Economics Expert’s Opinion on Career Earnings Prospects Admitted
Posted on December 29, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
This case involves a Federal Employers Liability Act (“FELA”) claim for emotional distress and a Federal Railroad Safety Act (“FRSA”) whistleblower claim based on alleged retaliation.
Despite the failure to timely file the required documents, the Union Pacific’s Employee Assistance Program (“EAP”) granted Nathan Walker a grace extension of his medical leave of absence.
On May 14, 2022, Walker was flagged in the EAP system for revocation of leave because he failed to timely submit the required medical documents. Union Pacific revoked Walker’s medical leave, placed him in an absent without leave status (“AWOL”), and sent a termination letter to Walker for failure to protect employment. On May 23, 2022, Walker’s counselor cured the defect, and EAP extended Walker’s medical leave of absence until October of 2022. On October 19, 2022, Walker was released from his medical leave of absence and ultimately did return to work.
Walker asserted that Union Pacific unlawfully retaliated against him for engaging in protected activity under the FRSA.
Walker designated Dr. Kenneth G. McCoin, Ph.D. as his economic expert. Union Pacific filed the instant Daubert motion, arguing that (1) McCoin’s methodology and calculations are based off incorrect facts, and (2) his expert opinion is “fundamentally unsupported” and irrelevant because it has no “validity when applied to the pertinent factual inquiry.”
Economics Expert Witness
Kenneth Glen McCoin is a consulting economist and a chartered financial analyst. He holds a Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Houston. His professional experience includes serving as Chief Economist at American General Capital Management. He also taught investments and corporate finance at Houston Baptist University.
Discussion by the Court
First, Union Pacific argued that McCoin has been excluded by a previous Court and thus should be excluded by this Court as well. However, even if other courts have given little weight to McCoin’s testimony or excluded him as an expert, that does not mean his ostensible testimony here will not satisfy a Daubert analysis.
Union Pacific argued that McCoin based his methodology and calculations off incorrect facts because his appraisal of Walker’s earning capacity was “based on the wholly incorrect assumption that [Walker] had not returned to work.”
However, Union Pacific noted that Walker was released from his medical leave of absence and returned to work on October 18, 2022. Union Pacific asserted that McCoin’s opinion is misleading because it assumes a leave of absence three times longer than the actual leave.
Walker conceded that McCoin’s statement of his return-to-work date was an incorrect statement of fact in his report. However, in an affidavit, McCoin stated that he is providing an appraisal of the earning capacity of Walker from the alleged date his economic loss began and continues through his remaining work life. Therefore, Walker contended that fact is not critical to McCoin’s opinion because his opinion is dependent on evaluating a pre-injured Walker and that person’s career earnings prospects.
Analysis
The Court’s role is to ensure that the admitted expert testimony is both reliable and relevant.
McCoin attests that he is determining what Walker “more likely than not could have earned in wages through the rest of his work life if not for his injury.” McCoin further attested that his calculations are not based on what Walker’s actual wages are or will be for any period since his injury or in the future.
It is within the province of the jury, not the Daubert gatekeeper, to analyze and weigh an expert’s findings to determine whether they do in fact support his conclusion.”
Therefore, the Court found the methodology used by McCoin acceptable under Daubert. Additionally, any reliance on incorrect facts in forming some of his opinions did not render all his opinions inadmissible.
Held
The Court denied Union Pacific’s Daubert motion to exclude the opinions of Dr. Kenneth McCoin .
Key Takeaway
The original reliance on the incorrect facts goes to the weight of his testimony not the admissibility of the testimony itself. Thus, the Court concluded that McCoin’s expert testimony is admissible as both relevant and reliable.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Walker V. Union Pacific Railroad Co |
| Docket Number: | 5:23cv740 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Louisiana Western |
| Order Date: | November 14, 2025 |
