Motor Vehicle Accident

Considering an expert: matching the expert work to the injury

The considering stage decides whether the injuries will support a vocational claim, a future care claim or both, and the answer scales with the medical record. A whiplash injury with a return to full duty rarely presents a contested vocational question; a chronic pain syndrome that limits sustained work tolerance may; a crash that produced a brain or spinal cord injury or a fracture with permanent restrictions presents the vocational, care and economic questions at full strength. Counsel reads the record for permanent restrictions, for the treating providers' prognosis and for any pre-existing condition that will be raised, and scopes the expert work to what the record will bear.

Over-retaining on a minor case and under-retaining on a catastrophic one are the two errors this stage exists to prevent, and the checklist on the linked page is built around them. Where the record is still developing, counsel may retain the vocational expert first and add the planner and the economist once the treating providers have stated a prognosis.

Retaining: the injury mix and the pre-existing baseline

Retention in a crash case briefs the experts on the mix of injuries, because orthopedic, neurological and pain conditions each translate into work restrictions differently and the report must address them together. The engagement provides the medical records and imaging, any functional capacity evaluation, the accident records, the employment and earnings history and the pre-accident medical history, the last of which sets the baseline against which accident-related limitation is measured. KWVRS vocational experts state which restrictions were adopted from which providers and how pre-existing conditions were treated, and where a life care planner is retained for a catastrophic injury the two engagements share that baseline.

Where an economist is retained, the engagement letters allocate the future earnings and future care projections so that each figure has one owner and the reports cross-reference one another.

Preparing for deposition: accident-related limitation versus what came before

Deposition in a crash case returns repeatedly to the pre-existing condition question, and preparation begins there: which limitations the expert attributed to the crash, which to prior conditions, and on what medical basis. The expert then prepares to explain how chronic pain was treated in the vocational analysis, with the objective testing and the literature relied on rather than the person's report alone, and to walk through the labor market evidence for any occupations identified. Where a life care plan exists, the planner prepares on the treating recommendations behind each item and the reason each is attributed to the crash.

The opposing expert's report is part of the preparation, so that differences can be explained as differences of source or assumption.

Trial: explaining limitation, work and care in plain terms

At trial the expert describes the injuries as limitations on ordinary activities before describing them as restrictions on work, so that the jury can follow the step from the crash to the occupations lost. Side-by-side comparisons of the job held and the jobs that remain, and, in catastrophic cases, a timeline of the life care plan, carry the testimony. Pre-existing condition questions are answered directly and consistently with the deposition. Where the vocational expert, the planner and the economist all testify, counsel sequences them so that restrictions are established before care and care before present value. The expert's account is checked against the deposition transcript in the final preparation session, and any change in the medical record since the report is addressed before the witness takes the stand.