Dr. Nickerson Submits Report on Flaws in Opposing Experts' Methodology; Case Settles
In a recent case involving alleged off-the-clock time due to pre-shift COVID-19 screening and testing, Dr. Nickerson was asked by the Defendant to review two opposing experts whose reports together suggested a means of arriving at an accurate estimate of off-the-clock time. One expert proposed a telephone survey to ask class members their average time spent screening, while Plaintiffs' other expert proposed a mathematical model to use the survey results in a calculation of potential damages. Dr. Nickerson’s report exposed a number of fundamental flaws in both reports, ranging from poor statistical methodology, dubious survey design, and invalid assumptions underpinning the proposed calculation methods. Other work in this case performed by Nickerson & Associates involved digitizing hundreds of paper records of COVID tests and running a statistical analysis of employee entry/exit data. The case has since settled.
Analysis of Opposing Expert Survey Results in the Survey’s Exclusion from The Case
Dr. Nickerson submitted an expert report assessing the validity of an opposing expert’s report in litigation between a commercial call center and its employees. Nickerson & Associates’ meticulous evaluation of the opposing report and underlying class member survey exposed numerous methodological issues, biases, and violations of established survey design standards. Dr. Nickerson’s ensuing rebuttal report and testimony played a pivotal role in the Court’s decision to exclude the opposing expert’s report entirely.
Nickerson’s Expert Report on Plaintiff’s Long-Term Wage Losses Results in Settlement
In a recently concluded case in Washington State, an individual Plaintiff sought damages against his employer for illegal no-poach and non-compete contracts that kept the Plaintiff from accepting a new job offer. Nickerson & Associates was tasked with quantifying the long-term economic impacts of these contracts on the Plaintiff’s earnings. The resulting report not only bolstered the credibility of the Plaintiff’s claim of harm but also played a pivotal role in achieving a settlement for the amount calculated.
Dr. Peter Nickerson Testifies, Rebuts Opposing Expert in Import Restriction Dispute, Potentially Reducing Liability by over $270 Million
Nickerson & Associates Principal, Dr. Peter Nickerson, was retained as an expert witness by a government entity in an economic and import restriction dispute with a consortium of businesses. Throughout this ongoing case, business owners alleged substantial economic losses and detrimental impacts on their industry stemming from certain national import restrictions implemented in the 1980s initially designed to protect their industry. The Plaintiffs’ expert had initially estimated damages in excess of $340 million.Dr. Nickerson contributed a comprehensive rebuttal of the opposing expert’s report and testified before the Court on his findings. His review of their report revealed several mathematical and coding errors that reduced damages by over $90 million. Further critiques related to improper assumptions in the report, the opposing expert ignoring potential benefits of the regulation, and pivotal calculation parameters lacking sufficient basis in literature or statistical science. Dr. Nickerson ultimately concluded that Plaintiff’s assessment of damages was overinflated by nearly 500%, $270 million higher than the available data could support.