Economics Expert's Downstream Opinions Admitted

This suit arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on March 26, 2024, on LA Highway 6063 in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana. On that date, Samantha Collins alleged, she was a passenger in a vehicle that was rear-ended by a Peterbilt tractor driven by DeMarco Howard, who was driving in the course and scope of his employment with D. Howard Trucking, LLC.

Plaintiff disclosed Dr. Daniel M. Groft and Dr. Aaron Wolfson as experts. Defendants sought to exclude or limit their testimony under FRE 702 and the Daubert standard.

Economics Expert Witness

Dr. Daniel Matthew Groft received his doctorate in economics from Louisiana State University. Groft served as the economist at the Louisiana Economic Development where he provided economic research services and produced statistical data, frequent economic reports and analyses for use by regional partners, marketing staff, clients, the legislature and other governmental bodies. Groft has also served as the economist at the Louisiana Department of Revenue.

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

Life Care Planning Expert Witness

Dr. Aaron M. Wolfson is a certified vocational rehabilitation counselor, certified life care planner, and licensed rehabilitation psychologist who has testified nationally as an expert in many state and federal jurisdictions.

Wolfson is a New Orleans native who earned his Bachelor’s degree in Psychology from Colgate University, as well as a Master’s Degree and Doctoral degree in Psychology from the University of Southern Mississippi. He completed a doctoral internship at the University of Washington Department of Behavioral Sciences, where he also completed a post-doctoral fellowship in Rehabilitation Psychology at the University of Washington School of Medicine Department of Rehabilitation Medicine.

Get the full story on challenges to Aaron Wolfson’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.

Discussion by the Court

Aaron Wolfson

Defendants did not challenge Wolfson's qualifications as a life care planner. Instead, they complained that he relied on the treatment recommendations of Plaintiff's treating physicians, Dr. Gassan Chaiban and Dr. Paul Fenn, made his own assumptions based on those recommendations, and did not consider the opinions of defense IME provider, Dr. Seth Rosenzweig. As this Court has previously determined, Wolfson's methodology—including clinical interviews with Plaintiff, review of her medical records, and consultation with treating providers—passes muster under Daubert.

Further, because Wolfson is not a medical expert himself, it is appropriate for him to consult with Plaintiff's treating providers and incorporate their opinions regarding future medical care. Wolfson is not qualified to second-guess these recommendations. Similarly, there is no requirement that he seek out other opinions in attempting to determine the best course of treatment. The fact that Wolfson's opinion is based on facts disputed by Defendants did not provide sufficient basis to limit his testimony.

Defendants alleged that Wolfson has made his own assumptions in projecting decades of repeat epidural steroid injections (ESI's) and a knee arthroplasty revision in fifteen years for Plaintiff. But Wolfson identifies Chaiban and Fenn as the source of his recommendations. These providers were not required to provide a written report under Rule 26(a)(2)(C). Defendants point to no deposition testimony contradicting Wolfson's recommendations. Accordingly, they provided no basis for excluding or limiting Wolfson's testimony. If Chaiban or Fenn testifies to more conservative treatment recommendations at trial, then Defendants may use this to attack the weight of Wolfson's testimony.

Daniel Groft

Defendants first challenged Groft for improperly relying on the future medical care recommendations in Wolfson's life care plan, which in turn purportedly relied on the recommendations of Plaintiff's treating medical providers. The Court has denied Defendants' Daubert challenge to Wolfson on this basis. The challenge to Groft is likewise unfounded. Because Defendants have not shown a basis for challenging the purported recommendations of these treating providers, much less that those reported by Wolfson differ from the opinions of the providers, they cannot challenge the downstream opinions of the life care planner and economist.

As for Groft's own opinions, Defendants maintained that his inflation and discount rate methodology are unreliable. Specifically, they challenged his use of different inflation rates for different projected medical expenses and a 4.9 percent discount rate based on an average of the current 20-year and 30-year U.S. Treasury bond rates. On the first point, Plaintiff noted that the Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes separate Consumer Price Index series for physicians' services, services by other professionals, prescription drugs, and outpatient hospital services. Because those series have diverged, Groft believes it is more accurate to match each projected cost to the published series rather than to apply one averaged rate to all future costs.

As to the discount rate, Groft's rate is based on the current twenty- and thirty-year U.S. Treasury bond rates to discount costs for Plaintiff's future medical costs over the next 25.6 years, her life expectancy from the date of trial based on Wolfson's life care plan. The resulting discount rate is 4.9 percent. Defendants failed to show a basis for the Court to second-guess this methodology. To the extent that their own expert will call it into question, Defendants must rely on "vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof."

Held

The Court denied the Defendants' Daubert motions to exclude or limit the testimony of experts Daniel Groft and Aaron Wolfson.

Key Takeaway

The Daubert Court identified several additional factors for assessing whether the expert's methodology is valid and reliable, including whether the expert's theory had been tested and subjected to peer review, the known or potential error rate for the expert's theory or technique, the existence and maintenance of standards and controls, and the degree to which the technique or theory has been generally accepted in the scientific community. However, the same standards cannot be applied to all possible fields of expertise. Accordingly, the Daubert analysis is necessarily flexible and fact-specific.

Case Details: