The method is the same on both sides, with the same published data and discounting arithmetic; the two economists differ on which facts control each input.
An economist retained by the injured person, the survivors, or the business claiming the loss, usually to prepare the affirmative damages report that states the loss and its foundation.
An economist retained by the defendant or the carrier, usually to review the affirmative report, test its inputs against the record, and often to present an alternative calculation.
| Dimension | Plaintiff Economist | Defense Economist |
|---|---|---|
| Method | The same accepted methods | The same accepted methods |
| Data sources | Case records and published government data | The same, tested against the record |
| Typical assignment | Affirmative report | Rebuttal review and, often, an alternative calculation |
| Common disagreements | Earnings base, growth rate, worklife, post-event earnings, consumption, discount rate | The same inputs, argued from the other side of the record |
| Ethical obligation | Objective analysis regardless of retaining party | The same |
Retain an economist to prepare the affirmative report when representing the person, the survivors, or the business claiming the loss. The report should state each input, its source, and the sensitivity of the result, because a defense economist will test every one of them.
Retain an economist to review the affirmative report when representing the defendant or the carrier. A useful rebuttal does more than list objections: it identifies which inputs the record supports, recalculates the loss under supportable alternatives, and gives the trier of fact a second number with its own foundation.
The method does not change with the retaining party, and a report that changes it has a credibility problem before the first question on cross-examination. Both economists use the same published wage, benefit, time-use, expenditure, and yield data and the same discounting arithmetic; they differ on which facts in the record control each input. KW Economics accepts engagements from both plaintiff and defense and applies the same method to each, which is what allows an economist to be believed when the analysis favors the retaining party and when it does not.
Not categorically. An economist with a balanced record is often more credible under cross-examination, and the deposition and trial history is disclosed in most jurisdictions anyway. What matters is whether the method holds constant across engagements.
Rarely on everything. Opposing economists usually agree on the framework and on most inputs and disagree on a few: the earnings base, the growth rate, the post-event earnings, the consumption percentage in a death claim, or the discount rate. Narrowing the dispute to those inputs is what a good rebuttal does.
In most engagements, yes. The reviewing economist reruns the schedules with the inputs the record supports, so the trier of fact can compare two calculations built on the same framework and see exactly which inputs account for the gap between them.
Request a consultation on Plaintiff Economist vs. Defense Economist: Is the Method Different? or call (201) 343-0700. Plaintiff and defense counsel.