Expert Witness Profiler

Tag: estimates

  • Economics Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Income Losses

    Economics Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Income Losses

    Plaintiffs Shazad Buksh (“Buksh”) and Krishna Gathani (“Gathani”) brought this case alleging, among other causes, discrimination and retaliation by Defendants William Sarchino, Southwestern Vermont Medical Center and Southwestern Vermont Health Care. To calculate their damages, both Plaintiffs disclosed the economic expert witness Stephanie Seguino, Ph.D.

    Economics Expert Witness

    Stephanie Seguino, Ph.D. is “Emerita Professor Economics at the University of Vermont (UVM) with expertise in quantitative data analysis as well as gender and racial inequality and labor market discrimination,” who held her position at UVM from 1995 to 2022, as well as the positions of Chair of the Economics Department and Associate Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences.

    She received a Ph.D. in Economics from American University in 1994. Seguino has also “published extensively in peer-reviewed journals,” has “two co-authored edited books,” serves “as associate editor of two economics journals,” and is on the editorial board of a third economics journal.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    I. Updated Buksh Report

    On December 10, 2024, Seguino signed a new expert report for Buksh. The purpose of this report was to “provide an estimate of the Plaintiff’s loss in earnings… and the present value of lifetime medical costs associated with bladder cancer treatment.” Seguino now estimates Buksh’s lost income at $1,844,549, and the “present value of projected medical costs for bladder cancer treatment” at $10,054,800.

    II. Updated Gathani Report

    On December 10, 2024, Seguino signed a new expert report for Gathani.The updated report calculates Gathani’s “lost income due to retaliation at SVMC” in the amount of $384,940.96.

    In her report, Seguino writes that “Gathani was delayed in attaining the qualifications for licensure as a surgical podiatrist by one year and three months due to the defendants’ alleged conduct, which required the plaintiff to pursue his residency in another program.” Seguino thus estimates his income losses “using information from his pay stubs and bonus payment from his first employment since completing his residency.” Accordingly, Seguino calculates Gathani’s “lost income” as “1.25 years of salary as a surgical podiatrist.”

    A. Motion to Exclude Seguino’s Opinion on Buksh

    Defendants sought to exclude Seguino’s expert testimony, arguing in part that Seguino’s opinion is not based upon reliable data and methodology. The Court agreed.

    In Parts I, II, and III of her opinion, Seguino used only two data points to calculate what Buksh’s salary would have been as a surgical podiatrist: the salaries she had access to, those of the other two Plaintiffs in this case (Gathani and Saman).

    If the two data points are considered a sample that is meant to represent surgical podiatrists, then the problem here is not necessarily the use of a small sample of data to estimate the salary of a group; the problem is that no explanation has been given about why the sample set of two could be representative of the entire group.

    Buksh argued that “there is government data on the earnings of podiatrists but not surgical podiatrists” and thus “the defense criticizes Seguino for not using a large sample of incomes from surgical podiatrists across the country but does not state that such a resource is available.” Yet Buksh has the burden to show at least that it is “more likely than not” that his expert’s testimony is based on sufficient facts or data, and is the product of reliable principles and methods.

    Buksh also argued that Seguino’s calculations are conservative and they favor the defense because she took the difference between the BLS data for nonsurgical income to calculate the difference between that and surgical income, rather than using Buksh’s actual income figures—if she had used his actual income, then “the loss in Part II would have been considerably higher.”

    But this argument echoes the problems the Defendants pointed out with Seguino’s methods—why is the BLS data for nonsurgical income “considerably” higher than Buksh’s actual income? And why didn’t Seguino consider that in her calculations—if there is a factor that is depressing Buksh’s salary as a non-surgical podiatrist below the average of what other non-surgical podiatrists make, might that same factor mean that he could make considerably less than the population of two she is comparing his salary to?

    B. Motion to Exclude Seguino’s Opinion on Gathani

    Seguino bases her estimate of Gathani’s lost income for his first year. She did not subtract his actual income in that year (earned in New York, at a new podiatry residency program) from the amount of “lost income.” Nor did she adjust the amount at all, for the reasons explained in footnote one of her report. Essentially, then, Seguino has copied the exact income that Gathani earned as a surgical podiatrist in his first year and estimated that this amount is his lost income in this case.

    There is not much analysis that Seguino adds, nor does she use much “methodology” for the Court to evaluate. In her report, she stated that: “I estimate Gathani’s income losses, using information from his pay stubs and bonus payment from his first employment since completing his residence.” As explained above, this means that Seguino copied the number from Gathani’s first year of practice.

    Held

    The Court granted both motions to exclude Stephanie Seguino’s testimony.

    Key Takeaway

    Here, the trier of fact is not helped by an expert explaining that Gathani could have earned the exact amount in his first year of practicing as a surgical podiatrist as what he did, in fact, earn in his first year of practicing as a surgical podiatrist.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Buksh V. Foot
    Docket Number: 2:21cv190
    Court Name: United States District Court for the District of Vermont
    Order Date: July 06, 2026
  • Economics Expert Allowed to Opine on Pass-Through Damages Estimates

    Economics Expert Allowed to Opine on Pass-Through Damages Estimates

    In this action, the Plaintiffs, the Attorneys General of most of the States and several U.S. territories (“the States”), alleged that twenty-six pharmaceutical companies (“the Defendants”) participated in an overarching conspiracy to fix prices, allocate markets, and rig bids in the sale of generic drugs for skin ailments, and are thus jointly and severally liable for violations of federal and state antitrust and unfair and deceptive practices laws.

    The States claimed damages on behalf of various downstream entities that allegedly purchased these drugs: state agencies and insurance plans, and also consumers and businesses within the applicable States. The States retained economist Hal Singer to calculate putative damages based on the theory that alleged overcharges were passed through numerous intermediaries and re-sellers, from drug manufacturers to these end purchasers. Defendants filed a motion to exclude certain opinions of Singer.

    Economics Expert Witness

    Hal J. Singer has researched, published, and testified on competition-related issues in a wide variety of industries, including media, pharmaceuticals, sports, and finance. He has extensive experience providing expert economic and policy advice to regulatory agencies in the United States and Canada, as well as before congressional committees.

    He has also served as expert for the Federal Trade Commission in a merger challenge and for several U.S. states in monopoly cases. The American Antitrust Institute honored Singer with an antitrust enforcement award for his work in Lidoderm Antitrust in 2018 and for his work in Cung Le, et al. v. Zuffa LLC, d/b/a Ultimate Fighting Championship in 2023. He received his M.A. and Ph.D. in Economics from The John Hopkins University.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    The Defendants filed a motion to exclude Singer’s opinion related to his pass-through damages estimates. To begin with, the Defendants argued that Singer’s analysis failed to differentiate between increases caused by an alleged overcharge and those caused by intermediaries’ independent pricing decisions.

    The Court disagreed. Singer relied on sales and cost data produced by various third parties to calculate pass-through at each stage of the generic pharmaceutical supply chain.

    The States need not isolate all possible causes of cost increases at each step in the distribution chain or show that the Defendants’ unlawful conduct was the sole cause of their injuries (or those of the consumers they represent). It is enough for them to show that the Defendants’ conduct was a substantial or materially contributing factor in producing their injuries.

    The Defendants filed a motion to exclude Singer’s opinion concerning deadweight loss. In the summary judgment ruling, the Court concluded that damages for deadweight loss (and consumer surplus as it relates to “general economy” damages) are not available. Based on that ruling, the Court held that Singer will not be allowed to opine on these issues, and thus the Defendants’ motion to exclude his opinions in this respect was denied as moot.

    Third, the Defendants filed a motion to exclude Singer’s opinion related to the putative premium increases that Managed Care Organizations (“MCOs”) charged to certain States.

    Here, too, the Defendants’ motion to exclude Singer’s opinion on this issue was denied as moot based on the summary judgment ruling.

    Held

    The Court denied the Defendants’ motion to exclude certain opinions of Hal Singer.

    Key Takeaway

    Congress’s 2023 amendment to Rule 702 made clear that: (1) a preponderance of the evidence standard applies to questions of admissibility under Rule 702; and (2) expert testimony “must stay within the bounds of what can be concluded from a reliable application of the expert’s basis and methodology.”

    Singer’s report will assist the jury in deciding whether they have met that standard, and it is based on adequate data that he reliably applies. The Court found Singer’s opinion on pass-through damages estimates to be reliable and based on sufficient data.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Connecticut V. Sandoz, Inc.
    Docket Number: 3:20cv802
    Court Name: United States District Court, Connecticut
    Order Date: February 12, 2026
  • Engineering Expert’s Opinion on Cost Estimates Admitted

    Engineering Expert’s Opinion on Cost Estimates Admitted

    The Great Lakes Insurance Company issued a policy of insurance (the “Policy”) to Gulf Coast Bank and Trust (“Gulf Coast”) covering specific buildings owned by BRH Consultants, specifically, the Burbank Landing Apartments.

    Subsequently, BRH alleged that on August 29, 2021, Hurricane Ida caused damage to Buildings 1 and 2 of the property. Following this event, on September 9, 2021, a claim for damages resulting from the storm was submitted against the Policy.

    While Great Lakes paid certain sums under the Policy, the Plaintiff, BRH, claimed that these payments “were totally inadequate to pay the covered damage” to the property. Conversely, Great Lakes alleged that it had paid all sums due and contended that the claimed damages were not caused by Hurricane Ida and, therefore, fell outside the scope of coverage of the Policy.

    To substantiate its claim, BRH submitted the expert report of Dr. Jerry Householder, whom BRH described as “an accomplished engineer, construction professional, professor, author, and expert.” Nevertheless, Great Lakes filed a motion to exclude Householder as an expert in this case.

    Engineering Expert Witness

    Jerry Householder has a PhD in engineering and has been a licensed professional engineer since 1971. As an engineer, he has been the designer of record on over two billion dollars worth of constructed facilities, and as a contractor, he has constructed over one thousand projects.

    Householder was the Department Chairman of the Department of Construction Management at LSU, where he held a Distinguished Professorship in the College of Engineering. He has written eight books on construction that have been translated into several foreign languages.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Rule 26(a)(B)(2) Deficiencies

    Great Lakes complained that Householder’s 2-page report is “wholly devoid of any analysis linking the facts of this case to his conclusory opinions.”

    While the report is short, the Court declared that it is clear from context that Householder used his extensive education and experience along with his review of the photographs and reports mentioned at pages 1 and 2 of his report to reach his conclusion that the cost estimates listed on page two of the report “are reasonable.”

    Furthermore, Householder expanded on his report in his extensive deposition and in a subsequent declaration.

    To the extent that Great Lakes feels it was surprised by any new information in Householder’s Declaration (which came after his deposition), the Court will allow for a follow up deposition of Householder limited to matters raised for the first time in his Declaration, if there are any.

    Methodology

    Great Lakes argued that Householder’s “report lacked crucial information concerning what methodology, if any, was used to produce those estimates” and “failed to explain how his expertise allowed him to arrive at his opinions.”

    Householder explained in his report that he “inspected the project on more than one occasion and reviewed numerous photographs” and reports which he itemized.

    Furthermore, Householder was questioned extensively at his deposition and, in addition, submitted a clarifying declaration. Therefore, the Court believed Householder’s methodology of applying his experience and professional training to the reasonableness of the costs items is a sufficient methodology.

    Great Lakes complained that Householder “did not inspect the [p]roperty, nor did he perform an independent analysis of the damage to the [p]roperty”. Instead, he relied on information provided by owner and others and did not “verify” the estimates. But this Court and others have held that physical inspection of the property by the testifying expert is not required in order for an expert to opine on the subject property as long as he was provided with underlying data sufficient to provide a basis for his opinions.

    Regarding Great Lakes’ argument that Householder was required to verify the data provided by his client and not rely on its accuracy for purposes of his expert testimony, this Court and others have rejected such an argument.

    Sufficiency of Foundation

    Great Lakes argued that Householder’s opinions lacked a sufficient foundation because he “relied on insufficient facts and data,” namely, the “limited, inaccurate, undocumented, and/or selfserving, representations of the [p]roperty’s owner . . . .”

    However, the Court carefully reviewed Householder’s report and found that there is a sufficient foundation for Householder’s opinions.

    But Great Lakes’ attack on sufficiency is really an attack on Householder’s reliance on what it alleges are the “limited, inaccurate, undocumented, and/or self-serving, representations of the [p]roperty’s owner . . . .”

    According to the Court, the alleged weaknesses, insufficiencies, inconsistencies, and inaccuracies of Householder’s opinions and the data upon which he relied may be tested by the Defendant on cross examination before the jury.

    Held

    The Court denied the Defendant Great Lakes Insurance SE’s Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Jerry Householder.

    Key Takeaways:

    • In determining a party’s compliance with Rule 26, the Court may consider the information gathered in the deposition taken after the report which supplements or explains more fully the information conveyed in the report. The Court found that the original report, especially when supplemented and clarified by Householder’s extensive deposition and his declaration, met the criteria of Rule 26(a)(2)(B).
    • It is evident that Householder did not merely rely on assumptions but, viewing the photographs and reports of others and relying on his pre-Ida inspections of the property and his extensive experience in construction costs, concluded that the estimates provided were reasonable.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Gulf Coast Bank And Trust Company Et Al V. Great Lakes Insurance SE
    Docket Number: 3:23cv1444
    Court Name: United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana
    Order Date: April 16, 2025
  • Insurance Adjuster Expert Witness’ Testimony Admitted Despite Methodological Deficiencies in Gathering Prices

    Insurance Adjuster Expert Witness’ Testimony Admitted Despite Methodological Deficiencies in Gathering Prices

    Plaintiff Ram Krishana Inc., a Louisiana business owned by Mukesh and Kailash Zaveri, operated as Motel 6 (“Hotel Property”) at 2022 Ruth Street, Sulphur, Louisiana. ANK Holdings, LLC, a Louisiana limited liability company with the same Mukesh and Kailash Zaveri as its only members, owned a restaurant (“Restaurant Property”) at an adjoining address.

    Defendant Mt. Hawley Insurance Company issued Ram Krishana an insurance policy covering both the Hotel and Restaurant Properties for the period from  June 27, 2020, to June 27, 2021.

    This case involves an insurance claim relating to alleged damages to Plaintiff’s hotel complex resulting from Hurricanes Laura and Delta, which occurred in August and October 2020, respectively.

    On July 12, 2024, Mt. Hawley filed a Daubert motion to exclude Plaintiff’s insurance adjuster expert witness, Jeffrey Major, from testifying on causation and amount of loss.

    Insurance Adjuster Expert Witness

    Jeffrey S. Major is a licensed public insurance adjuster in over 40 states and territories including being a licensed public adjuster and registered appraiser in the State of Louisiana and a licensed public adjuster in New York.

    He has been adjusting, substantiating and estimating property damage claims to repair and replace property for Reserve, Actual Cash Value (ACV), and Replacement Cost Value (RCV) purposes for over 30 years.

    He has estimated using the property damage estimating program Xactimate for over 18 years.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Expert Report

    In his expert report, Major provided his estimate of damage to the Properties. He opined that Mt. Hawley improperly estimated damages, undervalued the claim, and failed to make proper actual cash value payments in a timely manner. Major estimated the actual cash value of the loss is $1,342,605.08. His expert report relied in part on estimates calculated in a software program called Xactimate.

     Xactimate supplies default prices, but users can, as Major did here, input prices themselves. 

    Mt. Hawley’s Arguments

    Mt. Hawley did not challenge Major’s qualifications. The Court reviewed Major’s training and experience and concluded that Major was qualified to testify about replacement cost valuation and insurance adjustment considering he has adjusted numerous insurance claims arising from hurricanes in the Louisiana area.

    Rather, Mt. Hawley argued that Major’s opinions were unsupported and unreliable based on the price inputs underlying his cost estimates using Xactimate. Mt. Hawley did not argue that Xactimate is an unreliable tool for cost estimation in the insurance industry and Ram Krishana cited several cases approving the use of this common software program. Instead, Mt. Hawley claimed that Major’s opinions are unreliable because the cost information that he purportedly entered into the Xactimate tool for some prices was based only on his general experience and no documentation or objective substantiation for those estimates was provided.

    Major had gathered prices from “actual builders who did the work in this event,” “invoices from contractors and their estimates,” invoices he reviewed, and interviews with contractors, as well as work he did as an adjuster on similar claims during the relevant period.

    Numerous courts have considered Daubert challenges to experts who used Xactimate, but deviated from the default prices or otherwise purportedly erred, and have found that such challenges go to the weight to give an expert’s opinions, not the admissibility of their testimony. 

    La Gorce

    Mt. Hawley cited La Gorce Palace Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Blackboard Specialty Insurance Co., 586 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2022) in support of Major’s exclusion. However, the Court found the case distinguishable from the matter at hand.

    In that case, which involved a jury trial, the Court excluded the testimony of an expert who used Xactimate. Like Major, that expert input at least some of his own costs. However, the expert in La Gorce could not describe the methodology he relied on for calculating input values, did not explain an intelligible process for identifying which damages he deemed to preexist the hurricane nor even identify the damages he excluded on this basis, and could not provide any measurements associated with his estimated costs. The Court also questioned how the expert determined the cost of repair for such a large property over just two days. 

    In the present case, however, Major identified the particular prices that he independently input into Xactimate. He explained that the costs came from builders who did work in the storm that damaged Plaintiff’s property and his own experience in adjusting similar claims. While Major apparently did not have any documentation to support his estimates, deficiencies in his methodology for gathering prices did not reach the level of the methodological deficiencies in La Gorce, in which the expert could not explain how he gathered data or formed his damage estimations. Also, the expert testimony in La Gorce would have been presented to a jury rather than to the Court in a bench trial, as here.

    Analysis

    Hawley may well have strong cross-examination fodder based on the fact that Major has not produced records or written substantiation of the estimates that he included that were based on his expertise and experience. Such critiques will be closely scrutinized by the Court in determining the weight, if any, to afford Major’s opinions.

    Given that this case is set to be tried to the bench, unless the disputed evidence is wholly irrelevant or so speculative as to have no probative value, it is appropriate for the Court to take in the evidence freely and separate helpful conclusions from ones that are not grounded in reliable methodology.

    Held

    The Court denied Mt. Hawley’s Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s insurance adjuster expert witness, Jeffrey Major.

    Key Takeaway:

    The Court held that Major sufficiently explained his methodology and established its reliability, despite the apparent lack of documentation to support his estimates. Major identified the particular prices that he independently input into Xactimate and explained that the costs came from builders who did work in the storm that damaged Plaintiff’s property and his own experience in adjusting similar claims.

    Major did not produce records or written substantiation of the estimates that he included but the Court still refused to entirely exclude Major’s testimony.

    Case Details:

    Case caption: Ram Krishana Inc. v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co.
    Docket Number: 1:22cv3803
    Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
    Date: February 3, 2025