In more specific form with respect to the economic damages expert industry, I. Introduction

Transcription

1 Journal offorensic Economics 18(2-3), 2005, pp (C)2006 by the National Association of Forensic Economics Estimates of Labor Productivity of Economic Damages Experts Elias C. Grivoyannis and Frank D. Tinari" I. Introduction Efficient utilization of productive resources has important cost implications for individual firms and for their competitiveness and profitability within their industry. Productivity numbers are important measures of operating results. As such, they provide early identification of firm-specific problems and issues: They are measures of work task effectiveness and could lead to a Search for more productive ways to perform tasks. Productivity advances result primarily from firm innovations in the technology and organization of production. The economic damages consulting industry is labor intensive. Labor-is used in accomplishing most tasks. Measurement of labor productivity (LP), that is, the quantification of economic efficiency in terms of labor utilization, may be expressed in general form by the ratio: (1) LP TO / LH (Number of Units of Output Produced)! (Hours of Work) There are many measures of labor productivity, i.e., it is possible to develop useful productivity measures for various work tasks within a firm. And it is possible to use more than one approach to quantify input-output relationships. In more specific form with respect to the economic damages expert industry, the number of litigation assignments or reports (henceforth, "cases") is chosen in this paper to count physical output. When there are cases that involve different requirements, physical volume measurements of productivity are more complex. Hence separate productivity measures should be developed. In this paper we examine labor productivity for personal injury and death *Dr. Grivoyannis is Associate Professor of Economics, Yeshiva University, New York, NY; Dr. Tinari is Professor Emeritus, Seton Hall University, and President, Tinari Economics, Inc. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the NAFE session, Annual Conference, ASSA, Washington, DC, January 3, We thank the discussants and participants for useful suggestions. We are also thankful to four anonymous referees of this journal for their constructive comments. 1Labor productivity also may be expressed as the ratio of the current dollar estimate of output (market value of production) to the current dollar estimate of labor input (wage bill plus benefits). According to this approach, the productivity of a firm s labor force can be measured by the ratio: LP (value of total sales) (total payroll + labor benefits) Monetized productivity measures are contaminated over time by price differences and capital-forlabor substitution. Although statistical adjustments could be made for these problems,, the monetized productivity approach is not as accurate as the physical quantities measure. For this reason, in this paper we focus on physical output productivity measures. 139

2 140 JOURNAL OF FORENSIC ECONOMICS cases, for employment law cases, for divorce cases, for business valuation cases, for business loss cases, and for other cases. II..Description of Survey Data During the spring of 2001, one of the authors conducted a mailed survey of approximately 850 economic damages experts nationwide (Tinari). 2 Surveys were mailed to members of the National Association of Forensic Economics and the American Academy of Economic and Financial Experts. The survey form elicited information about the expert s experience, education, geographic location, number and types of cases, as well as the expert s fees and revenues. Completed surveys were returned from all 50 states and Puerto Rico. Total responses numbered 234, a 27.53% response rate. Whenever indicated, the total number of responses represents the number of usable responses to a particular question. III. Derivation of a Labor Productivity Measure Statistics needed to calculate productivity measurements for the economic damages expert industry are severely limited in quantity and quality. For example, we have no information on capital inputs nor do we have direct information on the quantity of labor input. Rather than do more than a little guessing, it may sometimes be better to settle for a measurement that is less conceptually appropriate but that can be constructed using available data. There should, of course, be reason to believe that it provides a reasonably good approximation to the desired measure, or that its bias is, at least, in a known direction. As a result, in this paper we estimate the number of labor hours required by a representative firm to complete the assessment of economic damages in an average litigation case, and thus calculate a labor productivity proxy measure. To make our estimates, we used information about survey participants on the following variables: lo a) Total revenue (TR) b) Percentage of total revenue by type of case (% TR) 2. a) Number of cases (NC) by each firm, and b) Percentage of the total number of cases by each type of case (% NC). 3. Fee (price) per hour of professional services (FH) The following types of cases were specified in the survey: a) Personal Injury/Death damages calculations (PI/D) The author wishes to thank the W. Paul Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, for partial underwriting of the survey.

3 Grivoyannis & Tinari 141 b) Employment Law (discrimination, failure to promote, sex harassment, etc.) (EL) c) Div.orce. (pension calculations, business and practice valuations, etc.) (D) d) Business Valuation (in non-divorce cases) (BV) e) Business Profits/Loss (breachof contract, patents, business interruptions, etc) (P/L) f) Other (non-previously identified) (O). Using the. available data we are able to estimate the number of labor hours of professional services spent on a representative case (LH) by each firm, and its inverse, a firm s labor productivity (LP). We start with the following-equations for total revenue: (2) TR- FH x LH x NC Total annual revenue by each firm equals the fee per hour of professional services (FH) times the number of labor hours spent on a representative case (LH) times the number of such cases handled during one year by the firm (NC). Solving (2) for the number of labor hours per case yields: (3) LH TR / (FH x NC) The number of labor hours of professional services spent on a representative case is equal to total revenue divided by the fee per hour times the number of cases..since we have survey responses for all three variables on the right hand side of (3) we are able to calculate values for LH for each individual firm. Labor productivity (LP) is given by: (4) LP 1 / LH that is, one representative case divided by the number of labor hours (LH) utilized in the process of completing the calculation of economic damages for that case. Since we can calculate LH from equation (3), we are able to estimate LP from equation (4). IV. Empirical Findings Of the 234 firms in our sample, 196 provided sufficient data for all variables in (3) to calculate the desired variable of labor hours per case. Table 1 reports the frequency distribution of the labor hours per case for the firms in our usable sample.

4 142 JOURNAL OF FORENSIC ECONOMICS Labor Hours/Case Table 1 Distribution of Estimated Labor Hours per Case Sub-Total No Answer Grand Total.Frequency % of Sub-Total 29.08% % " " Table I shows that 29.08% spent, on average, up to nine labor hours (or up to a single day) on an economic damages calculation case. Further, 83.67% spent, on average, less than 40 labor hours (or a week) on an economic damages calculation case, and 2.55% reportedly spent between 150 and 299 labor hours on a single case. Table 2 reports summary statistics on labor hours per case for our working sample of 196 firms. Damages experts spend, on average, 27 hours (or hour days) with a standard deviation of 38,15 hours (4.77 days) on a representative economic damages case. The standard deviation exceeds the value of the mean. This indicates the presence of wide disparity in technical efficiency among individual firms, and distribution asymmetries. Table 2 Summary Statistics of Labor Hours per Case Summ.ary Statistic Amount Mean Standard Ero 2.725!Median Mode Standard Deviation Sample Variance Minimum Maximum Count 196

5 Grivoyannis & Tinari 143 We know that for any normal probability distribution, 99.72% of the data are expected to be found within three standard deviations from the mean, 95.44% of the data-are expected to be found within two standard deviations from the mean, and 68.26% of the data are expected to be found within 1 stan-. dard deviation from the mean (Anderson, Sweeney and Williams, 1999, p. 222). Since one standard deviation below the mean takes us below the value zero ( < 0), the data are not normally distributed. The probability distribution of the data (the labor hours per case for each firm) is asymmetrical, or skewed. Since the mean (26.89 hours per case) exceeds the median (13.59 hours per case) the data exhibit a positive, or right-skewness (Berson and Levine 1999, p. 152). Positive skewness arises when the mean is increased by some unusually high values. For the majority of firms in our sample the statistical mode is labor hours per case, which is almost identical to the labor input value Of the median (13.59 hours per case). The value of the median indicates that 98 (half of!96) firms in our sample spend on average less than hours on a case, while the remaining half spend on average more than hours on a case. The range of estimated technical efficiency among individual firms is quite large. The "most technically efficient" firms spend on average 2.17 labor hours on a case, while the "least technically efficient" firms spend up to labor hours on a case. 3 Such a wide range of "technical efficiency" may be attributed to the presenc.e of significant differences in types of cases as well as firm structure. Litigation support services produced by sole proprietors might have different "efficiency" characteristics than those services produced by corporations or partnerships. In order to better assess the technical efficiency differences of individual firms in our sample we disaggregate our labor productivity measure and focus on labor input requirement estimates by sole proprietor firms. V. Technical Efficiency among Sole Proprietors Of the 144 sole proprietors in our sample, 129 provided sufficient data to calculate labor efficiency for each of them (Tinari and Grivoyannis, 2003). 4 Table 3 reports the frequency distribution of estimated labor hours per case. Table 3 shows that 31.78% of sole proprietors spend, on average, up to nine laborhours (or up to a single day) on an economic damages calculation case % spend, on average, less than 40 labor hours (or a week) on. an economic damages calculation case, and 3.10% reportedly spend up to 149 labor hours (up to working days, or almost a month) on a single case. Table 4 indicates that sole proprietors in the forensic economics industry spend on average working hours on a representative economic damages 3Contrary to the economic efficiency concepts in the "least technically efficient" and "most technically efficient" terms used in.this paper, in many financial consulting firms aigher" productivity is measured internally and rewarded accordingly, not by fewer hours on a case or project, but by more hours, and consequentially, higher amounts of fees. We thank an anonymous referee for suggesting to us this clarification to overcome a possible misleading or pejorative connotation. 4Fully two-thirds of survey.respondents were sole proprietors, typifying the economic damages expert market.

6 144 -JOURNAL OF FORENSIC ECONOMICS case. The standard deviation of hours exceeds the value of the mean. This indicates the presence of wide disparity in technical efficiency among individual firms. It also indicates the presence of distribution asymmetries. The probability distribution of the data (the labor hours per case for each sole proprietor) is asymmetrical, or skewed. In this regard, our sub-sample of sole pro-. prietors possesses similar distribution characteristics as our original sample. For the majority of sole proprietors in our sample the labor input requirement (the statistical mode) is labor hours per case (or approximately two working days), which is nearly identical to both the median and mode. in our original sample. Table 3 Distribution of Estimated Labor Hours per Case among Sole Proprietors Labor Hours/Case Frequency % of-sub-total Sub-Total % NO Answer 15 Grand-Total 144 Table 4 Summary Statistics of Estimated Labor Hours per Case for Sole Proprietors Summary Statistic Mean Amount Standard Error Median Mode Standard Deviation Sample Variance Minimum Maximum Count 129

7 Grivoyannis & Tinari 145 The range of estimated technical efficiency even among sole proprietors appears to be quite large, although much smaller than that found in our original sample. Such wide distribution of "technical efficiency" data could be a result of significant product heterogeneity. One reasonable assumption is that there are significant differences in labor input requirements for each type of case in which sole proprietors specialize. Litigation support services for personal injury/death might have different characteristics than those services produced for employment law cases, divorce cases, business valuation cases, business loss/profit cases, and other types of cases. In order to better assess technical efficiency differences among different type of litigation support services, we.disaggregate the data on sole proprietors and focus on labor input requirement estimates by type of cases handled. VI. Disaggregating Labor Input Measurement Our main task now is to account for differences in labor hours per. case (LH) arising from differences in the types of representative cases for each firm. For example, some fncms might work only on business valuation cases. A representative business valuation case might require more labor hours than a personal injury case. To account for such differences we develop labor input measures for each case category. While we expect tighter input-output distributions, we recognize that reports in personal injury-case could still vary substantially depending on court rules across different states. For example, neither-new York nor Oregon requires that damages experts submit full reports. Hence, Our data may reflect differences in output rather than efficiency in utilizing inputs. The following sections report our estimates on labor hours per case for the 129 sole proprietor firms in our sub-sample. A. Personal Injury/Death Cases Table 5 reports the frequency distribution of the labor hours per personal injury/death case for 106 sol.e proprietors who provided usable data. Table 5 Distribution of Hours per Personal Injury/Death Case by Sole Proprietors Labor HoUrs/Case Frequency % of the Sub-T0tal % Sub-Total i06 No Answer 38 Grand-Total 144 i00.00% 5A review of data from respondents whose primary state in which they work is New York reveals that the range of labor hours is found to be 9.15 to 40, with 56% being between 10 to 20 hours. We have insufficient information from Oregon respondents to calculate hours per personal injury case.

8 146 JOURNAL OF FORENSIC ECONOMICS Table 6 Summary Statistics of Estimated Labor Hours per Personal Injury/Death Case by Sole Proprietors Summary Statistic Amount Mean Standard Error Median Mode Standard Deviation Sample Variance Minimum Maximum Count 106 We find that 40.57% spend, on average, up to nine labor hours (or a little more than a work day) on a personal injury/death damages-calculation case, while 83% spend on average less than 20 labor hours on a personal in-. jury/death case. Table 6 shows that, on average, it took the 106 sole proprietor firms in our sub-sample, on average, labor hours to complete a personal injury/death report. The distribution of the data (the labor hours per case for each firm), though, remains upwardly skewed. For the majority of sole proprietor firms in our sample, the labor input statistical mode was 8.33 labor hours per personal injury/death case. The "most efficient" firms spend on average 1.95 labor hours on a case, while the "least efficient" spend up to labor hours on a case. When we measure labor efficiency among sole proprietor firms we should keep in mind firm differences in the utilization of other resources. A rise in labor input per unit of output measures the combined effects of two types of differences between firms. In addition to the effect of a difference in the efficiency with which labor input is being used, there is the effect of substitution. If there.is an increase in its relative price, labor hours per unit of output (per case) will fall more rapidly than inefficiency in the use of total resources if other resources have been substituted for labor hours. Labor productivity may rise when labor efficiency has not changed at all, or even when it has fallen. Obviously, labor input per case will fall as a result of an increase in the efficiency by which labor is used, but also as a result of an increase in the substitution of labor hours by, for example.computer software (by technology).. We should not presume, then, that we are measuring labor efficiency adequately e when we compare labor hours per case among firms without taking into consideration ethe best measure of efficiency is total factor productivity because it compares output with the combined use of all inputs. This index can be obtained by taking a weighted average of the partial input productivity indexes.

9 Grivoyannis & Tinari 147 differences in the utilization of other inputs (Fabricant 1984, p. 27). Unfortunately, the 200I survey by Tinari did not ask about the use of other inputs. Measured differences in labor productivity among firms could also be a result of differences in the quality of output. Forensic economists provide their consulting services using two inputs: one is the time and effort expended on a case, and the other is ability and education. Time and effort are variable inputs in the short run, whereas ability and education may be viewed as fixed in the short run7. Since the major output of forensic economists (case reports) is nonstorable, markets in different locations are essentially separated. In some geographic areas or court jurisdictions, clients might want the forensic economist to put in a lot of effort, while in other areas, clients might be content with less effort. As a result, we could get firms with significant differences in measured labor productivity. B. Employment Litigation Cases Table 7 reports the frequency distribution of the calculated average number of hours utilized on an employment law case by each firm. Of the 73 sole proprietor firms that provided usable data, about 37% spend, on average, up to nine labor hours (or a little more than a work day) on an employment law damages calculation case, while 71% spend less than 20 labor hours on an employment case. Table 8 reports summary statistics on utilized labor hours per case for employment law cases. Table 7 Distribution of Estimated Labor Hours per Employment Law Case by Sole Proprietors Labor Hours/Case.. Frequency % of the Sub-Total % , Sub-Total No Answer Grand-Total % 7A referee of this journal suggested to us that rhis would have to be very short run--one case can create an enormous wealth of ability and experience when working with other experts or an expert attorney."

10 148 JOURNAL OF FORENSIC ECONOMICS Table 8 Summary Statistics of Estimated Labor Hours per Employment Law Case by.sole Proprietors Summary Statistic Amount Mean Standard Error Median Mode Standard Deviation Sample Variance MiIlilTlUII Maximum Count 73 Table 8 shows that, on average, it took the 73 sole proprietor firms in our sample a little, more than 18 labor hours to finish an employment litigation report. The distribution of the data is again skewed, with the mean (18.40 hours per case) exceeding the median (11.67 hours per case). For the majority of sole proprietors in our sample, the labor input statistical mode was 10 labor hours per employment law case. The "most efficient".firms spend, on average, 2.44 labor hours.on a case, while the "least efficient" ones spend up to labor hours on a case. Not too much should be made of these simple efficiency comparisons among firms because they do not take into consideration any differences in the utilization of other resources and the quality of output services. C. All Other Cases Only 44 sole proprietor firms provided usable responses regarding Work on divorce cases. On average, it took them labor hours (approximately twoand-a-half working days) to finish calculations for a divorce case, with a standard deviation of hours. Only 34 sole proprietor firms provided usable data on business valuation damages calculation cases. On average, it took them labor hours (approximately three-and-a-half working days) to finish a business valuation case with a standard deviation of hours. Only 55 sole proprietor firms reported doing lost profit cases. On average., it took them labor hours to finish a business/profit loss case with a standard deviation of hours. 20 proprietors reported on the average number of labor hours utilized on other, non-previously mentioned cases by sole proprietors, including cases on medical malpractice, fraud, antitrust, etc. Given the limited size of this sub-sample,.we did not analyze these data. VII. The Impact of Specialization on Labor Productivity Our analysis thus far reveals that there are significant differences in labor inputs among forensic economies consulting firms. As mentioned earlier, labor productivity comparisons among firms should take into consideration differences in the utilization of other resources and the quality of services. For ex-

11 Grivoyannis & Tinari 149 ample, it could be the case that a few providers who have been in this business over 30 years still use the technology they adopted 20 or 30 years ago, which is more labor intensive and, therefore, less labor efficient. In this section, we examine whether or not specialization in particular types of damages calculations cases leads to higher measurable productivity labor. Our working hypothesis is that specialization increases labor productivity. This implies that firms that handle more than one type of case may be less labor efficient than those that do not. To address this question, we reasoned as follows. A firm is treated as specializing in one type of case if more than 50% of its cases are of that specific type. We decided to investigate the personal injury/death type because it is most common across our sample, and to keep our focus on sole proprietors. As a result, we compare labor hours per case estimates for sole proprietor firms with more than 50% of their case load consisting of personal injury/death cases with estimates for sole proprietor firms that handle less than 50% of personal injury/death cases. Table 9 reports summary statistics on these two groups. Table 9 reveals that sole proprietor fncms specializing in personal injury/death cases utilize, on average, labor hours on a PI/D case, compared with sole proprietor firms handling less than 50% PIfD cases that utilize labor hours. As noted at the beginning of this article, the traditional way of expressing productivity is output per hour. When stated in that fashion, specialists in PI/D cases exhibit a productivity measure of reports per hour, compared to a much lower productivity rate of reports per hour for those experts who do not specialize in PI/D cases. This may be understood more readily by expressing productivity per hundred hours. The-data show 8.2 reports per 100 hours for specialists, compared to 4.6 reports per hundred hours for non-specialists. Both the mean and the standard deviation are nearly half for those experts who specialize in PI/D cases as it is for those who do not. Table 9 Summary Statistics of Estimated Labor Hours per Case by Sole Proprietors Handling More or Less than 50% Personal Injury/Death Cases Summary Statistic Less than 50% PI/D Cases More than 50% PI/D Cases Mean Standard Error Median Mode Standard Deviation Sample Variance Minimum Maximum Count

12 150 JOURNAL OF FORENSIC ECONOMICS Table 10 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 In Firms Handling More & Less than 50 Personal Injury/Death Cases t-test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances Summary Statistic Less than 50% PI/D Cases More than 50% PI/D Cses Mean Variance Observations Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 Df 23 t Stat P(T<=t) one-taft t Critical one-tail P(T<=t) two-tail t Critical two-tail Ho = 0 (two-tail) Rejected Table 10 reports estimates for a test of the hypothesis that the difference between the mean estimates of the two groups is equal to zero (there is no statistically significant difference between the labor productivity of firms that specialize in PI type.of cases in comparison to those firms that do not specialize). We find that the null hypothesis is rejected. Specialization does yield greater labor efficiency for sole proprietor firms in the delivery of personal injury/death litigation support services. VIII. The Impact of Firm Size on Labor Productivity Does the industry exhibit economies of scale? Are large firms more efficient than solo practitioners? We compare labor productivity estimates for firms that are sole proprietors with those for firms that are not. Table 11 reports summary statistics on those two groups. Summary Statistic Table 11 Summary Statistics of Estimated Labor Hours per PI/Death Case In FirmsOperating as Sole Proprietors and.non-sole Proprietors Sole Proprietors Mean Standard Error Median Non-Sole Proprietors 4O.8O8 Mode Standard Deviation Sample Variance Minimum Maximum Count

13 Grivoyannis & Tinari 151 Table 11 reveals that sole proprietors utilize, on average, labor hours on a representative PUDeath case in comparison with non-sole proprietor firms that utilize labor hours on the same type.of an economic damages case. The corresponding average for all types of cases is hours, as indicated in Table 2. For the majority of firms in our sample, the labor input requirement (the statistical mode) was labor hours per case for sole proprietors and hours per case for non-sole proprietors. Although the "most efficient" firms among non-sole proprietors do better than the "most efficient" firms among sole proprietors (spend on average 2.17, instead of 4.17 hours per case), the least efficient" ones are significantly worse for non-sole proprietors than sole proprietors (up to instead of labor hours on a case). Table 12 reports estimates for a hypothesis test that the difference between the mean estimates of the two groups is equal to zero (there is no statistically significant difference in technical efficiency between the sole proprietors, and the non-sole proprietors). We find that the null hypothesis is rejected. Our data indicate that, overall, sole proprietors are more labor efficient than other firms in this industry. Unless these statistically significant differences in labor efficiency can be attributed to the type of cases predo.minantly handled by each group, or to other characteristics, the organizational form s that practitioners choose for their businesses in this industry could be associ: ated with efficiency implications. Additional analysis, using sub-samples broken, out by type of case and other characteristics, is left for future research. Table 12 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 In Sole Proprietors and Non-Sole Proprietors t-test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances Summary Statistic Mean Variance Observatiovs Hypothesized Mean Difference Df 76 Stat P(T<=t) one-tail Critical one-ti P(T<=t) two-tail Critical two-taft Ho- 0 (two-tail) Rejected Less than 50% PIfD Cases More than 50% PI/D Cases Namely, sole proprietorship, partnership, LLC, S-Corp, C-Corp, Division of a Corporation, etc.

14 152 JOURNAL OF FORENSIC ECONOMICS IX. Conclusion This paper reports estimates of labor inputs and addresses industrial organization aspects of the emerging industry of forensic damages experts. It uses descriptive statistics to show the magnitude of existing differences in labor inputs for damages calculations of various litigation cases among forensic damages firms. Labor efficiency differences could be attributed to differences in the type of business (sole proprietors versus corporations and partnerships) or by the degree of specialization. Our data indicate that among sole proprietors, specialists in personal injury/death cases are more labor efficient than nonspecialists. Table 13 summarizes our findings of central tendency in labor utilization practices by forensic damages firms. Forensic damages experts spend, on average, hours (with a standard deviation of hours and a range of hours) for the completion of a representative economic damages case. Less time consuming are personal injury/death cases with an average time of hours.of labor input (a standard deviation of hours, and a range of 57.23hours). The most time consuming.cases are those under the classification "Other" that include antitrust, fraud, medical malpractice, etc. Such cases require on average labor hours for completion, with a standard deviation of hours, anda range of hours. Table 13 reveals that there is a wide range of reported labor input hours among the various forensic damages consulting firms in the industry. For all firms and overall sole proprietors, the standard deviation is larger than the mean. Desptive Statistic Average Table 13 Summary Statistics for Labor Hours and Estimated Productivity by Economic Damages Experts All Firms Overall Std. Dev Range Estimated Labor Productivity x 100 Specia.lists Nonspecialists PI/D Sole Proprietors Employ. Divorce Bus.Val. Bus. P/L : Other

15 Grivoyannis & Tinari 153 Our data also indicate that specialization yields greater efficiency for sole proprietor firms in the delivery of personal, injury/death litigation support services.. Specialists provide 8.2 reports per 100 hours of labor input compared to non-specialists who provide 4.6 reports per 100 hours. This.could be the case as well for other types of litigation support engagements, but that requires additional investigation. Does the industry exhibit significant economies of scale? Are large firms more labor efficient than sole practitioners? Our data indicate that, overall, sole proprietors are more labor efficient than larger firms (partnerships and corporations). References Anderson, David R., Dennis J. Sweeney, and Thomas A. Williams, Statistics for Business and Economics, 7th. edition, South-Western College Publishing, 1999, p Berson, Mark L., and David M. Levine, Basic Business Statistics: Concepts and Application, 7 th edition, Prentice Hall, 1999, p Fabricant, Solomon, "Problems of Productivity Measurement," in Measuring Productivity: Trends and Comparisons from the First International Productivity Symposium, sponsored by Japan Productivity Center, UNIPUB, 1984, p. 27. Tinari, Frank D., "Survey of Forensic Damages Expert Practices," Spring and Elias Grivoyannis, "Results of a 2001 National Survey of Forensic Damages Experts," presented at the 75 th Annual Conference of the Western Economic Association International, Denver, Colorado, July 12, 2003.