Traditionally personal injury and medical malpractice attorneys employed both a vocational expert and a forensic economist. Testimony and cross-examination was often dominated by arcane discussions by vocational experts regarding aptitudes, skill levels of previous employment, etc. Equally incomprehensible testimony regarding discount rates, growth rates and economic projections dominated the economist’s testimony and examination. Sometimes a forensic economist would produce projections of loss based upon total disability but upon cross-examination the vocational expert would have to admit that he/she found similar cases far from totally disabled.

Combining the two types of experts was a concept that was pioneered by Anthony Gamboa and John Tierney of Vocational Economics Inc. They also insisted upon using the statistically available estimates of future work-life made possible by government surveys. This newer method has been improved over the years and has been used successfully all over the country.

Amazingly, economic testimony and vocational testimony is still often dominated by discussions that are as irrelevant as they are difficult to understand. I have been very successful in simplifying these discussions and showing juries, judges and attorneys what the really relevant questions and answers are when seeking to determine an economic loss (or lack thereof). In particular, as a result of the peculiarities of New York law, I do the bulk of my work in New York State and much of it in the Hudson Valley, where I reside. I have been steadily increasing my practice in Philadelphia, PA (where I also have a home and office) and the surrounding regions. Pennsylvania law lends itself very easily to the total offset method, which I employ. I am also quite well-acquainted with the need for tax analysis as mandated by New Jersey law. 

 Forensic Economist (wiki)     Vocational Expert (wiki)

Home       Curriculum Vitae       Court Appearances       Fee Structure        Case Specifics