Expert Witness Profiler

Tag: Household

  • Forensic Accounting Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Household Services

    Forensic Accounting Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Household Services

    This is a medical malpractice action which arises from care provided by Defendant Richard Bellon, M.D. (“Dr. Bellon”) to Plaintiff Lauren Bern a/k/a Lauren Britton (“Ms. Bern”) in February 2021 at Defendant HCA-HealthONE LLC d/b/a Swedish Medical Center (“SMC”) after Bern suffered a stroke following the procedure, resulting in injuries.

    In support of their alleged damages, Plaintiffs Bern and her husband, Joshua Britton disclosed several experts while Defendants, in turn, disclosed rebuttal experts, including a forensic accountant, Alison Wise, CPA and a physical medicine and rehabilitation doctor, Kara E. Flavin, M.D. Plaintiffs filed motions to strike certain opinions of Wise and Flavin.

    Forensic Accounting Expert Witness

    Alison Wise is a forensic accountant in the CPA firm of Matson, Driscoll & Damico, LLP (“MDD”). She has eleven years of experience in evaluating forensic accounting cases and measuring damages claims, including those relating to injuries, lost earnings or profits, and future medical care.

    Discover more cases with Alison Wise as an expert witness by ordering her comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report.

    Brain Injury Expert Witness

    Kara Eunice Flavin is a board-certified physiatrist who specializes in brain injuries, regularly works with stroke patients as part of her practice.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Alison Wise

    Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike and preclude three of Wise’s categories of opinions regarding Bern’s: (1) salary and benefits; (2) future wage loss; and (3) needed household services.

    A. Opinions on Bern’s Salary and Benefits

    Wise opined about Bern’s past and future lost earnings and benefits based on Bern’s employment at the time of the incident. As part of that opinion, Wise calculated Bern’s lost past and future benefits.

    Wise opined that because there has been “no evidence or testimony to support which benefits Bern was actually participating in,” the fringe benefit percentage should be 11.3% of her salary, “which approximates the amount of Bern’s salary allocable to legally required benefits.”

    Plaintiffs contended that this opinion should be stricken because “Wise did not consider Bern’s specific benefits provided through her employer” and the 11.3% rate “only included calculations for Social Security and Medicare.”

    Indeed, when asked at her deposition, Wise admitted that if Bern participated in other benefits, such as health insurance, a 401(k) plan with a match, and disability, the fringe benefits would increase by 13-15%.

    It appears that Wise knew of the appropriate methodology to use but inexplicably failed to ask for any of the underlying data that would allow her to employ such methodology.

    B. Opinions on Bern’s Future Wage Loss

    Wise also opined in her report regarding Bern’s future wage loss, and Plaintiffs raised three distinct challenges to that opinion: first, they argued that Wise’s admission that there is a calculation error in her report “provided adequate evidence that calls the totality of Wise’s opinions in question.” Second, they contended that Wise’s reliance on the “Markov Model” to calculate Bern’s work-life expectancy is unreliable, because “she has not researched the model to see any validation or verification of the data,” is “unaware of the data the Markov Model uses to generate their reports,” and cannot “explain the statistical analysis underlying the data.”

    Third, Plaintiffs argued that Wise’s reduction of Bern’s future wage loss based on Flavin’s life expectancy opinion has no grounding in any generally accepted forensic accounting methodology and additionally should be precluded because Flavin’s life expectancy opinion should be excluded.

    The Court was not persuaded by Plaintiffs’ first two arguments—for which Plaintiffs cited no authority in support. At threshold, a “simple math error” in an expert’s calculation is not grounds to strike an expert opinion that is otherwise based on sound methodology.

    Regarding the Markov Model, Plaintiffs did not argue that the model itself is unreliable. Indeed, Plaintiffs acknowledged that Wise testified that she has been using the Markov Model throughout her entire career as a forensic accountant, as has her supervisor.

    Rather than take issue with the economic model’s reliability, Plaintiffs attacked Wise’s usage of the model on the grounds that, essentially, she does not understand how it works and has not independently verified the data it uses. But these issues go to the weight of the evidence and can be addressed through cross-examination.

    C. Opinions on Bern’s Needed Household Services

    Plaintiffs urged the Court to strike Bern’s opinion on household services  because ” Wise did not complete any evaluation of Bern’s necessary household services and did not employ any analysis to review the household service loss for Bern.” Further, Plaintiffs argued that Wise admitted that she was speculating that these household replacement costs would be covered by the costs in the Life Care plans.

    Without the benefit of a response from Defendants, the Court respectfully agreed with Plaintiffs. Wise admitted in her deposition that she did not conduct any investigation into whether home healthcare agencies—i.e. what Bern’s life care plan accommodates for—provide household services such as mowing the lawn, housekeeping, and grocery shopping. Nor is there any evidence that Wise relied on her expertise to come to this conclusion, either in her report or her deposition. On the contrary, Wise admitted that she was “speculating that the home healthcare agencies would actually provide the essential/home services.”

    D. Testimony Regarding Bern’s Current Medical Condition or Medical Needs

    Plaintiffs requested that the Court “exclude any testimony from Wise on Bern’s current medical condition or medical needs, as Wise is admittedly not qualified to offer medical, mental health, or other healthcare opinions.”

    Plaintiffs did not provide any additional information and did not point the Court to any portions of Wise’s report or deposition where Wise opined on ” Bern’s current medical condition or medical needs.” To the extent that Plaintiffs are concerned about Wise testifying about matters not included in her report, this issue is not properly before the Court and can be addressed if it arises during trial.

    Kara Flavin

    Flavin was retained by Defendants to “conduct an independent medical examination of Bern and opine on her future needs.” In her report, Flavin offered a range of opinions regarding Bern’s medical care needs, including, that Bern has a life expectancy of 18 years from the date of the report.

    Plaintiffs argued that Flavin’s opinion regarding Bern’s life expectancy should be stricken for four reasons: (1) it is not grounded in the method of science, and is therefore unreliable; (2) Flavin is not a statistician and does not have the education, training, or experience to conduct the statistical extrapolation needed for her life expectancy opinion; (3) the method used by Flavin to extrapolate Bern’s life expectancy is not grounded in accepted scientific principles; and (4) the study that Flavin used for her calculations is not meant to estimate the life expectancy of a person who suffers a stroke.

    The Court respectfully found Flavin’s extrapolation methodology unreliable considering Flavin acknowledged during her deposition that she does not know whether her extrapolation method is generally accepted. She did not offer any supporting scientific literature or precedent, any accepted practice of extending survival data to younger cohorts, or any explanation for why extending a certain pattern observed across three age intervals would hold true for a patient a decade younger than anyone studied.

    It should be noted that the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude Wise’s opinion regarding Bern’s future wage loss to the extent it relied on Flavin’s life expectancy calculation.

    Held

    • The Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ motion to strike certain opinions of Alison Wise, CPA.
    • The Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to strike certain opinions of Kara Flavin.

    Key Takeaway

    This Court does not require an expert to have an in-depth knowledge of all the algorithms underlying their technological tools to reliably testify about the outputs of those tools.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Bern V. HCA-Healthone, LLC
    Docket Number: 1:23cv304
    Court Name: United States District Court, Colorado
    Order Date: March 24, 2026
  • Economics Expert’s Testimony on Loss of Society Excluded

    Economics Expert’s Testimony on Loss of Society Excluded

    This is a medical negligence case filed by Plaintiff Tanya Soule, as holder of Power of Attorney for Marlene Do, her mother, a currently disabled adult, and Long Do, her husband. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants were negligent in failing to timely diagnose and manage Marelene’s ischemic stroke on December 11, 2019.

    Subsequently, Defendants Blessing Hospital; Scott Hough, M.D.; Shaila O’Dear, R.N.; Jason Little, APRN; Kristin Hampton, R.N.; Angelo Liana, M.D.; and Rebecca Dennison, R.N. filed a motion to exclude all but the present value of future life care opinion testimony of Plaintiffs’ expert witness on economics, Stan Smith, PhD.

    Economics Expert Witness

    Stan V. Smith, PhD is the President of Smith Economics Group, Ltd., headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, which provides economic and financial consulting nationwide.

    Moreover, Smith has worked as an economic and financial consultant since 1974. He has performed economic analysis in a variety of cases, including personal injury and wrongful death actions. Smith has over 40 years of experience in the field of economics and wrote the first textbook on Forensic Economic Damages. 

    Fortify your strategy by reviewing a Challenge Study detailing grounds for excluding Stan Smith’s expert testimony.

    Discussion by the Court

    Defendants sought to bar Smith from providing testimony at trial regarding purported loss of household/ family services sustained by Long Do, hedonic damages sustained by Marlene, and loss of society or relationship sustained by Long. Specifically, Defendants contend all of these opinions are based on methodologies that are unreliable and are not supported by facts specific to Marlene.

    Loss of Household/Family Services

    With respect to household/family services, Smith’s opinions included two subcategories alleged to be sustained by Long Do: (a) loss of housekeeping and household management services; and (b) loss of advice, counsel, guidance, instruction, and training services. Defendants argued that these damages are speculative and would not assist the jury.

    For example, regarding loss of housekeeping and household management services, Smith opined that Long suffered a loss in the amount of $378,775. Essentially, Smith multiplied the amount of time it would take a non-professional to complete a particular task by the costs it would take to hire a professional.

    In addition, Smith included a 50% non-wage component to the hourly wage rate. However, he acknowledged that Marlene was not a professional of any trade upon which he relied. Furthermore, he did not ask Marlene or Long whether they paid for any of the services considered. Smith admitted the calculation is his “estimate of the market value of the services performed by a female in the household on average.”

    To illustrate, Smith created three tables to show his calculations for past and future loss of housekeeping and household management services. He then created a similar calculation to opine on the monetary loss of advice, counsel, guidance, instruction, and training services for Long.

    Specifically, Smith assumed a loss of one hour per day for these advisory services based solely on his interview with Marlene’s daughter.

    On the other hand, Plaintiffs noted that loss of household services is a compensable form of injury. They alleged that Smith’s testimony involves the loss of household services sustained by the family from the time of Defendants’ alleged negligence through Marlene’s life expectancy.

    Conclusion

    The Court allowed Smith’s testimony regarding the loss of housekeeping and household management services while excluding his testimony concerning the loss of advice, counsel, guidance, institution, and training services.

    C. Hedonic Damages

    Smith opined on the reduction in value of life or loss of enjoyment of life for Marlene. Plaintiffs claimed that the hedonic value of life refers to the value of the pleasure, the satisfaction, or the utility that human beings derive from life, separate and apart from the labor or earnings of life.

    In his report, Smith stated that his “estimate of the value of life is consistent with estimates published in other studies that examine and review the broad range of economic literature on the value of life.”

    Smith estimated the value of life “to be approximately $5.9 million in year 2023 dollars.” Defendants noted that Smith only interviewed Marlene’s daughter. He did not interview Marlene or Long.

    Smith provided a “lower estimated impairment rating” and an “upper estimated impairment rating,” based on his range for either 50% or 80% reduction in value of life. Pursuant to his methodology, Smith estimated a total loss of value of life of $1,954,626 for 50% reduction and a total of $3,127,391 for 80% reduction. To determine future loss, Smith accounted for a discount factor to create a present value. He then arrived at the value of hedonic damages by reducing the $5.9 million by the percentage of disability he believes Marlene has suffered-either 50% or 80%. Defendants noted that Smith did not consult with a single medical professional to arrive at his impairment rating.

    Conclusion

    Defendants alleged that federal and state courts have routinely barred Smith’s testimony as to hedonic damages.

    After considering Smith’s testimony on hedonic damages, the Court agreed with the reasoning of the overwhelming majority of federal district courts. Therefore, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to the extent it sought exclusion of Smith’s testimony on hedonic damages.

    Loss of Society or Relationship for Long Do

    To begin with, Smith presented his opinions on loss of society or relationship relating to Long Do. In particular, Plaintiffs noted that Illinois law recognizes loss of society or relationship as a recoverable pecuniary loss. In other words, this is the total value of loss of society or relationship Long did and will suffer due to Marlene’s alleged injuries. Specifically, Smith testified that the loss is “the loss of love and affection that he has sustained, the loss of the quality of the relationship that he had that has impacted his quality of life.”

    Defendants noted that Smith calculated loss of society in the same manner as his calculation for reduction in value/hedonic damages for Marlene. This loss is calculated from 2019 through 2030, which ends at Long’s estimated life span of 81 years old. Smith picked $5.9 million as the value of each human life in 2023 dollars. He then arrived at the value of hedonic damages by reducing the $5.9 million by the percentage of disability he believes Marlene has suffered. For loss of society, Smith chose 50% disability. He determined Long’s loss of society was $403,273. For future loss, Smith accounts for a discount factor to create a present value.

    Conclusion

    As Defendants alleged, the jury is capable of processing that information to calculate damages guided by their observations, experience, and sense of fairness. The Court held that Smith’s opinions on this topic are speculative and potentially misleading in focusing on the statistically average person instead of the individuals in this case.

    Held

    The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants’ motion to exclude the opinions of Plaintiffs’ economic expert Stan Smith, Ph.D.

    Key Takeaway:

    Rule 702 requires a flexible inquiry and recognizes that the accuracy of proposed expert testimony can be explored adequately via the normal adversarial process of “vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof.”

    It is “the soundness and care with which the expert arrived at her opinion” that is the focus of the inquiry and not “the ultimate correctness of the expert’s conclusions.”

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Do Et Al V. Blessing Hospital, A Corporation Et Al
    Docket Number: 1:20cv1398
    Court Name: United States District Court, Illinois Central
    Order Date: September 23, 2025