Albrecht Economics, Inc.
provides Economic and Statistical Analysis
consulting services for matters involving Wrongful Death, Personal Injury, and Breach of Contract
. The company provides consulting services for the following cases:
- Economic Damages
- Expected Wage Loss
- Business Valuation
- Lost Profits
|Discrimination AnalysisEquitable DistributionIntellectual PropertyAntitrust|
Founder and Principal, Dr. Gary R. Albrecht
has more than 25 years of experience specializing in Economic Forecasting and Forensic Economics
. The Director of Econometric Modeling at the University of Kansas, his research has been published in the Journal of Forensic Economics, Journal of Legal Economics, Trial Briefs
, and The Earnings Analyst
. Dr. Albrecht was elected by his peers to be a Vice President and to serve on the Board of Directors of the National Association of Forensic Economists. He also serves as a referee for the Journal of Forensic Economics and the Journal of Legal Economics
Dr. Albrecht has delivered presentations on selected subjects including:
- Economic Damages and Tort Reform in the United States
- Assessing Economic Damages in Personal Injury and Wrongful Death Litigation
- Estimating Economic Damages as a Result of Diminished Productivity in Work and Non-Work Time
- The Objective Science of Forensic Economics
Dr. Albrecht is a Member of the American Academy of Economic and Financial Experts, the American Economic Association, and the National Association of Forensic Economics.
View Dr. Albrecht's Expert Witness Profile
The first step in estimating the value of life is, generally, to estimate the tradeoff individuals are willing to make between the risk of death and compensation. In wage-risk studies the estimate of the trade-off takes the form of a slope coefficient on the risk of death variable from regression analysis. The estimated slope coefficient is then used to estimate the value of life. This paper addresses two separate but related issues that affect the calculated value of life. One issue is how the estimate of the slope coefficient may vary depending on the base amount of risk in the observations used for its estimate. This issue is addressed by determining the shape of the indifference curve between compensation and the risk of death. The other issue is the definition of the value of life. Two proofs are presented. One proof shows that the calculated value of life will vary according to the base amount of risk involved in the study. The other shows how the calculated value varies according to how the value of life is defined. An economist who uses the value of life studies should be aware of these influences.
The contention of this article is that the appropriate discount rate is one which counterbalances the uncertainties associated with projecting future losses. Such uncertainty is defined, herein, as risk. Parity in risk must be maintained between projected losses and the discount rate. A risk-free rate of interest is an appropriate discount rate only when applied to projected losses which are, themselves, risk-free. As elements of uncertainty, or speculation, enter into the projection of future losses, either those elements must be removed from the analysis or the discount rate must be increased commensurately to maintain parity in risk. To do otherwise would yield an award which overcompensates the plaintiff (p. 33).
In "The Valuation of a Closely Held Firm: Difference in Expert Opinion," (JFE, 1988) Carl M. Hubbard and Darryl G. Waldron present the results of a survey in which the respondents were asked to place a value on a non-publicly traded firm. The authors classified the responses into four categories: the net asset valuation (NA V) approach; the discounted cash flow (DCF) approach; the earnings multiple (EM) approach; and the capitalized earnings (CE) approach. As the title of their paper states, there were differences of opinion among the respondents.
This article is one in a series of articles in the Journal of Forensic Economics detailing the different and the common methods for assessing economic damages in the various states. In this article we discuss the legal framework by which economic damages are computed in personal injury (PI) and wrongful death (WD) cases in the state courts of North Carolina. Section II presents the legal framework for these torts; Section III discusses the calculation of damages in Wrongful Death torts, while Section IV deals with Personal Injury torts where they differ from Wrongful Death.
In litigation involving wrongful death, personal injury and breach of employment contracts, forecasting the wage rate is often a necessary step when calculating damages. Forecasted future changes in the wage rate are generally attributed to two components, forecasted changes in the productivity of labor and inflation.l The theoretical reason for making the wage rate a function of productivity and inflation stems from the neoclassical proposition that the wage rate is equal to the product of the marginal productivity of labor and the price of the output received by the manufacturer.
Federal and state legal systems rely upon the reasoning of judges and juries to ascertain what is just compensation for personal injury as result of a tort. There are no precise rules to follow in determining damages. Jurists consider the plaintiffs' own itemization of damage, but they also use their own reasoning and the guidance of the law and testimony of forensic economists. Likewise, each forensic economist uses his or her reasoning, legal parameters, and economic training in determining just compensation.
In a recent article Havrilesky (1993) argues against applying the hedonic damages concept to wrongful death and injury cases. The purpose of this paper is to critique his arguments. An examination of each of the seven points shows that none are appropriate. This analysis follows the same order and is under the same headings as Havrilesky's analysis. The conclusion section is added to summarize the paper.
In litigation involving personal injury, wrongful death, job discrimination, and breach of employment contracts, questions concerning the estimates of future earnings and the choice of an appropriate discount rate arise. We address the question of whether, in order to estimate the growth of future earnings and then to discount future earnings, it is necessary to forecast the inflation rate.
"Esteemed Experts.com member, Gary R. Albrecht is a Forensic Economist with over 25 years of experience specializing in Economic Forecasting and Damages. Principal at Albrecht Economics, Inc., he provides Expert Witness and Consulting services to attorneys, insurance companies, and other professionals. "