|
| |
Challenges to VEI methodology and data have come in two
forms: case-specific challenges to block VEI expert testimony and articles
critical of the underlying data. This page identifies the key issues in
the challenges and provides links that provide more detail, rebut the issues, and link to related cases or
articles. The issues are categorized as follows:
-
Current Population Survey
- discusses issues related to the validity or use of Census Bureau's CPS data
-
Disability Status
- discusses general issues related to the effect of disability on employment
- Earning Capacity
discusses issues related to the assessment of earning capacity
- Other
- discusses other issues related to the assessment of lost earnings
-
Worklife Expectancy
- discusses issues related to the use of worklife expectancy in tort cases
involving the assessment of lost earnings
- Census Bureau caveat - responds to the
contention that the presence on the Census website of a document discussing
possible limitations of the CPS work disability data precludes their use
- Chronic disability - responds to the
contention that the presence in the CPS data of people with a chronic
disability, rather than a disability caused by a tort, invalidates the data
for studying the effects of work disability on employment
- Definition of work disability - responds
to the contentions that VEI created and controls the definition of work
disability used in the CPS and that CPS data are useless since the CPS does not measure disability as
defined in the Americans with Disabilities Act
- Hale article - discusses
the article by Thomas Hale published in the Monthly Labor Review,
which some believe proves that the CPS is
inappropriate for studying the employment experiences of persons with work
disability
- Hamel letter - discusses
the letter written in 1994 by Harvey Hamel, a senior supervisory
economist at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which some believe offers evidence that the CPS is invalid for the purposes of worklife
expectancy computation
- Heterogeneity - responds to the
contention that the population of those with a disability is so diverse that
application to a particular individual is difficult to impossible.
- Multi-year data averaging - addresses
the appropriateness of averaging multiple years of CPS data to
derive statistics regarding people with a work disability
- Sample selection bias - responds to the
contention that, since the CPS does not randomly and independently sample
people with a work disability, the data derived from it are invalid.
- Self-reported disability (lack of
exogeneity) - responds
to the contention that the CPS data are unreliable since the disabilities in the
CPS are self-reported and without independent, medical
verification
- Temporary disability - responds to the
contention that the presence in the CPS data of people with a temporary
disability invalidates the data for studying the effects of permanent
disability on employment
- Use by other economists/researchers -
discusses the validation of CPS data by government and other nonforensic
researchers, who use the data to study the effects of work disability on
employment
- Validity of the data - responds
to the contentions that the CPS data are not
valid for studying the earnings and employment experiences of people with
a disability or that they were not intended to identify people with a work
disability
- Validity of the first disability question
- discusses the validity of the first work disability question used in the
CPS (prevented from working or limited in terms of the amount or kind of
work)
- Veteran's disability - discusses the
presence in the CPS of those with a veteran's disability
Return to top
- Broad support - provides broad support
for the negative effect of disability on employment, regardless of the
definition of disability used
- Residual Capacity - responds
to the contention that there is no loss of lifetime earnings if a person has
returned to work or if
he or she is expected to attain the same educational level as
they would have absent injury
Return to top
- Actual earnings use - responds to the
contention that actual earnings are the only appropriate measure of an
individuals' earning capacity
Return to top
- Daubert/Kumho standards - discusses the
ability of The New Worklife Expectancy Tables to meet the
Daubert/Kumho standards for expert testimony
- Possibility of Future Disability -
responds to the contention that worklife expectancy statistics are invalid
because they do not factor in the possibility of future disability
-
Skoog & Toppino
article
- introduces the areas of contention discussed in the article and links to
responses
Return to top
- Basic analysis methodology - responds
to the contention that the basic methodology employed in VEI assessments of
lost earnings is not valid because it is not performed outside litigation or
because it
was created by VEI
- "Employment, Earnings, and Disability"
- responds to the contention that the article states that the Current
Population Survey is
inappropriate for studying the employment experiences of persons with
disability
- Expert qualifications -
links to a page addressing the expertise of VEI experts for providing
vocational and/or economic testimony
- Use of statistical averages
- addresses the belief by some that use of statistical averages for specific plaintiffs is
inappropriate
- VALE Software - responds
to the contention that the labor market access software used in many VEI
analyses develops the experts' opinions
Return to top
Last modified:
Friday February 04, 2005 02:34 PM
|
