Expert Witness Profiler

Tag: Household Services

  • Economics Expert’s Opinion on Lost Household Services Excluded

    Economics Expert’s Opinion on Lost Household Services Excluded

    The current dispute arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on October 26, 2022. While Plaintiff Altagrace Exume was following behind a tractor-trailer driven by Defendant Alexys Figueredo, a spare tire fell from the truck and struck Plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff allegedly suffered injuries as a result of the collision. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant United Cargo Logistics, LLC (“UCL”) is liable for Plaintiff’s injuries under a variety of negligence and vicarious liability theories.

    UCL filed a motion to strike Plaintiff’s expert economist, Roberto Cavazos, arguing that his opinion was unreliable, speculative, and unsupported by the evidence.

    Economics Expert Witness

    Roberto Cavazos is a professional economist with over 30 years of experience. He holds a BA, MPA and PhD from the University of Texas. Cavazos has worked on labor issues including lost earnings litigation matters, labor management relations for global multinationals and research and evaluation for the U.S. Department of Labor. He has been a faculty member of The University of Texas at San Antonio, Florida International University and Carnegie Mellon University where he taught graduate level economics and statistics.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Continuance Until Cavazos is Deposed

    Plaintiff urged the Court to postpone consideration of UCL’s Motion until after UCL deposes Cavazos. Discovery closed on March 20, 2025. Neither party has alerted the Court that Cavazos was deposed, even though months have passed since the filing of UCL’s motion. Thus, the Court found that ample time has passed, and it should rule on the instant motion.

    While the deposition of an expert witness is undoubtedly best practice and helpful to the Court when evaluating a Daubert challenge, a deposition is not required before a party moves to exclude the testimony.

    While UCL had the right to depose Cavazos to explore his opinions and chose not to do so, the right to depose an expert does not extinguish Plaintiff’s obligation to comply with Rule 26 and Daubert.

    Plaintiff has cited no binding authority for the proposition that an expert must be deposed before this Court can rule on UCL’s motion to strike. Further, UCL is correct that Rule 26 requires a complete statement of all opinions the expert will express, the basis for them, and the facts and data considered by the expert in forming those opinions.

    Cavazos’ Expert Report

    Cavazos’ general methodology to calculate lost wages and earning capacity is simple. First, he made his conclusion that Plaintiff will lose $15,000 per year in wages for the rest of her working life due to her injuries. Next, he estimated that Plaintiff has sixteen remaining years for her work. After determining Plaintiff’s remaining work life based on a single source, he then applied a corresponding annual increase to the $15,000 of 3.5% for inflation and annual present value of discount of 4.527%.

    Notably, Cavazos concluded, with no factual support, that Plaintiff’s lost wages will remain constant, meaning that he concluded that Plaintiff’s injury is permanent and will affect her earning capacity for the rest of her life. He then concluded that Plaintiff has suffered $248,219 in past and future lost wages and earning capacity.

    Cavazos provided a similar analysis for loss of household services. First, he concluded that prior to her injury, Plaintiff spent approximately 2.89 hours per day on various household services. His basis for this conclusion is a “survey” presumably conducted after Plaintiff’s accident . Additionally, Cavazos concludes that Plaintiff can only perform 50% of these household services for the rest of her life, due to her injury. He then states that Plaintiff will perform those services until her actuarial projected death, which is projected to be at the age of seventy-eight. After collecting the underlying conclusions, he then applies the same annual inflation and present value discount multipliers to conclude that Plaintiff has suffered a total of $395,294 in past and future loss of household services. To conclude his report, he adds all of Plaintiff’s economic damages together for a grand total of $643,513.

    Lost Wages and Earning Capacity

    Cavazos’ expert report has serious gaps in reasoning that make his opinion about the Plaintiff’s lost wages and reduced earning capacity unreliable. His main conclusion is that the Plaintiff will lose about $15,000 per year. To support this, he says he relied on an interview with the Plaintiff conducted on July 23, 2024. However, the report merely referenced the interview without explaining why she would lose that specific amount or even stating what her job is.

    Moreover, his report did not mention the nature of the Plaintiff’s injury, how it has affected her ability to work, how long she may be unable to work fully, or whether he consulted a vocational expert for a more thorough evaluation.

    The Court could reasonably find Cavazos’ opinion unreliable for these reasons alone.

    Social Security Earnings Statement

    Moreover, Cavazos’ opinion is wholly inconsistent with the evidence on the record. Three pay stubs from 2024 and Plaintiff’s Social Security Earnings Statement supported Cavazos’ claim that Plaintiff will lose $15,000 per year. However, the Social Security Earnings Statement shows earnings before her injury at $70,816 for 2020 and $64,855 for 2021. In 2022 (the year of her injury) she earned $69,330. In 2023 (the year after her injury) she earned $61,169. Thus, even using the highest amount Plaintiff earned in the period of 2020–2023, Plaintiff’s maximum earning was $70,816 and her lowest earnings after the injury was $61,189. That leaves a difference of $9,647, which is nowhere near the claimed $15,000 per year.

    Pay Stubs

    Likewise, Plaintiff’s pay stubs from 2024 showed a similar problem. The three pay stubs are for March 15, March 29, and April 26. The pay stubs showed that Plaintiff was paid on a biweekly basis. Averaging the three together yields an average biweekly pay of $2,599.37. Thus, simple math shows that Plaintiff’s yearly salary for 2024 based on the average biweekly pay would be $67,583.71. The difference between Plaintiff’s yearly earnings for 2020 and the approximate amount for 2024 is only $2,602.29.

    Assuming that Plaintiff was paid in accordance with the records she provided, her “lost” earnings are miles away from the claim of $15,000. Problematically, Cavazos did not explain how Plaintiff’s claim of losing $15,000 per year is consistent with any of her prior financial earnings. He concluded, with no analysis or discussion, that Plaintiff’s losses are what she claims, even when all of the documentary evidence suggests a contrary conclusion.

    The Court held that the largest gap in Cavazos’ analysis is his glaring assumption that Plaintiff’s injury, whatever it may be, will remain constant as a permanent disability for the remainder of her life. In short, Cavazos’ entire opinion is based on his own ipse dixit that Plaintiff will lose $15,000 per year and that her injury is permanent.

    Loss of Household Services

    In determining household services Cavazos again assumed that Plaintiff will be permanently disabled by assuming that her injury will decrease her ability to perform household services by 50% for the rest of her life. He stated that Plaintiff is projected to live until the age of seventy-eight. In performing his calculations, he states that Plaintiff will only be able to perform 50% of the household services she used to perform based on her injury.

    His chart showed that the amount of time she can dedicate to those tasks will remain constant for the remainder of her life. Yet, as with lost wages and earning capacity, the Court held that there is no evidence to support that her injury is permanent and will hinder her from performing household services for the remainder of her life, nor of the factual basis to determine the amount of time Plaintiff spends on the daily household services.

    For conclusions vital to the reliability of his opinion, he relied on an interview with Plaintiff. As far as the Court can tell, the interview consisted of two questions: (1) how much money do you expect to lose each year, and (2) what percentage of your household services can you no longer perform.

    Held

    The Court granted the Defendant United Cargo Logistics, LLC’s motion to exclude the testimony of Roberto Cavazos.

    Key Takeaway:

    Cavazos appeared to have accepted the Plaintiff’s claim at face value, basing his entire analysis on her unverified statement that she would lose $15,000 annually. While experts may consider what a party tells them, they are still required to conduct their own independent analysis. In this case, Cavazos failed to do so and instead relied solely on the Plaintiff’s word.

    Expert testimony is never appropriate when the witness merely synthesizes a party’s trial arguments and presents them as an expert opinion. Here, Cavazos relies upon an unsupported conclusion that Plaintiff is permanently disabled.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Altagrace Exume V. United Cargo Logistics, LLC, Et Al
    Docket Number: 4:24cv205
    Court Name: United States District Court, Texas Eastern
    Order Date: June 16, 2025
  • Tennessee Law & Expert Witnesses: Blazin Wings Case Highlights Damage Limits

    Tennessee Law & Expert Witnesses: Blazin Wings Case Highlights Damage Limits

    Charles Haney, an ATM business owner, suffered injuries after tripping over a mat at a Blazin Wings restaurant in Jackson, Tennessee. He was visiting the restaurant to perform routine maintenance on an ATM, one of several that Haney owned and operated throughout West Tennessee. 

    Haney initiated this tort action against Blazin Wings, seeking damages, including lost wages, and retained vocational expert Bruce Brawner and economist Bill Malcolm Brister to support his claims.

    Vocational Rehabilitation Expert Witness

    Bruce Brawner is a vocational rehabilitation counselor and also a life care planner. He formed Brawner & Associates in Madison, Mississippi. He has a master’s degree in vocational rehabilitation counseling from Mississippi State University.

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

    Finance Expert Witness

    Bill Malcolm Brister teaches finance at Millsaps College. He holds a PhD. from the University of Arkansas. He has done a good bit of consulting in the area of litigation support.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Relying on Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 403, Blazin Wings made three overarching arguments with respect to Brawner: first, Brawner’s testimony was unnecessary because the jury can assess Haney’s loss of earning capacity without that testimony; second, Brawner’s opinions were unreliable and untrustworthy; and third, Brawner’s testimony will confuse the jury. As to Brister, Blazin Wings likewise invoked Rules 702 and 403. It argues that ” Brister’s opinions are based solely on the unreliable and untrustworthy figures used by Brawner,” and should accordingly be excluded as cumulative, duplicative, and unreliable. Finally, Blazin Wings contended that because Haney cannot recover damages for loss of household services under Tennessee law, Brawner’s and Brister’s opinions regarding that loss are irrelevant and otherwise unreliable. 

    Bruce Brawner

    Defendant’s Objections:

    Blazin Wings first argued that Brawner’s expert testimony was not necessary for the jury to calculate Haney’s lost earning capacity. 

    They asserted that Haney could provide sufficient testimony about his injuries and their impact on his earning capacity, making Brawner’s specialized input unnecessary. The Court held that Haney would be able to testify to the obvious nature of his symptoms and its impact on his ability to work. But it does not follow that an expert witness’s testimony is unnecessary to help establish the extent of his losses. This basis is thus insufficient to exclude Brawner’s testimony.

    Blazin Wings criticized Brawner’s reliance on Department of Labor data for “ATM Servicers,” claiming it was an imprecise match for Haney’s unique business. They insisted on the necessity of Haney’s actual financial records. They argued that Brawner failed to account for Haney’s continued income from his ATMs after the incident. Blazin Wings contested Brawner’s work-life expectancy calculation, arguing that it ignored Haney’s health and medical history, including that Haney has diabetes and has had both his bladder and prostate removed.

    Blazin Wings contended that Brawner’s testimony would confuse the jury and waste time, as the jury could independently assess Haney’s damages.

    Analysis:

    The Court found Brawner’s testimony regarding lost wages relevant and reliable under Rule 702. It emphasized that challenges to Brawner’s data and assumptions affected the weight of his testimony, not its admissibility. The Court stated that cross examination was the appropriate place to challenge the experts findings.

    Bill Brister

    Defendant’s Objections:

    Blazin Wings argued that Brister’s opinions were unreliable because they were based on Brawner’s “unreliable” data. They argued that Brister’s testimony was cumulative, simply “parroting” Brawner’s calculations.

    In his report, Brister relied on the lost earnings calculations provided by Brawner and government data to calculate the present value of those losses. In the appendices to his report, Brister outlined his calculations for various scenarios and provides the sources he relied on.

    Blazin Wings has presented no authority that an expert may not rely on the calculations of another expert. Indeed, under Rule 703 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, “experts may rely on data from others, at least to the extent that the data is of the type reasonably relied on by other experts in the field.”

    Moreover, the Court held that Brister’s testimony is probative as to the issue of damages. Furthermore, reliance on another expert’s report does not necessarily render that expert’s testimony cumulative. While Brister’s report may go to the same issue, it nonetheless offers a distinct perspective on the time-value of Haney’s purported losses. 

    Loss of Household Services

    Blazin Wings argued that Tennessee law doesn’t allow recovery for the general “loss of value” of one’s own household services. The Court agreed, stating that only actual expenditures for replacement household services are recoverable.

    Basically, Brawner relied on “expectancy data” provided by the Department of Labor to inform his calculation——not testimony from Haney regarding what he had paid or would pay someone else to perform household services. Similarly, in his expert report, Brister did not identify any actual or predicted expenditures incurred by Haney on which he based his present value of lost household services figure.

    Since Brawner and Brister’s calculations were based on general data, not Haney’s actual expenses, their testimony on household service loss was excluded.

    Held

    The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant Blazin Wings’s motions in limine to exclude the testimony of Bruce Brawner and Malcolm Brister.

    Key Takeaways:

    • Projections of lost wages, by nature, involve a degree of speculation; even where an expert’s factual bases for their conclusions are not particularly strong. It is not proper for the Court to exclude expert testimony merely because the factual bases for an expert’s opinion are weak.
    • Also, the Court recognized that while Haney could testify to the impact of his injuries, expert testimony was necessary to quantify his economic losses.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Haney V. Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc.
    Docket Number: 2:23cv2686
    Court: United States District Court, Tennessee Western
    Order Date: March 4, 2025