Trial testimony in a traumatic brain injury matter asks the economist to present a large claim built from other experts' inputs without appearing to vouch for those inputs. The direct examination should state plainly which findings the economist relied on for work capacity, supervision, and care, and then show the jury how each was priced: the earnings gap by year, the supervision and attendant care hours and rates, and the present value of the plan by category. Demonstratives that separate the components and show the sensitivity to the largest items give the jury a way to adjust the number if it accepts only part of the plan.
Checklist
Prepare demonstratives for the earnings gap, supervision and care hours, and the plan's present value by category
State on direct which expert supplied each input and what the economist did with it
Prepare a sensitivity board showing the total under the largest alternative assumptions
Prepare a comparison of the two economists' growth, discount, and worklife assumptions
Rehearse the present value explanation using a care item the jury can picture
Questions to ask the economist
How will you make clear that you priced the work capacity finding rather than formed it?
How will you show the jury the total under a reduced plan if it does not accept every item?
How will you explain the growth rate for care against the discount rate?
Which of the opposing economist's differences move the total most?
Timeline
One to two preparation sessions in the week before testimony, sequenced after the medical and plan testimony so the economist's inputs are already in evidence.
Required documents
The final report with item-level present value tables
The work-capacity, neuropsychological, and plan testimony or reports
Draft demonstratives and sensitivity tables
The opposing economist's report and deposition transcript
Common pitfalls
Testifying before the plan and work-capacity evidence is in, so the economist's inputs have no foundation
Presenting the plan's present value as one number, which forces the jury to accept or reject it whole
Appearing to defend the plan's medical content instead of its pricing
How does the economist respond when the opposing economist uses a much shorter worklife?
By explaining the worklife tables relied on, the age and education inputs, and what the shorter figure assumes about the person's but-for path. The side-by-side board shows the effect of the difference so the jury can weigh which assumption fits the evidence.
How does the economist present a sensitivity board without weakening the report?
By framing it as the jury's tool: the report's figure rests on the plan and the work-capacity opinion as given, and the board shows how the total changes if the jury accepts only part of them. Presented that way the board shows that the economist did the arithmetic for every reasonable outcome, which supports the method rather than undercutting the number. The economist's own conclusion stays the report's figure.
How should the economist handle questions about the plan's medical content on cross?
By returning each such question to the plan's author and the treating witnesses, and answering only the valuation part: frequency, cost, growth rate, and present value. An economist who starts defending the medical content of the plan invites a motion to strike and loses credibility on the valuation. The preparation session should rehearse that boundary.
References
Skoog, G. R., Ciecka, J. E., & Krueger, K. V. (2011). The Markov process model of labor force activity: Extended tables of central tendency, shape, percentile points, and bootstrap standard errors. Journal of Forensic Economics, 22(2), 165-229. doi.org
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (n.d.). Consumer Price Index: Medical care [Fact sheet]. U.S. Department of Labor. bls.gov