Rebuttal analysis applied to medical malpractice litigation: methodology, deliverables, and case-specific considerations.
In a medical malpractice matter the opposing report is tested first on how it defined the but-for path: whether the earnings, care, and life expectancy assumptions reflect the outcome proper care would have produced or assume perfect health, and whether the apportionment between the injury and the underlying condition follows the medical opinions in the record. The economist then checks the earnings base, the life care plan pricing and growth rates, and the discounting, and quantifies the effect of each correction so counsel can see which assumptions carry the number.
Critique of an opposing economic damages, valuation, or forensic accounting report for plaintiff or defense counsel. The review tests the assumptions, data sources, discount rates, worklife and life expectancy inputs, growth rates, mitigation treatment, and arithmetic behind the opposing number, identifies the errors that matter, and quantifies how the conclusion changes when they are corrected. The result supports cross-examination, a rebuttal report, or a motion directed at the reliability of the opinion.
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.
We issue a rebuttal report where one is disclosed and provide deposition and trial testimony, cross-examination outlines, and support for motions directed at the opinion.
Measuring the loss against perfect health rather than against the outcome the patient would have had with proper care, so that care and earnings losses the underlying condition would have caused anyway are attributed to the injury. The review identifies the items affected and states the incremental figure the medical opinions support.
No. The economist takes the medical and causation opinions as given and tests whether the damages report applied them correctly. Where the report chose one opinion over another without saying so, the review shows the figure under each.
Request a consultation on Rebuttal or call (201) 343-0700. Plaintiff and defense counsel.