In the article Christopher Bruce provides a caution concerning the acceptance of statistical evidence about disability. Dr. Bruce argues that the courts and opposing counsel do not subject certain types of medical opinion to sufficiently strict statistical standards. Specifically, he shows that evidence based on: (i) the expert’s “experience,” (ii) the expert’s interpretation of third party statistics, or (iii) the expert’s understanding of published statistical reports may be unreliable. In this article, he provides examples of how statistical evidence may fail to meet the standards expected by the courts; and he offers suggestions about how counsel might respond to these deficiencies.
Economica belongs to an organization of forensic economists known as the National Association of Forensic Economists (NAFE). NAFE has recently published a “Statement of Ethical Principles, and Principles of Professional Practice.” As Economica subscribes to the principles outlined in the NAFE Statement, we have reproduced it here.