Economics Expert’s Testimony on Lost Earning Potential Admitted
Posted on October 28, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
On May 22, 2021, Keith Anderson (“Anderson”) and Lorena McCaigue (“McCaigue”) (“Plaintiffs”) brought this action against Pasadena Police Chief John E. Perez (“Perez”) and the City of Pasadena (“City”). The action arises out of Defendants’ alleged retaliation against Plaintiffs in response to the following actions: (1) bringing a civil action against the City of Pasadena and certain Pasadena police officers in which violations of the California Tort Claims Act were alleged; and (2) making a request under California’s Public Records Act (“CPRA”) to obtain copies of police body camera footage.
To begin with, McCaigue is a federal law enforcement agent who was based in the Los Angeles area. On July 22, 2019, Pasadena police responded to a call reporting a supposed suicidal person. Thereafter, McCaigue’s identity was publicized in such a way that it was no longer safe for her to continue her work in the Los Angeles area. McCaigue applied for and was granted a transfer to a new locality that has not been disclosed. However, in this new locality McCaigue lacked the same opportunities for meaningful advancement, thus negatively affecting her lifetime total earnings.
Defendant argued that the opinions of Phillip D. Sidlow, Plaintiff’s expert, were insufficient to prove that Defendant’s conduct caused McCaigue’s lost wages because his testimony was unreliable and based on “assumptions.”
Economics Expert Witness
Phillip D. Sidlow has a Master’s Degree in Applied Economics from Johns Hopkins University and is employed as a vocational economics analyst. Moreover, he has published articles about earning capacity loss, and has served as an expert in calculating lost economic opportunities suffered by parties in hundreds of lawsuits.
Discussion by the Court
Defendant argued that Sidlow’s testimony should have been excluded because it “lacked foundation and was based on pure speculation,” including assumptions he and Plaintiff McCaigue made, rather than Sidlow’s independent “research,” “review,” or consultation with Plaintiff McCaigue’s supervisors.
Based on Sidlow’s experience, education, and specialized knowledge, the Court determined that Sidlow was qualified to provide expert testimony as to Plaintiff McCaigue’s lost earning potential, based on information provided by Plaintiff McCaigue.
In other words, Defendant’s challenge to Sidlow concerned the weight, not admissibility, of his testimony.
Held
The Court denied the Defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of Phillip Sidlow.
Key Takeaway:
Although Defendant asserted that Sidlow’s testimony must be excluded because it was based on “pure speculation and assumptions,” the assumptions of an expert go to the probative weight, rather than the admissibility, of the evidence.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Anderson V. Perez |
| Docket Number: | 2:21cv4290 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court for the Central District of California |
| Order Date: | September 29, 2025 |
