Abstract¹

Schap, Guest and Kraynak (2013) examines time series properties of medical net discount rates (MNDRs) based on three different, short-term Treasury securities. The article finds attributes of stationarity in each of the series examined and notes greater support for total offset of interest rates and medical cost growth rates than does previously published research.

The present study makes four adjustments to Schap, Guest and Kraynak (2013). First, the data set is updated by two years and four months. Second, the t-test applied in the original study and also used in earlier studies of total offset fails to account for autocorrelated error terms, so a substitute test is applied to both the original data set and the newly extended data set, with results reported. Third, Phillips-Perron testing is conducted in addition to Augmented Dickey-Fuller and Kwiatkowski-Phillips-Schmidt-Shin testing of stationarity of the various series analyzed, with results reported. Finally, Zivot-Andrews testing is applied diagnostically, to identify stationary sub-series of MNDRs, similar to an approach used successfully to identify stationary sub-series of wage net discount rates (Schap, Baumann and Guest, 2014).

The data analysis suggests two options available to practicing forensic economists who endorse the use of Treasury securities of short duration in formulating MNDRs. One option is to use total offset (i.e., a zero MNDR), based on modestly favorable empirical support in the period 1981:01 to 2014:10. The alternative option would be to rely on a body of evidence amassed over a shorter time frame, from 2001:01 to 2014:10, but which has remarkably strong stationarity properties and yields MNDRs between minus 1.5 and minus 2.0% (i.e., an implicit forecast of medical cost growth exceeding the discount factor).

Abstract

This paper examines disability as measured and reported in three Census surveys: the American Community Survey (ACS), the Current Population Survey (CPS), and the Survey on Income Program Participation (SIPP). We focus on whether person-specific disability, as measured by the Census, is a permanent or a transitory condition. Survey data results regarding the incidence of Census-measured disability are shown both cross-sectionally and longitudinally. It is found from longitudinal CPS and SIPP responses that Census-measured disability is largely transitory. That finding empirically confirms the longstanding theoretical objections to the use of Census cross-section disability data along with a permanent disability assumption in worklife expectancy models; hence, any worklife expectancy model which assumes that Census disability measures are permanent conditions is misspecified and empirically invalid. Instead of using the permanent disability assumption, we use actual longitudinal disability transition probabilities and life table analysis to quantify the lifetime duration of disability as measured by the Census in total life years and working life years. We show that the realistic feature of disability transition dramatically lowers the effect of disability on worklife expectancy.

Abstract

In January 2015, 590 e-mail invitations to complete an electronic survey were sent to NAFE (National Association of Forensic Economics) members. The response rate was approximately 33%, almost nine percentage points higher than the last paper survey administered in 2003. The survey covered many of the major topics included in earlier surveys, such as values of important economic variables (e.g., discount rates), trends in the practice of forensic economics (e.g., personal sources of earnings), and open-ended questions concerning ethics and reactions to the survey instrument. On the 2015 Survey instrument there were several new questions concerning such matters as how forensic economists perceive the role of vocational (rehabilitation) experts, the effects of the Affordable Care Act on loss estimates, how members charge for their services, and the size of respondents' practices.

Abstract

In the April 2013 issue of the Journal of Forensic Economics, Charles L. Baum II develops a model to estimate the annual probability of a worker remaining with a particular employer and applies his results to estimates of economic losses resulting from wrongful termination. Baum's adjustment for job survival is based only on forecast experience in the job held at the time of the termination. This method seems inconsistent with Baum's own findings that early years in any job are associated with much higher hazard rates. In this comment we apply Baum's survival coefficients in a model that incorporates the probability of termination and survival in both the original job and the replacement job.

Abstract

In this issue of the Journal of Forensic Economics, Nicolas Coleman provides a critique of the model I developed (and presented in a recent issue of this journal) to predict the annual probabilities a worker would have stayed with a terminating employer absent the termination and its subsequent application. He then proposes an alternative approach, referred to as the Job-Specific Survival Method, when calculating economic losses in employment termination cases. In this note, I respond on Coleman’s critique.

Abstract

Johnson and Gelles (1996) observed that starting in about 1980 the interest rates on U.S. Treasury securities rose sharply, and argued that because of the increase, forensic economists should not use low interest rates based on earlier experience for calculation of present values. Interest rates did indeed rise sharply. But by 1996 interest rates were already falling; rates have continued to fall so that the status quo ante has been essentially restored.

This bit of forensic economic history would be of little interest except that Johnson and Gelles are still cited to help justify net interest rates more appropriate to the 1980s than to 2015. This note updates their work, using their same sources and method; it is intended in part to show that the high interest rates described in their paper are not now relevant.

The note continues, to discuss how to measure net interest rates. There are two issues: (1) The net rate for an n-year note should use the n-year rate of wage increase; alternatively it should compare the 1-year rate of return on the n-year note (with capital gains from resale) with the 1-year rate of wage increase. (2) Interest rates are measured daily, and wages monthly. Does the use of annual averages change the results? Answer: the overall picture given by alternative definitions is not very sensitive to the definition of the net interest rate, except that when 3- or 10-year notes are held for just one year and re-sold to give a total annual return that includes interest and capital gains or losses, volatility of returns is considerably higher than when the securities are held to maturity; the result suggests that the return on Treasury notes for one year with resale is not appropriate for discounting earnings losses to present value.

Abstract

In contribution to the series on economic damages in personal injury and wrongful death cases by state, this article presents the legal framework for calculating economic damages in personal injury and wrongful death actions in the State of Washington. Topics covered include the Washington State court system, expert testimony and discovery, survival and wrongful death statutes, dependency, life expectancy, earning capacity, household services, taxes, consumption and present value. Also briefly discussed are investment income, lost inheritance, post-injury death, mitigation, collateral sources, and punitive damages.