Collegium of Pecuniary Damages Experts


Home

Bylaws

Newsletters

Papers

Journal

Annual Conference

Membership Roster

Members Only
 

Below is a list of titles of working papers produced by CPDE members. PDF versions of the papers are available by clicking on the Members Only link to the left and logging on to the members-only portion of the CPDE website.

Non-members may click here to send an e-mail to the CPDE webmaster requesting a copy of a paper.

  • Fun With Numbers - The Ins and Outs of Present Value Calculations (2013)
This PowerPoint presentation was presented at the 2013 AREA annual conference in New Orleans, LA. It reviews two U.S. Supreme Court opinions and one Fifth Circuit opinion that discuss three methods for discounting lost earning capacity or lost economic support to present value. In addition, spreadsheets compare the results for the case-by-case, below market discount, and total offset analyses.
  • A Clearinghouse for Forensic Economics (2012) and A Baker's Big Top Ten List of Recent Cases of Interest to FEs (2012)
Presentations delivered by Michael J. O'Hara at the 2012 CPDE annual conference.
  • Marketing a Forensic Expert Services Firm (2009) and Disability - Issues and Methods for Pecuniary Damages (2010)
Presentations delivered by Thomas Roney at the 2009 and 2010 CPDE annual conferences.
  • Present Value Discounting for Pecuniary Damages and Economic Damages in an Appraisal Context, 2010
PowerPoint slide presentations delivered by Robert Schlegel at the 2010 CPDE annual conference.
  • Pecuniary Value, 2009
Abstract: Pecuniary damages are a policy choice. The law (unlike legal sibling, equity) offers the remedy of damages, and thus constrains recoverable losses to those loses that are captured by pecuniary values. Objectivity might be gained, but much can be lost, with a public policy that requires a loss to equate with a market's monetary valuation. One of the forms of "law and economics" tends to assume damages paid by the defendant are a mathematical identity with the plaintiff's loss. This assumption allows that form of "law and economics" to claim it perceives efficiency; but, it does so erroneously. In short, the trier of fact racks the value of those injuries that the law chose to recognize.