Foundations for Reliable Expert Testimony

Case: Taylor vs. Am. Fabritech, Inc. (14-02-00982-CV)

Reporting Source: Dauberttracker.com

Type of economic damage testimony: Lost earning capacity and lifetime health care costs

Commentary: In this 2004 case in Texas Court of Appeals, the court’s opinion lays out criteria which can be used to judge the admissibility of expert witness testimony by an economist. The expert’s testimony was found to be admissible based on the following points:
--The expert had Ph.D. in economics
--The expert was a member of a university faculty
--The expert had extensive experience in analysis of personal injury damages
--The expert used standard techniques that have been subjected to peer review
--The expert’s testimony was based on a review of the evidence concerning the patient’s injuries and on reliable data from the US government

From the opinion:
“[The economic expert] expected to testify regarding his evaluation of economic losses suffered by [the plaintiff] due to his impairment. [He] has a Ph.D. in Economics, is a former chairman of the Department of Economics..., and has considerable experience in the analysis of personal injury damages. In his deposition, he stated that he based his evaluation on standardized principles in the field of economics that have been peer reviewed. He further stated he reviewed the Life Care Plan created by Dr. ... for [the plaintiff], as well as [his] medical and employment records and deposition testimony and interviews. Although he said he based his calculation, at least in part, on the level of care in the Life Care Plan, he also said he could adjust his figures accordingly if changes were made to that plan. He further stated he based his present value calculations on what has happened in the past, by looking at [the plaintiff's] earnings history, as well as statistics from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Census Bureau, and standardized life expectancy tables. He stated the data in these resources are subject to elaborate review mechanisms and have been found reliable. Based on these representations, we find the trial court did not err in finding [the economic expert's] testimony was based on a reliable foundation.”