Court Opinion

ID: 9571285
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:30:30.516028+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:15.561376
License: Public Domain

Justice Russell,
with whom Chief Justice Carrico joins, dissenting.
In Cassady v. Martin, 220 Va. 1093, 1100, 266 S.E.2d 104, 108 (1980), we held that it was reversible error to admit the expert testimony of an economist to establish a plaintiff’s wage loss and loss of earning capacity, where the plaintiff had no established “track record” of employment prior to the accident. Because of the lack of factual foundation, we held that the expert opinion was “too speculative.” Id.
I think the present case is similar. The record shows that this 41-year-old plaintiff’s lifetime work history was so sparse and intermittent as to form an insufficient foundation for the admission of the economist’s testimony. Consequently, the economist was *669permitted to extrapolate that minimal work history into a lifetime wage loss using an elaborate construction of smoke and mirrors. Because I think it was error to admit that speculative testimony, I would reverse.