KW Economics prepares rebuttal analysis for traumatic brain injury cases venued in Washington: what the loss claim consists of, the records that drive it, and a present value built to Washington damages rules and venues. Plaintiff and defense.
Brain injury damages reports carry large figures that rest on two expert inputs, residual work capacity and the level of supervision, and the review tests whether the economic report applied those inputs faithfully or substituted its own. The economist checks the but-for earnings path for a young claimant against the educational and occupational evidence, the supervision hours and rates against the plan and the market, the life expectancy against the medical opinions, and the growth and discount rates for consistency, then shows the total under the alternative scenarios the record supports.
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.
Two components usually dominate: future lost earnings across a long worklife for a young person, and the present value of attendant care and supervision when the plan calls for daily hours of paid help. Because the level of supervision and the person's residual work capacity are both matters of expert opinion, the report's total is highly sensitive to those inputs, and the life expectancy used for the care stream is a second source of dispute. Mild injury with persistent symptoms presents a narrower claim built on reduced hours, lost advancement, and periodic treatment.
Washington courts ask whether the methodology behind an expert opinion is generally accepted in the relevant professional community and whether the economist is qualified by training and experience to apply it, leaving disputes over the inputs to cross-examination. The methods of forensic economics are published and long used, so the examination of a damages report usually turns on its assumptions and their support in the record.
Highest court: Washington Supreme Court. Court system: courts.wa.gov.
Federal venues: Western District of Washington, Eastern District of Washington.
Outside the civil courts, wage-loss disputes in workers' compensation matters proceed before the Washington Department of Labor and Industries.
Washington pairs a wrongful death action for the beneficiaries' pecuniary loss, which was broadened in recent years to reach more family members, with a general survival action in which the estate recovers the decedent's economic losses, including net future earnings, and a limited survival claim for the decedent's own pre-death suffering. Pure comparative fault reduces the award in proportion, the collateral source rule applies outside medical malpractice where evidence of collateral payments is admissible, statutory limits on noneconomic damages have been held unconstitutional, and prejudgment interest is generally limited to liquidated sums.
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.
The same four steps apply to a traumatic brain injury case venued in Washington; the damages framework above decides which components enter the total. Establish the but-for earnings path from the person's history or, for a young person, from occupational data for the path they were on. Draw the post-injury path from actual earnings and the work-capacity opinions in the record, and measure the earnings gap over the remaining worklife. Value household services and family supervision from time-use data and local rates, and price the care plan item by item with medical cost growth. Discount every future stream to present value at a stated rate and show the total under each supervision and work-capacity scenario.
Washington courts ask whether the methodology behind an expert opinion is generally accepted in the relevant professional community and whether the economist is qualified by training and experience to apply it, leaving disputes over the inputs to cross-examination. The methods of forensic economics are published and long used, so the examination of a damages report usually turns on its assumptions and their support in the record. Traumatic Brain Injury cases venued in Washington are heard in the Superior Court (General jurisdiction; one in each of 39 counties; all civil, criminal, and domestic matters), with final appeals to the Washington Supreme Court. Matters within federal jurisdiction proceed in the Western District of Washington and Eastern District of Washington.
Washington pairs a wrongful death action for the beneficiaries' pecuniary loss, which was broadened in recent years to reach more family members, with a general survival action in which the estate recovers the decedent's economic losses, including net future earnings, and a limited survival claim for the decedent's own pre-death suffering. Pure comparative fault reduces the award in proportion, the collateral source rule applies outside medical malpractice where evidence of collateral payments is admissible, statutory limits on noneconomic damages have been held unconstitutional, and prejudgment interest is generally limited to liquidated sums. The report presents past and future amounts separately, states every rate and table with its source, and shows the result under the alternatives the other side is likely to argue, so counsel can apply the Washington rules to a documented figure.
Request a consultation on Rebuttal or call (201) 343-0700. Plaintiff and defense counsel.