An Agenda for Future Research in Forensic Economics: New Approaches to Viewing Controversial Topics

Despite a large body of published research in forensic economics, there are still controversial topics that are lacking consensus. This paper presents an agenda for research on controversial topics in the hope that the results of such research will improve the reliability and validity of the work of forensic economists. Specifically, the paper presents suggestions for research on the choice of interest rates for discounting; interest rates, earnings growth and inflation; interest rates, growth in medical costs and inflation; how many years of earnings history is necessary to project base earnings and earnings history; alternative approaches to hedonic damages; and punitive damages.

An Agenda for Future Research in Forensic Economics: Topics from NAFE Surveys and Additional Proposals

This paper provides suggestions for future research by forensic economists, focused upon personal injury and wrongful death cases. The paper is particially based on questions from our 10 surveys of NAFE members over 25 years, in which members were directly asked to rank future areas of forensic economic research in importance. We discuss answers to important questions where there is little or no consensus among respondents, and where consensus is reasonably clear, as this may influence topics chosen for future research. We also discuss research topics by drawing on our own experience as forensic economists.

Worklife and Unemployment: A New Consideration

Do traditional two-state worklife estimates need adjustment for unemployment? To answer, an augmented three-state model classifies individuals as either 1) employed; 2) unemployed; or 3) inactive but not marginally attached. Periods of unemployment may reduce worklives; however, removal of those marginally attached or discouraged from the inactive state raises worklives. The three-state model results are compared to worklife estimates from the same initial data using the traditional two-state model. Results show that in many cases, the two-state model results are a good proxy for the three-state results that control for unemployment.

An Agenda for Future Research in Forensic Economics: Setting Standards of Validity and Reliability in Measuring Progress

While considerable progress in research in the field of Forensic Economics has been achieved over the past 35 years, a number of areas of need for further research persist. This paper provides an overview of the scope of research in the field and the critiques of that research gathered through member surveys, submissions by journal editors, and publications of Richard Posner and the author.

Assessing Economic Damages in Personal Injury and Wrongful Death Litigation: The State of Arizona

This article provides a framework for calculating economic damages in personal injury and wrongful death litigation in Arizona by providing the information necessary to produce opinions and testimony that conform to Arizona laws, rules, regulations, and practice.

Assessing Economic Damages in Personal Injury and Wrongful Death Litigation: The State of Maryland

This article is one in the Journal of Forensic Economics series providing experts with information about how to prepare and testify about economic damages in personal injury and wrongful death cases in the state of Maryland.1 Topics covered include a review of the Maryland state court system, rules regarding expert testimony, and wrongful death and personal injury economic damages calculations. An Appendix contains the relevant statutes.

Update to Assessing Economic Damages in Personal Injury and Wrongful Death Litigation: The State of Nebraska

In a recent paper, Rosenbaum and Richardson (2019) described assessing economic damages in personal injury and wrongful death cases in Nebraska. That article omitted discussion of Nebraska's rules regarding hedonic damages. This note corrects that omission.

Update to Assessing Economic Damages in Personal Injury and Wrongful Death Litigation: The State of California

This article is designed to update the original article that appeared in the Journal of Forensic Economics, 17:3 (2004). The article discusses a change in procedure for expert discovery and deposition and five substantive changes and clarifications affecting the legal guidance for valuation of damages in personal injury and wrongful death cases in California.