I think you're going to be hard pressed to find anything specific to the issue of supporting an N of 1 process. I'm wondering if focusing on supporting the validity of your opinion through the blending of quantitative and qualitative information as discussed in Chapter 11 of Rick's Foundations of Forensic Vocational Rehabilitation could be helpful. It seems to provide a rationale for relying on clinical judgement and qualitative information in addition to scientific/technical information. Anthony, Cloie and Ann make a strong argument for a blended approach, which would seem to be sturdy enough to survive a Daubert challenge.
------------------------------
Mike McCord
mike@mccordrehab.comAtlanta, GA United States
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 12-11-2024 11:01
From: Steven D Shedlin
Subject: Outlier plaintiff
I'm involved in a case where the plaintiff is a successful promoter who I believe that absent the medical insult that he sustained, that he was on the verge of having unusually high earnings. It was my thought that I had to go beyond traditional salary surveys to get my information, so I interviewed people that he has worked with, and even had an opportunity to speak with the President of an NFL franchise regarding promotions in the local area. I am being deposed and the attorney who is defending my deposition asked if there was any literature that guides us when we are dealing with an N of 1, so to speak, as this plaintiff's earning capacity is unique, in the event that they want to file a Daubert motion against me suggesting that my sources are speculative. Is anyone aware of any articles that might help me? Thanks in advance.
------------------------------
Steven Shedlin
President
sshedlin@gmail.com
Rockville, MD United States
------------------------------