A rebuttal tests an opposing economic report input by input against the record: the records considered and the assumptions adopted, the earnings base and growth rate, the worklife and life expectancy horizons, the fringe benefits and offsets, the consumption deduction in a death claim, the discount rate and its consistency with growth, and, in a commercial report, the but-for revenue, avoided costs, and causation. The findings organize the rebuttal report, an alternative calculation, and the deposition of the opposing economist.
An economic rebuttal is an independent review of an opposing report by a qualified economist, applying the same methods the opposing economist was bound by. It is not a list of objections. A rebuttal that rejects a report without showing what the record does support is as vulnerable as a report that overstates the loss, and the trier of fact is left with one number and a complaint. The output is usually a written report that addresses the opposing analysis schedule by schedule and, where the record supports it, an alternative calculation that gives the trier of fact a second number with its own foundation. The plaintiff versus defense economist comparison explains why the method must hold constant.
The review begins with what the opposing economist had and assumed. The list of records considered is compared with what has been produced: missing tax years, pay records after the event, updated medical or vocational opinions, and a revised life care plan are common omissions. The assumptions adopted from other experts are traced to their sources: a post-event capacity figure with no vocational or medical opinion behind it, or a horizon that departs from the medical evidence, is a foundation problem before it is a calculation problem.
The earnings base is checked against the tax returns and pay records: which years were used, whether an unusual year was included or excluded without explanation, whether overtime and bonuses were carried forward at a level the history supports, and whether a self-employed claimant's return on capital was separated from labor income. The growth rate is checked for its series and period and for consistency with the discount rate. The earnings projection page sets out the standard, and an undocumented promotion or career path is the most frequent finding.
The horizon multiplies everything. The reviewer identifies the worklife table and edition, whether the labor force status used matches the record, whether a fixed retirement age was substituted for the table without a basis, and whether household services and care costs run over life expectancy from the current life tables. A projection to a retirement age the record does not support, or a life expectancy the medical evidence contradicts, is presented with its effect on the total.
Fringe benefits are checked for double counting and for whether a published average was applied where plan documents were available. Post-event earnings are checked against pay records and the capacity evidence, and the reviewer asks whether mitigation was addressed at all. In a death claim the personal consumption deduction is checked for its presence, its percentage, and its source, and collateral payments are checked for whether they were netted or presented separately as the venue's rule requires. The mitigation and offsets page describes each deduction and the collateral source guide the legal overlay.
The discount rate is checked for its instruments, its period, and its consistency with the growth rate. A growth rate drawn from a high-inflation decade paired with a discount rate from a low-yield year, or a net rate with no visible components, is a consistency problem that changes the total materially over a long horizon. The reviewer recalculates present value under a consistent pair of rates and reports the difference, as the present value method and the net versus gross comparison describe.
A lost profits or valuation report is tested on its own terms: whether the but-for revenue rests on the company's history, a valid yardstick, or pre-dispute projections; whether avoided costs were deducted and fixed and variable costs classified from the company's accounting; whether causation was analyzed against the other events of the period or assumed; whether the loss period has a stated end; whether the standard of value matches the framework; and whether discounts were tied to the interest actually valued. The lost profits and valuation method pages set out the standards.
The findings organize the deposition of the opposing economist. Productive lines follow the review: which document supports each contested input and when it was produced; whether the economist asked the other experts the question or inferred the answer; which table and edition set the horizon and why any departure was made; where each rate came from, from what period, and whether the growth and discount rates were drawn together; whether the sensitivity of the result was tested and, if so, why it was not reported; and whether the economist has applied a different assumption on the same question in another matter. The goal is a transcript in which each contested input either has a foundation or does not. Counsel confirms the governing admissibility framework before deciding whether the findings support a motion or are better used at trial.
Usually. An alternative calculation grounded in the same record gives the trier of fact a supported number rather than only a critique, and it demonstrates that the reviewer applied the method rather than simply rejecting the result. Where the record does not support any loss, the rebuttal says so and explains why.
Faster than an affirmative report, because the framework and most inputs are already on the table. The timeline depends on the length of the opposing report, the state of the record, and whether an alternative calculation is required.
The economist identifies where the opposing report's assumptions depart from the medical and vocational evidence and shows the effect of using the evidence instead. Whether the underlying opinions are correct is for the medical and vocational witnesses.
The absence of visible inputs is itself a finding. The reviewer reconstructs the calculation as far as the report allows, identifies what could not be verified, and recalculates from documented sources.
Request a consultation on How to Rebut an Economic Damages Report or call (201) 343-0700. Plaintiff and defense counsel.