Rebutting the rebuttal economic expert witness

Cross examination questions for the defendant's economic expert.

In this case, it is claimed that the health club's failure to provide prompt medical care caused the wrongful death of Mr. S. As usual, the defendants in the case provided rebuttal of the plaintiff's economic expert report. The defense expert principally challenged the plaintiff's expert worklife and life expectancy assumptions. The defense expert claims that the plaintiff's medical condition (diabetes and hypertension) result in a shortened work life and life expectancy.

Below are some lines of questions that were used to cross examine the defendant's economic expert in the case

Line of questioning 1

Objective: Show that the references that he relied upon to from his opinion are not reliable and not relevant in the current case

* 2 of the 3 references mentioned in the defendant's expert report are based on non-race based data for people not living in the U.S.

- One reference a 1996 Canada study that does not have tables that include the person's race in the calculation

- One reference is a poorly cited New Zealand study that most likely does not include race

* The life expectancy tables from www.lifexpectancy.com do not suggest a substantially different work life expectancy from the estimate in the plaintiff's expert report

* None of the three studies listed in the defendant's report provide any support whatsoever that the worklife of Mr. S will be decreased because of the medical conditions.

*To probe:

- Did his analysis include the Type of diabetes that Mr. S had?

- Did he know if the deceased was on medicine or insulin? Would this knowledge have an effect on the results? Why didn't you get this information?

- What references and/or knowledge is he using to make the conclusion/opinions that the experiences of Canadians in 1996 is applicable to Mr. S (probe hard here)?

- Ask detailed questions about the underlying data in the medical references that he cited. (Most likely the economic expert will have very little knowledge of how it is constructed or how applicable it is to the current case) For example, what is a 'multi-state life table model' as stated in the reference number 2 of his report.

-Really probe the fact that the studies that 'support' his analysis do not include race.

Line of questioning 2:

Objective: Show that the references that he relied upon to from his opinion are reliable upon by other economists (including the deponent)

* Only www.lifeexpectancy.com table is routinely used in forensic economics work

* Canada study and New Zealand study are not routinely used in forensic economics work

* None of the three studies listed in the defendant's report are used by other forensic economists to suggest a shortened worklife

Line of questioning 3

Objective: Show that his opinions, even if they are correct, would not create a substantially different estimate of the deceased economic damages

* None of the three studies listed in the defendant's report provide any support whatsoever that the worklife of Mr. S will be decreased because of the medical conditions, so his work life

*Mr. S had a lump sum retirement option; if he took this option his retirement would not have been effected by the 'defendants' supposedly shorted life expectancy.

* Life expectancy estimates (www.lifeexpectancy.com) from the only routinely used study is not substantially different from the plaintiffs expert report.

* Plaintiff's expert report mortality tables that include people with diabetes and thereby accounts for the relatively higher rate of diabetes and hypertension in the African-American community