the loss
Leaving the growth and discount rates unpaired, so the jury hears only one and doubts the other
How should the economist address a return to work on direct examination?
Directly: the person is working, the work pays less or offers less than the prior path, and the loss is the difference over the remaining worklife. Showing the two paths on one chart makes the point without overstatement and takes the issue away from cross.
How much of the testimony should be spent on present value in a moderate injury case?
Enough for the jury to understand why a future loss is stated as a smaller number today, and no more. A single example with one future payment usually does it, followed by the year-by-year table for the actual claim. In a bounded claim with a short future period the explanation can be brief, because the discount effect is small and the jury's attention belongs on the earnings gap.
How does the economist handle cross on an unusual earnings year?
By explaining why the base was set as it was, whether the unusual year was included, averaged, or excluded, and what the result looks like under the alternative. If the report already shows the base under more than one treatment, the question confirms the economist considered it rather than exposing an oversight. The preparation session should identify every year opposing counsel could call unusual.
References
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (n.d.). Current Population Survey (CPS). U.S. Department of Labor. bls.gov
U.S. Department of the Treasury. (n.d.). Daily Treasury par yield curve rates. home.treasury.gov
Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Pfeifer, 462 U.S. 523 (1983). supreme.justia.com