Medical malpractice matters present the economic loss questions of a personal injury or wrongful death case with one added layer: the loss must be measured against the outcome the patient would have had with proper care, not against perfect health. The economist works from the medical causation opinions in the record to define the but-for path and then measures the earnings, benefits, household services, and care costs the injury has added to it.
In short
The claim consists of lost earnings and earning capacity attributable to the injury, lost fringe benefits, the replacement cost of household services the patient can no longer perform, the present value of the incremental future care documented in a life care plan or the treating recommendations, and, where the patient has died, the survivor and estate components of a wrongful death analysis. The records that drive the analysis are the earnings and benefit history, the medical opinions that separate the injury from the underlying condition, and the care plan that distinguishes incremental care from the care the underlying condition would have required.
Because the underlying condition often affected work capacity or life expectancy on its own, the apportionment between the injury and the pre-existing condition is usually the most contested assumption and the one that most changes the total. In cases of permanent disability the incremental care costs and the earnings loss are both large and run across a long horizon, and the life expectancy used for each stream is a second point of contention. In delayed-diagnosis cases the loss may be measured as the difference between two outcome paths, each with its own earnings and care profile.
The economist starts by stating the but-for path the medical record and causation opinions support: what the patient would have earned, for how long, and what care the underlying condition would have required regardless. The injured path is then built from the actual post-injury earnings, the work-capacity opinions, and the incremental care plan. Each component is measured as the difference between the two paths, projected over the applicable life or worklife expectancy with growth, and discounted to present value. Where physicians disagree on life expectancy or apportionment, the report presents the loss under each scenario so the fact finder can attach the number to the finding it makes.
Stage-by-stage guidance on working with a forensic economist in medical malpractice litigation.
The economist does not decide what the condition would have done; the medical opinions do. The report takes those opinions as its baseline, builds the but-for path from them, and measures only the loss the injury added. When the opinions differ, the report shows the result under each.
The structure is the same as any wrongful death analysis, with earnings, consumption, household services, and support to dependents. The difference is that the decedent's life and worklife expectancy may already have been shortened by the condition being treated, and the analysis must use the expectancy the medical evidence supports rather than population averages alone.
Past medical expenses are usually documented from billing records and presented by counsel. The economist's work concerns the future: the incremental care the injury requires, priced from the life care plan or treating recommendations, and grown and discounted over the horizon the medical evidence supports.
Once causation and prognosis opinions are available and the disclosure schedule is known. The economist can begin the earnings and household analysis from the financial records while the care plan is being finalized, and then integrate the plan when it is ready.
Request a consultation on medical malpractice cases or call (201) 343-0700. Plaintiff and defense counsel.