|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
Prevailing Wage Analyses |
14 |
|
|
|
 |
|
Lawyers
are often called to work with accountants, CPAs, benefit, insurance,
and/or compensation consultants and agents who are asked to give their
expert witness testimony utilizing statistical measures. This testimony
must be both relevant and reliable. In March of 1999, the United States
Supreme Court issued a ruling in the Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526
U.S. 137 (1999) case that defined when a reliability challenge exists.
The
Supreme Court ruled that reliability must be established in all types of
expert testimony, both scientific and nonscientific. The
Court held that the role of a trial judge was that of
"gatekeeper" regarding both the relevance and reliability of
all expert testimony. The Court stated that the Daubert opinion (Daubert
v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993)) was not intended to
be limited to scientific cases only. Instead, it should apply to all
fields of expert testimony. Providers of expert witness testimony must
be prepared to describe why an analysis was utilized and why the
analysis and related data can be considered reliably sufficient. For
"reliability", the Supreme Court has established four
separate, nonexclusive tests: 1) it can be illustrated that the theory
or technique can be tested, 2) the data has been subjected to peer
review and publication, 3) there is a known or potential rate of error
(i.e., the Standard Error) and 4) there is a level of general acceptance
in that particular discipline's community. This course is designed to
assist the first time CPA, agent, or consultant (or the attorney who
wishes to refresh his/her knowledge) regarding the demands placed on the
expert witness. In addition, the area of "prevailing wages"
has several U.S. Government Regulations (GAL 01-00 and 2-98) that govern
prevailing wage analyses. It is expected that this material should
assist the attorney with preparing witnesses, along with providing
background into the scope and foundation of compensation and benefits
expert witness testimony. |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|