Economics Expert Allowed to Opine on the Value of Lost Household Services

Plaintiff Patricia Ball sued River Oaks Hospital and Jackson HB Medical Services, LLC after her adult daughter, the late Formeka Bell, passed away. Formeka died one day after she was treated by staff at the River Oaks emergency room. Patricia pursued the claims on behalf of Formeka's minor daughter, who Patricia adopted while Formeka was still living.

To prove the value of lost earnings and lost household services after Formeka's death, Patricia offered expert testimony from economist Bill M. Brister, Ph.D. Jackson HB contended that "Brister's projection is not a reliable calculation of the actual loss, if any, which Plaintiff's [adopted] daughter has sustained."

Economics Expert Witness

Bill Malcolm Brister is an economist with extensive experience in the field of forensic economics, including the calculation of economic damages in wrongful death cases.

Want to know more about the challenges Bill Brister has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

Discussion by the Court

Jackson HB acknowledged Brister's qualifications, but it challenged the reliability of his opinions on the value of lost household services.

Failure to Consider Mitigation

Jackson HB said that Brister "failed to account for Plaintiff's legal obligation to provide for her adopted daughter and mitigate the economic loss." It also argued that because the child has been cared for by her aunt since her mother's passing, "the child has not sustained any economic loss in relation to the household services which Formeka previously performed."

Whether Jackson HB may ultimately argue mitigation remains to be seen. First, it has not shown how Patricia's legal duty to provide for the child prevents the child from seeking damages for the lost service Formeka provided before she died. It is the child, not Patricia, who is the wrongful-death beneficiary.

Second, even if the aunt assumed the expense for the services Formeka provided before her death, Jackson HB has not shown why that would be a mitigation issue and not a collateral source.

Jackson HB may address these issues before trial; for now, the arguments are not persuasive. In any event, to the extent that Jackson HB faults Brister for failing to consider certain details in his calculations, "courts have found no basis for exclusion when experts were challenged for failing to take into account certain data." The argument goes to weight.

Household Duration

Next, Jackson HB faults Brister for "inconsistency in the assumed duration of this particular household." In his report, Brister assumes that Formeka "would have lived in a 2-person household until her child reache[d] 21 years of age." But for lost household services, he estimates these losses through the remainder of Formeka's life expectancy. Jackson HB sees an inconsistency that renders the opinions unreliable.

Brister addresses this criticism in his affidavit. First, he notes that economists have different formulas for calculating lost wages and lost household services. For lost household services, he assumed that some level of support would continue after the minor leaves home. That seems logical. But because services would diminish after the child leaves, Brister applied higher personal-consumption percentages after that point. Jackson HB has not shown that this source or Brister's reliance on it is unreliable.

Other Services Considered

Jackson HB said that Brister's projections are flawed because he considered "services (or categories of services) which did not directly benefit the child." Brister stated that he deducted "that portion of household services that is for the sole benefit of the decedent." To the extent that Jackson HB wishes to contest any specific calculations or the basis of his assumptions, it goes to weight, not admissibility.

Household Size

Jackson HB finally faults Brister for relying on source material that "appears to assume a three (3) to four (4) person household—not the two (2) person household that Formeka maintained."

Brister testified that economists "frequently rely" on such "nationally derived averages" when calculating damages. The Court found that this methodology is sufficiently reliable to be admissible.

Held

The Court denied the Defendant's motion to exclude the testimony of Bill Brister.

Key Takeaway

As a general rule, questions relating to the bases and sources of an expert's opinion affect the weight to be assigned that opinion rather than its admissibility and should be left for the jury's consideration.

Case Details: