Accounting Expert Allowed to Testify About the Lifetime Loss of Earnings
Posted on June 18, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
Plaintiff Kimberly Breuil claimed that she was injured in a motor vehicle accident that took place on October 8, 2021.
Breuil claimed that her injuries have made it painful to look downward and difficult to lift objects. As a result, she is seeking future lost wages and diminished earning capacity totaling between $483,273 and $1,085,644. She alleged that these injuries forced her to resign from her job at the United States Postal Service and take a lower-paying job at Pizza Hut or a similar employer for the remainder of her career. Breuil asserted that she has already experienced, and will continue to experience, loss of income and earning potential.
Defendants Liberty Land Carriers, LLC and Michael White filed motions to exclude three of Breuil’s experts, Brooke Liggett, Dr. Brett Miller and Brendan Bourdage arguing that they have failed to satisfy the requirements for admissible expert testimony set forth in Rule 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
Accounting Expert Witness
Brooke A. Liggett is a Certified Public Accountant, a Master Analyst in Financial Forensics, a Certified Valuation Analyst, and is also certified in Financial Forensics. She is the owner of Liggett Forensic Accounting and Economics.
She specializes in calculating economic damages in personal injury and wrongful death cases, as well as in business-related economic damages.
Orthopedic Surgery Expert Witness
Dr. Brett Anthony Miller is a board-certified orthopedic surgeon and sports medicine specialist. Miller finished his undergraduate education at Washburn University in Topeka, Kansas, before earning his Doctor of Medicine degree from the University of Kansas School of Medicine in Kansas City, Kansas. There, he went on to complete both his internship and orthopedic surgery residency at the University of Kansas Medical Center.
Miller joined Orthopedic and Sports Medicine Center in 2004. At the practice’s office in St. Joseph, Missouri, Miller offers specialized care for sports-related and acute injuries using evidence-based medicine and modern operative techniques, including shoulder arthroscopy.
Accident Reconstruction Expert Witness
Brendan P. Bourdage holds an M.S. in Kinesiology from California Polytechnic University, Humboldt. He has successfully completed numerous continuing education courses in crash analysis, collision reconstruction and investigation, as well as other training related to motor vehicle accidents. He holds licenses and registrations in engineering, traffic accident reconstruction, and functional movement, and has published articles and presented seminars on these topics.
Discussion by the Court
Brooke Liggett
Liggett, a Certified Public Accountant, initially calculated that the Plaintiff’s change in employment had resulted in a lifetime loss of earnings between $488,273 and $1,085,644.
However, the Plaintiff clarified that Liggett did not offer any opinions on whether the accident caused the Plaintiff to leave her job at the United States Postal Service (USPS), whether she could have continued working there, or on any other causation-related issues. Instead, Liggett’s role was limited to comparing the Plaintiff’s former earning capacity at USPS to her income at the time. She relied on the Plaintiff’s own statements about her inability to continue working at USPS and based her calculations on the Plaintiff’s then-current job and income.
Moreover, Liggett explicitly stated that she was not a vocational expert and was not offering vocational opinions. Her testimony was confined to calculating the financial losses related to earning capacity and retirement benefits, which was within the scope of her expertise as a CPA. Additionally, the Plaintiff asserted that Liggett had no opinions about whether the Defendants caused the Plaintiff’s injuries or whether those injuries led to a reduction in earnings.
Consequently, the Plaintiff contended that, if the jury concluded the Defendants were responsible for the Plaintiff’s job loss, Liggett’s testimony would assist the jury in determining the amount of damages. Ultimately, the Court found that Liggett was qualified to testify about present value calculations. Any concerns raised by the Defendants could be addressed through cross-examination or the presentation of contrary evidence. Importantly, the record contained no indication that Liggett intended to offer opinions on causation or vocational matters, and any such testimony would not be permitted. She was allowed to testify strictly in her capacity as an accountant, relying on admissible evidence.
Brett Miller
Miller, an orthopedic surgeon, conducted an independent medical examination of the Plaintiff. The Defendants sought to prevent him from offering any opinions on the Plaintiff’s mental health conditions allegedly caused by the accident, arguing that he is not qualified to do so. In response, the Plaintiffs stated that they have withdrawn any opinions Miller may have had regarding the Plaintiff’s mental health or depression. Therefore, they argued, the Defendants’ motion is now moot.
In reply, the Defendants maintained that the Court should formally exclude any such opinions, since Miller, as an orthopedic surgeon, is not qualified to opine on mental health issues. The Court noted that the Plaintiffs had clearly stated—both in their filings and on the record—that Miller would not offer any testimony or opinions related to the Plaintiff’s mental health or depression.
If the Plaintiffs later attempt to introduce such opinions from Miller at trial, the Court will address any objections from the Defendants at that time. However, since the Plaintiffs have already withdrawn these opinions, they will not be allowed at trial. As a result, the motion to exclude is denied as moot.
Brendan Bourdage
The Defendants argued that Bourdage was not qualified to offer expert testimony on several issues, including the speed of impact during the collision, the change in velocity of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the effect of the collision on the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s injuries. Specifically, they claimed that Bourdage was not a medical expert and, therefore, should not have been permitted to testify about the Plaintiff’s injuries or their causes. Moreover, they contended that he lacked the necessary engineering background to provide biomechanical opinions.
In addition, the Defendants moved to exclude Bourdage’s opinions entirely, asserting that his conclusions were not sufficiently connected to the facts of the case and would not assist the jury in resolving any factual disputes. Furthermore, they challenged the reliability of Bourdage’s methodology.
After reviewing Bourdage’s CV and expert report, the Court found that the Defendants’ concerns were more appropriately addressed through cross-examination. Accordingly, Bourdage was permitted to present the opinions set forth in his report regarding how rear-end collisions could cause injuries, along with the general mechanisms and contributing factors involved in such injuries. However, because Bourdage was not a medical doctor, the Court ruled that he could not—and would not—be allowed to testify about the specific injuries the Plaintiff may have suffered in this collision.
Held
To begin with, all rulings by this Court on Daubert motions are preliminary in nature. The Court’s rulings are subject to change based on the evidence and testimony presented during trial.
- The Court denied the Defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of Brooke Liggett.
- The Defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Brett Miller was denied as moot.
- The Court denied the Defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of Brendan Bourdage, PhD.
Key Takeaways:
- There is nothing in the record to suggest that Liggett has any opinion about causation or any vocational opinions. Liggett may testify as an accountant relying on other admissible testimony.
- Bourdage is not a medical doctor and cannot, and will not, be allowed to testify as to what injuries this Plaintiff actually suffered in this collision.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Breuil Et Al V. White Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 3:23cv5048 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Missouri Western |
| Order Date: | June 17, 2025 |
