TEA.12.0 – 2012. The Earnings Analyst 12: 106pp.
TEA.12.1 – Bulletin 2254 Worklife Expectancy Tables and Tort Gender Inequality. Lawrence M. Spizman. Some state statutes or pattern jury instructions suggest using Bulletin 2254 for determining work life expectancy. Because of structural changes in the labor market (particularly among women) since 1979, the use of Bulletin 2254 tables results in work life totals that do not reflect the current labor market. Using tables from Bulletin 2254 is particularly damaging to women in the calculation of their lost earnings. This article discusses the reasons a Damages Expert (DE) should avoid using Bulletin 2254 and use the more current worklife expectancy tables created by private economists to provide the trier of fact with a more accurate estimate of economic damages.
TEA.12.2 – Cram Down Interest Rate Analysis in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Matters: An Overview. Allyn Needham and Kristin Schroeder. With the onset of the Great Recession, the number of U.S. bankruptcy filings increased dramatically. Total filings grew from 617,660 in 2006 to 1,593,081 in 2010. Even after the end of the recession, filings remain at more than one million per year. The majority of these filings move quickly through the courts and are resolved without much controversy. In some cases, particularly business related matters, the debtor and creditors are not able to successfully negotiate the terms for settling outstanding claims. If the parties cannot agree, a contested hearing is held to argue differences before a bankruptcy judge. In this contested or “cram down” hearing, experts may be used to assist the judge in a number of areas including determining the value of collateral, the ability of the debtor to make the proposed payments, or the appropriate interest rate to be applied to debt that will be repaid over time. An expert seeking to opine on the appropriate interest rate must be aware of the methods allowed by the bankruptcy courts and the decisions which provide judicial insight to the application of these methods. This article provides an overview of the four methods discussed by the Supreme Court and their theoretical and practical application.
TEA.12.3 – Financial Management Fees in Damage Claims. Graham Mitenko and Michael J. O’Hara. A compensable loss generally exists when a plaintiff suffers an injury that requires the plaintiff post-injury to purchase a new (for the plaintiff) service; for example, nursing care. Financial management services for a lump sum award should follow the same logic. However, the costs of financial management services are not routinely included in the loss estimate by damages experts. The law requires the pecuniary damages expert (DE), in calculating future values of damages, to use a specific investment strategy (i.e., best and safest); however, regardless of assumed investment strategy the plaintiff may need financial management services. Perhaps this exclusion is due to DEs confusing two discrete tasks: the DE’s task of estimating the “best and safest” investment rate for use in calculating damages versus the task of actually managing funds after the defendant pays the court ordered award.
TEA.12.4 – Factors to Consider When Estimating Economic Damages from Wrongful Termination. Nora Ostrofe, Thomas Roney, and Donal F. Kirwan. Estimating economic damages in a wrongful termination case, if the plaintiff has not yet found comparable alternative employment, is one of the most challenging assignments that confronts the pecuniary damages expert (DE). Estimating the duration and magnitude of economic loss following termination involves a myriad of variables, many of which are difficult to predict, let alone quantify. The purpose of this paper is to identify those variables that empirical studies have found to influence the magnitude and duration of the economic loss of displaced and/or discharged workers.
TEA.12.5 – Percent of Vocational Disability Defined for MVQS Volcano and VDARE Programs with an Example Based on Future Diminished Earning Capacity in the Los Angeles, CA LMA in Year 2005. Billy J. McCroskey, Kenneth L. Dennis, Keith S. Wilkinson, David B. Stein, Eugene E. Van de Bittner, Susan D. Green, Janet K. Lowe, Cynthia P. Grimley, David K. Bohlke and William E. Wattenbarger. This article contains the definition for the MVQS Percent of Vocational Disability with an example of how it was calculated for a client with diminished earning capacity in the Los Angeles, CA labor market area in Year 2005 using the MVQS Volcano or VDARE computerized Job-Person Matching TSA Programs (McCroskey, et.al., 2012).