1 1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 2 SUMMIT COUNTY, OHIO 3 LAWRENCE PIETRO, et al., 4 Plaintiffs, 5 JUDGE BOND 6 -vs- CASE NO. CV 98 05 1804 7 GENERAL EMERGENCY MEDICAL, 8 et al., 9 Defendants. 10 - - - - 11 Videotaped deposition of NORMAN L. ECKEL, Ph.D., 12 taken as if upon direct examination before Laura L. 13 Ware, a Notary Public within and for the State of 14 Ohio, at Days Inn, East Wooster Road, Bowling Green, 15 Ohio, at 1:40 p.m. on Monday, June 28, 1999, 16 pursuant to notice and/or stipulations of counsel, 17 on behalf of the Plaintiffs in this cause. 18 19 - - - - 20 WARE REPORTING SERVICE 21 3860 WOOSTER ROAD ROCKY RIVER, OH 44116 22 (216) 533-7606 FAX (440) 333-0745 23 24 25 2 1 APPEARANCES: 2 Tobias J. Hirshman, Esq. 3 Linton & Hirshman Hoyt Block Building, Suite 300 4 700 West St. Clair Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44113 5 (216) 781-2811, 6 On behalf of the Plaintiffs; 7 William D. Bonezzi, Esq. 8 Bonezzi, Switzer, Murphy & Polito Leader Building, Suite 1400 9 526 Superior Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114 10 (216) 875-2767, 11 On behalf of the Defendant Karla J. Madalin, M.D.; 12 13 Juliana S. Moore, Esq. Roetzel & Andress 14 222 South Main Street Akron, Ohio 44308 15 (330) 849-6634, 16 On behalf of the Defendant Akron General Medical Center and 17 Dr. Markowitz. 18 ALSO PRESENT: 19 Jim Kafantaris, Videotape Operator 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 2 3 W I T N E S S I N D E X 4 PAGE 5 DIRECT EXAMINATION 4 BY MR. HIRSHMAN 6 CROSS-EXAMINATION 36 7 BY MR. BONEZZI 8 CROSS-EXAMINATION 47 BY MS. MOORE 9 RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION 69 10 BY MR. HIRSHMAN 11 RECROSS-EXAMINATION 72 BY MR. BONEZZI 12 13 14 E X H I B I T I N D E X 15 PAGE 16 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 30 34 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 1 NORMAN L. ECKEL, Ph.D., of lawful age, 2 called by the Plaintiffs for the purpose of direct 3 examination, as provided by the Rules of Civil 4 Procedure, being by me first duly sworn, as 5 hereinafter certified, deposed and said as follows: 6 DIRECT EXAMINATION OF NORMAN L. ECKEL, Ph.D. 7 BY MR. HIRSHMAN: 8 Q. Dr. Eckel, my name is Toby Hirshman, and you know 9 that but I'm introducing myself for the jury. I'm 10 here and I'm going to be asking you questions on 11 behalf of the Pietros today. 12 And why don't we start by having you introduce 13 yourself to the folks on the jury. 14 A. My name is Dr. Norm Eckel. 15 Q. Tell us what your profession is, if you would. 16 A. I'm a professor at Bowling Green State University in 17 Bowling Green, Ohio. 18 Q. And how long have you had that position? 19 A. I've been there for 20 years. 20 Q. And what is your area in which you're a professor? 21 A. I teach accounting and economics. 22 Q. All right. Can you tell us something about your 23 training and experience as an economist? 24 A. Got an Undergraduate Degree in statistics in 1970, 25 got a Master's Degree, an M.B.A., in business in 5 1 1975, got a Ph.D. in business or in accounting and 2 economics in 1981, came directly to Bowling Green 3 after my Ph.D. program. 4 Q. Can you give us some insight into what it is that 5 economists do. 6 A. Well, the two primary areas are macro economics, 7 which is a study of the relationships of variables 8 that make up our entire economic situation. 9 Micro is the study of, again, relationships of 10 variables for specific -- for companies, and then 11 there are all -- many, many branches of economics, 12 labor economics and specialties that people are 13 interested in that are, I would call, subspecialties 14 of economics. 15 Q. Now, you're here as an expert witness on the 16 economic issues in this medical malpractice 17 lawsuit. Would you give us some idea as to what 18 functions an economist performs within that setting? 19 A. Virtually in any case that economic damages are 20 relevant for, our role is much the same, whether 21 it's a wrongful death or an injury or even 22 commercial cases, business cases. The idea is to 23 put a dollar value on damages that arise out of a 24 particular litigation issue. 25 Q. All right. Have you had experience doing this type 6 1 of work before? 2 A. I've been doing this for 20 years. 3 Q. Can you give us some insight into the types of cases 4 you've been an expert witness in as an economist in 5 the past? 6 A. Probably the majority of cases are injury or death, 7 but quite a percentage are business cases where one 8 business might sue another and the damages are 9 relevant. The majority are in that, of those two 10 types really, injury, death, which I see as very 11 similar, and then business or commercial cases are 12 the other type. 13 Q. All right. Can you tell us whether you've 14 published, within your profession, literature at 15 all? 16 A. I have more than 20 publications in total since I've 17 been in academia. 18 Q. At some point you were contacted by me and asked to 19 project Larry Pietro's economic losses in this case; 20 were you not? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Can you tell me approximately when that was? 23 A. The date of my report is March 31st of 1999. I 24 assume it would have been a week or two prior to 25 that. 7 1 Q. All right. Can you tell us what you were asked by 2 me to do? 3 A. I was asked to prepare a report on the economic 4 damages of Mr. Pietro. 5 Q. All right. Did you review any materials in 6 performing your analysis? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Can you tell us what those materials were? 9 A. Basically there are two different types of 10 materials. The way I categorize them are those 11 materials that are provided specifically about the 12 individual, in this case, Mr. Pietro, tax returns, 13 W-2s, that was primarily it for him, and then 14 information or data that I use that are government 15 statistics that I need in addition to the specific 16 information about Mr. Pietro to complete the 17 calculations that I need to do. 18 Q. When you talk about specific information regarding 19 Mr. Pietro, was there some sort of a questionnaire 20 that you had him fill out? 21 A. I have an information sheet that I utilize for 22 injury and death cases that I send normally to my 23 client attorney and they send it on to the 24 plaintiff, in this case Mr. Pietro, and that's 25 completed. Sometimes I meet with the client and 8 1 help them fill it out, other times I don't. 2 Q. All right. You're not an MD, are you? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Okay. You're not going to be testifying in this 5 case regarding the nature of Mr. Pietro's medical 6 injuries, are you? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Can you tell us why we're doing this by videotape 9 here today rather than having you testify live at 10 trial? 11 A. On July 5th or thereabouts I'm going to be leaving 12 and going to Canada for about a four or five-week 13 vacation. 14 Q. All right. You were asked by me to make certain 15 assumptions; were you not? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. In order to do your calculations and projections? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. You were asked to assume that Larry Pietro was 20 injured; were you not? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. You were asked to assume that by virtue of his 23 injuries he is no longer gainfully employed? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And you were also asked to assume that those 9 1 injuries were permanent in nature; were you not? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. You're not here to testify as to those facts, you're 4 making those assumptions; is that a fair statement? 5 A. Correct. I was asked to utilize that information 6 and those assumptions to prepare my report. 7 Q. Based on those assumptions, were you able to project 8 Larry's economic losses occasioned by his injuries? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. What types of losses did you take into 11 consideration? 12 A. In this particular case there are two types, lost 13 earnings or wages, you can sort of use those as 14 synonyms depending on the particular case, and 15 household services in this one. 16 Q. Wages sounds pretty understandable, I think, to most 17 of us. Tell us a little bit about household 18 services and how you calculated those. 19 A. Household services are the value of services that 20 the male and the female, the wife and the husband, 21 provide in a household given a particular type of 22 family configuration. There are data available that 23 you go to and look up a cohort, female, male, 24 whether there are children in the household, whether 25 there are not, pre-retirement, post-retirement, and 10 1 you view that table and that gives dollar values for 2 household services. That's the one part. 3 The other part is my information sheet is 4 completed. In a death case 100 percent of the 5 services are lost, so it doesn't really need to be 6 completed so much. But in an injury case the 7 question is what percentage of the household 8 services have been diminished by virtue of the 9 injuries. In this particular case that was 10 completed and that provides a ratio for me to 11 multiply times those values that come from the 12 tables that I talked -- was mentioning. 13 Q. So would it be fair to say that based on a 14 particular person's injury you try to determine the 15 loss of that person's ability to work around the 16 household and to what extent that's had an economic 17 impact on the family? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. All right. I'd like to talk about the various 20 calculations that you've made perhaps in a little 21 bit more detail as to how you actually went about 22 the calculations. And let's start, if we could, 23 with your calculations regarding lost wages. 24 And if we could, I'd like to initially talk 25 about your calculations regarding past lost wages. 11 1 Am I correct that you made a calculation for lost 2 wages that have already been incurred? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Okay. Tell us what you're trying to do there and 5 how you went about it. 6 A. Well, it's done from the date of the report because 7 that's a -- past is obviously a moving target. Some 8 lawyers tend to call that back pay. I call it past 9 economic loss. And what you're doing is you're 10 looking at what the wage loss or earnings loss in 11 this particular case is from the date of the 12 accident until the date of this report. 13 And future loss is the damage or the amount of 14 wage loss that's incurred from the time of this 15 report into the future. Now, part of that actually 16 has expired from the end of March until right now. 17 Part of the future has become the past, but it's 18 locked in as of the appraisal date or the date of 19 the report. 20 Q. Which was March 31st, did you say? 21 A. March 31st, 1999. 22 Q. All right. So your evaluation of past wages lost is 23 an evaluation of those earnings that Mr. Pietro 24 would have had in the past up until the date of your 25 report had he not been injured? 12 1 A. Correct. 2 Q. All right. And your future earnings project those 3 losses due to his inability to work into the future 4 for the remainder of how much time? 5 A. For the remainder from the time -- from the date of 6 this report until the expiration of his work life 7 expectancy. 8 Q. Can you tell us what types of factors you utilized 9 in order to make those projections for future wage 10 losses? 11 A. Well, in terms of work life expectancy, I use a 12 table. It's by Gamboa Junior, the New Work Life 13 Expectancy Tables, revised 1998. And again, you 14 look at a cohort, you look at an individual with the 15 same number of years of education and gender, and 16 you go to a table and you also look at whether or 17 not that person is currently disabled or not 18 disabled. And in that table there's a number based 19 on the age of the person. And the normal way is to 20 look at the age at the time of the accident and then 21 look at that table, and that table will give you the 22 work life expectancy for that cohort. 23 Q. Now, we like to sometimes think of people as working 24 to age 65. Is the work life expectancy that you 25 utilized for Larry assuming that he would work to 13 1 age 65? 2 A. No. 3 Q. How come, why not? 4 A. The tables take into account not only death, death 5 is part of the reason that people don't work to age 6 65, but it takes into account the probabilities that 7 people retire or drop out of the work force for 8 whatever reason. And in his particular cohort the 9 number of years of work life expectancy were 19, and 10 that would take him to approximately age 62.2, and 11 that's simply what the statistics show. 12 Q. So you didn't stretch out his work life to age 65? 13 A. No. 14 Q. All right. Had you done so, would the losses have 15 been, that you project, have been less or greater? 16 A. It would have been greater. 17 Q. Now, not only do we presumably take into 18 consideration what his work life would be, am I 19 correct in understanding that you also have to 20 utilize a certain pay rate in order to come up with 21 your projections? 22 A. In most -- I don't know that I'd call it a pay rate, 23 but I have normally what I call base earnings, which 24 is a base amount for either the wage, or if the 25 person is not getting a wage per se, is 14 1 self-employed, which was the case for Mr. Pietro, I 2 look at that amount, I look at those amounts. So 3 normally I'm provided data about either wages and/or 4 earnings for an individual over a number of years 5 prior to the accident. 6 Q. What data were you provided with for Mr. Pietro in 7 that regard? 8 A. I have his earnings from 1993, really through 1998, 9 although after 1996 those would be largely or mostly 10 a function of his wife. 11 Q. All right. Did you -- how did you come up with a 12 base earnings amount with which to make your 13 projection? 14 A. In this particular case, his '93 earnings were 15 approximately 35,000, his 1994 earnings were a 16 little over 49,000, his 1995 earnings were 47,000, 17 his 1996 earnings, which were not quite a full year, 18 but were approximately 44,000. I looked at those 19 four years. Those are the four full years prior to 20 when the injuries took place and where there would 21 be a diminution in his ability to earn. 22 In this particular case, had that -- had all 23 four of those numbers come from the same career or 24 thing that he was doing, all four from being the 25 wage earner or all four from being self-employed, I 15 1 probably would have used that information and did 2 use that information. 3 What it basically told me was here's an 4 individual that's earning more than -- around 45,000 5 or more a year. I looked at the last two years of 6 earnings because that's what he was presently 7 doing. He was self-employed, he had a Schedule C 8 kind of business, and those last two years at 47,623 9 in '95 and $44,506 in 1996, I simply took the 10 average of those two years to come up with his base 11 earnings. 12 Q. All right. Now, given a number for base earnings 13 and a number for the expected work life of Mr. 14 Pietro, how do you come up with future projected 15 lost earnings for Mr. Pietro? 16 A. The last part of the puzzle is to develop what's 17 called a net discount rate, and present valuing is 18 the idea that a bird in the hand is worth two in the 19 bush. Or thinking about it, would you rather have 20 $10,000 today or $10,000 one year from now. I think 21 most of us would rather have $10,000 today because 22 one year from now it will be worth more than 23 10,000. So the reverse logic is the idea, that 24 monies received in the future aren't worth as much 25 today. 16 1 So when you're looking at a person's expected 2 earnings, or cash flow stream in this case, those 3 earnings would be received in the future so they're 4 discounted. And they're discounted by an expected 5 investment yield. 6 But the other side of the coin is that earnings 7 are expected to grow. Earnings historically have, 8 depending on the time frame, increased at rates of 9 sometimes one percent, two percent, sometimes as 10 high as ten percent or more, depending on the time 11 period. 12 What we find is that there's a relationship 13 between earnings growth, not surprisingly, and 14 investment yields. When investment yields are very 15 high, inflation is high, wages tend to grow more and 16 earnings tend to grow more. If the reverse is true, 17 then the reverse is true. But that relationship has 18 tended to run in the one to three percent category 19 for a number of years, depending on how you make 20 certain definitions. 21 And so the net discount rate simultaneously 22 picks up the fact that wages would be expected to 23 grow and there would be an investment yield on a 24 lump sum of money awarded and that has to be 25 discounted back. 17 1 Q. All right. So in your calculations you took into 2 consideration both the fact that one can anticipate 3 that earnings will grow in the future, and you also 4 took into consideration the fact that money paid now 5 is worth more than money paid over time? 6 A. Right, or money paid in the future is not worth as 7 much as having the money now. 8 Q. All right. So the figures that you calculated are 9 the present value of Mr. Pietro's losses rather 10 than -- well, you're trying to calculate and you 11 did, in fact, calculate present value? 12 A. Correct. 13 Q. All right. Now, in addition to lost earnings, I 14 believe you also indicated that you projected both 15 the past and future losses incurred by virtue of Mr. 16 Pietro's diminished ability to work around the home; 17 is that correct? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Can you tell us a little bit more about how you 20 calculated those numbers? 21 A. Well, the first part of that is that the information 22 sheet, the real intent of my information sheet on 23 page five and six that I've used for lots of years, 24 is to get at the percentage of diminishment. The 25 way I have it set up is the clients, your clients, 18 1 are asked to give me the number of hours before 2 their injury they're able to perform certain 3 household services or household tasks and the amount 4 of time they can spend after that on a weekly 5 basis. 6 Anything where there's annual issues like 7 mowing the lawn or something, I normally didn't make 8 adjustments myself in those numbers. At the end I 9 add columns of numbers up and look at what 10 percentage of reduction that the individual is able 11 to provide in terms of household services for the 12 family. It's a percentage reduction. It's a 13 percentage reduction based on their abilities to 14 perform the household services they were able to do 15 prior to the accident. And that's the one part. 16 Q. What do you do with those percentages that you've 17 derived in order to come up with a money figure? 18 A. The next part is I look at a study. Really the 19 source is really abstract in the study and it's been 20 done many years ago on household services provided 21 by males and females, and periodically it gets 22 updated for inflation. 23 That study gives you a base number, depending 24 at certain points in time, how many children are in 25 the household, whether that individual is working or 19 1 not working. It gives you a base earnings number. 2 That earnings number then I adjust -- the data that 3 I have used here was 1988 data, and I adjusted that 4 for inflation of up to starting with 1996 and then 5 forward. And so I used -- that percentage becomes 6 multiplied times those annual numbers. 7 Q. And where do those average numbers come from? 8 A. Those average numbers actually I have cited the 9 source that I took them from. It's Walker & Gauger, 10 it was a study, Catherine Walker, done at Cornell 11 University funded by the government that probably 12 was done in '76 and no new study, to my knowledge, 13 of a new sample of people has been done since then. 14 All that's done is economists continually update 15 those dollar annual household services for 16 inflation. 17 Q. I'd like to go back to your methodology in 18 projecting lost earnings again for one second and 19 simply ask you whether, as it relates to Mr. 20 Pietro's losses, whether you included a number for 21 fringe benefits that he lost? 22 A. I did not. 23 Q. Tell us why you didn't. 24 A. In this case it's my understanding that he was 25 self-employed and that there were no external fringe 20 1 benefits, dollar amounts being provided by an 2 employer, and so I didn't include fringe benefits 3 here. 4 Q. All right. So you are not calculating any money 5 whatsoever in terms of losses as it relates to 6 fringe benefits? 7 A. Correct. 8 MR. HIRSHMAN: I'd like to go off 9 camera for a second but stay on the record. 10 VIDEOTAPE OPERATOR: Off the record. 11 - - - - 12 MR. HIRSHMAN: At this time I'm going 13 to ask Dr. Eckel a series of questions about 14 Social Security. My guess is that at some 15 point that's going to be an issue that the 16 Court is going to take up in this matter. And 17 to the extent that the Court rules that Social 18 Security is not a matter to be dealt with by 19 the jury, I would ask that these following 20 questions be deleted from the transcript. 21 Having said that, I'd like to go back on 22 camera. 23 - - - - 24 VIDEOTAPE OPERATOR: We're back on 25 camera. 21 1 Q. Now, is it your understanding that Mr. Pietro is 2 receiving benefits from the Social Security 3 Administration for disability? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Now, did you deduct from the numbers that you 6 arrived at for lost earnings an amount that equals 7 the Social Security benefits that Mr. Pietro is 8 receiving and will be projected to receive into the 9 future? 10 A. I did not. 11 Q. And tell us, if you would, why you didn't. 12 A. The normal situation is that any, and this becomes 13 more of a legal opinion, but I don't know how else 14 to answer it, that any monies derived as a direct 15 result of the injury or the death in a case most of 16 the time fall under a rule that you lawyers know, 17 collateral source rules, and I don't deduct that. 18 It's my understanding if there are deductions 19 to be made the Courts and the lawyers will take care 20 of that themselves. I don't know exactly -- I have 21 one sheet here that gives me a dollar amount and I'm 22 not sure if that's exactly what that was, but in any 23 event I didn't use it. 24 Q. Let's then go to the easel that's to your right 25 there, and I'd ask the camera be focused on the 22 1 easel. 2 And I'll ask the cameraman to tell me when 3 that's been done. 4 VIDEOTAPE OPERATOR: Okay. 5 Q. Now, Dr. Eckel, I would like you to go through the 6 calculations that you made in this case for the 7 jury, and what I'd like to do is go item by item. 8 And let's start, if we could, with your 9 calculations for past lost earnings. What were your 10 calculations for that particular item? 11 A. First of all, the last -- there are two damage 12 elements, lost earnings and lost household 13 services. And under each of those damage elements 14 there's the past component and the future 15 component. 16 In the case of lost earnings the past component 17 is $41,177. And that's derived from calculations 18 that I make on page five of my report which takes 19 those base earnings that I believe or that 20 represented the average for Mr. Pietro in the two 21 prior years to the injury and subtract out what 22 earnings were actually -- were earned by the 23 business with Mrs. Pietro operating that in 1997 and 24 1998. 25 It wasn't clear to me at that point whether or 23 1 not those earnings that were being derived from the 2 business were the residual effects of a business in 3 terms of accounts receivable or goodwill or whether 4 those were entirely from Mrs. Pietro's labor. 5 And so the conservative side said let's take it 6 out and let's assume those are remaining residual 7 effects of Mr. Pietro, and that's what I did. If I 8 didn't believe that was the case I would have to add 9 back the subtractions that are part of the past 10 calculation on page five. 11 Q. So if we assume for a moment, and you're not a 12 doctor and you've never met Mr. Pietro, correct? 13 A. Yes, correct. 14 Q. You don't know when his -- you have no independent 15 knowledge of when his disabilities is starting? 16 A. No. 17 Q. If we assume for a moment that his disabilities 18 started on December 7th, 1996 and that he was unable 19 to contribute in any fashion to his family's 20 sustenance economically thereafter, would the number 21 still be $1,177 or would it be a different number? 22 A. It would be a greater number then. In other words, 23 the business earnings that would have been earned in 24 those years would have been derived from the labor 25 efforts of Mrs. Pietro, and that's not what this 24 1 damage award is about. 2 MR. BONEZZI: Objection. Move to 3 strike. 4 Q. So is it fair to say that you have taken a 5 conservative position on that particular issue? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. All right. Let's then go to the second item of 8 damages, which is lost future earnings. And tell 9 us, if you would, what you calculated those lost 10 future earnings to be. 11 A. Again, the amount is, in present value terms, is 12 $646,323 and it's also computed on page five of my 13 report and it also starts with the base earnings of 14 $46,065 and it multiplies that times a, what's 15 called a, present value factor. 16 And the present value factor is a function of 17 both the time frame over which the discounting is 18 taking place, in this case it's from the date of 19 this report, until the expected end of his work life 20 expectancy in the year 2015.37. And the time span 21 in there is actually about 16 years, it's a little 22 over 16 years. 23 The discount, the progressive value factor, is 24 a little over 14 and that difference is, between 16 25 and 14, is in fact how the discounting takes place. 25 1 And that 14, that present value factor, is 2 multiplied times the 46,000, and that gives me the 3 present value of Mr. Pietro's expected earnings from 4 the date of the -- or from the date of this report 5 through the termination of his expected work life. 6 Q. In terms of dollar amounts, do your projections 7 anticipate that Mr. Pietro will earn more than 8 $646,323 during the remainder of his life 9 expectancy -- work life expectancy if he were to 10 have continued working? 11 MR. BONEZZI: Objection to the form of 12 the question. 13 Q. That's a good objection. It was a poorly formed 14 question, so I'll reform it. 15 You have used the number -- you have projected 16 his future earnings losses to be $646,323? 17 A. Correct. 18 Q. In terms of actual dollar amounts, is that how much 19 Mr. Pietro would have earned had he not become 20 injured? 21 A. No, he would have earned much more than that. What 22 that is is that's the present value. In other 23 words, if -- and that takes into account the fact 24 that we don't expect -- I don't expect him to have 25 earned 49,000 in 1994 and 47,000 in 1995 and then 26 1 start with a base earnings of 46. 2 The expectation is that those wages will grow. 3 That number, $646,000, has to account for the growth 4 in wages. But additionally, I also have to take 5 account of the fact that these monies will be 6 invested. And so what that present value is, he 7 ought to be able to invest that money and go to a 8 drawer, let's say we've got 16 drawers lined up for 9 the years from 1999 to 2015 and he goes to a drawer 10 and he opens that drawer at the end of that year and 11 pulls out exactly the cash that he would have -- and 12 basically in this year it would be $46,065. 13 When he goes to the drawer two years from now 14 it would be more than that. He would have probably 15 there would be on average growth in those earnings. 16 So each time he goes to the drawer he takes out what 17 it would have been expected that he would have 18 earned with the growth rate during these years. 19 Finally, at the 16th drawer he goes to the 20 drawer in that year and he opens it and there's just 21 enough cash there that would be -- expected to be 22 the same as he would have earned had he been running 23 the business or doing a similar sort of employment 24 that he had prior to the business in the year 2015. 25 And so if you take nominal dollars, actual salaries 27 1 paid, it would be much greater than the 646. 2 Q. All right. What is the total amount of lost 3 earnings that you calculate? 4 A. For both past and future? 5 Q. For both past and future for Mr. Pietro by virtue of 6 his injuries. 7 A. The present value sum is $687,500. 8 Q. All right. Let's move next to lost household 9 services. And what are your calculations for the 10 amounts lost by virtue of his disabilities for past 11 household services? 12 A. On page seven, I mean, those are a bit more detailed 13 and complex because of the time period. Certain 14 things are changing. One son reaches age 18, a 15 daughter reaches age 18, his work life ends, but in 16 general what I've done is I've calculated -- the 17 first part of what I calculate is how much would, in 18 past terms, would have been lost. 19 In other words, we're talking replacing the 20 services that Mr. Pietro can no longer do. Whether 21 Mrs. Pietro now provides those or whether somebody 22 else does is irrelevant. The question is they're 23 not whole because he can no longer do the things 24 that he could do before. And if she has to come 25 home and spend that 15 or 20 hours a week doing 28 1 that, that's a damage, and they can decide whether 2 or not they want to pay that out or whether or not 3 she's going to provide the value for that labor. 4 If you take that, the number from the date of 5 the accident until the date of this report, the 6 number is $9,604, and that would be if he were 100 7 percent disabled, no longer able to provide 8 anything. The information I had suggested that he 9 was -- that he is unable to do approximately 80 10 percent of what he was able to do before. And so I 11 took 81 percent times that and arrived at the 12 $7,779. 13 Q. All right. What are your calculations for future 14 losses pertaining to household services that Mr. 15 Pietro will not be able to perform? 16 A. The concept is similar in terms of replacing the 17 amounts. It turns out that the present value from 18 1999, now the only difference here between this and 19 wages is household services don't stop when somebody 20 retires at age 62, they continue to be given. And 21 so this time the end of the life expectancy becomes 22 the relevant number to use. And so when I present 23 value that for future in present value terms is 24 $97,114. 25 Q. And did you come up with a total figure for lost 29 1 household services? 2 A. The total figure is $104,893. 3 Q. Now, taking your calculations and adding them all 4 up, what is your projection for the total economic 5 losses associated with Mr. Pietro's disabilities? 6 A. The total economic losses are $792,393. 7 Q. Now, let's talk a little bit about your report. Is 8 that the number that you came up with in the report 9 that you wrote? 10 A. Well, yes. There was a typo on page three, which is 11 the summary table that looks very much like that 12 that was $70 different. But all these numbers were 13 there and the cover letter also showed that sum, but 14 I think there was a $70 -- there was a two instead 15 of a nine. 16 Q. In other words, the number that you had in your 17 report was 792,323? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. All right. And the 23 you're suggesting should have 20 been a 93? 21 A. Correct. 22 MR. HIRSHMAN: Let's go off camera and 23 stay on the record again for a second. 24 VIDEOTAPE OPERATOR: Off camera record. 25 - - - - 30 1 MR. HIRSHMAN: Again, I want to inquire 2 of Dr. Eckel in an area that may be a subject 3 of legal dispute. And as a result, I want to 4 at least off camera indicate that this is an 5 area that I will perhaps be asking for a 6 deletion of, depending on how the Judge rules 7 on the potential legal issues here. 8 Back on camera, please. 9 - - - - 10 VIDEOTAPE OPERATOR: We're on camera 11 record. 12 Q. Dr. Eckel, did you take into consideration that Mrs. 13 Pietro might go out and get a job in making your 14 calculations or that she might indeed take over 15 Larry's business? 16 A. No. You mean did I consider of course -- I called 17 it out. In other words, that's irrelevant for 18 calculating the damages for Mr. Pietro. Whatever 19 she decides to do or not do is not part of his 20 earnings loss. 21 Q. Explain for us why you have concluded that her 22 earnings, should she be in the job market or in the 23 labor force, are not part of his loss, were not to 24 be ducted from his loss; why is that? 25 A. Each, Mr. and Mrs. Pietro, have an earnings capacity 31 1 and however that was employed was a choice that they 2 made. The example I gave I think during my 3 discovery deposition in this case was I think 4 relatively straightforward. It would become clear 5 what Mr. Pietro's earnings loss -- if they were to 6 get a divorce two months from now, all of his 7 earnings, all the 49,000 or the $46,000 he was 8 making would be gone. He'd have no attachment to 9 any earnings that Mrs. Pietro may or may not make. 10 Another example I give in cases like this is 11 when you think of assets, and that's what earnings 12 capacity is, it's an asset held by an individual. 13 And think of having two gold mines and one gold mine 14 is producing income and the other gold mine isn't 15 producing income. And the gold mine that isn't 16 producing income is bombed by somebody, it is 17 destroyed. 18 I mean, the idea that, gee, nothing has been 19 lost because at that point in time that mine wasn't 20 being mined and wasn't producing gold is similar 21 exactly to this case. 22 Mrs. Pietro apparently elected to stay home 23 with her two children prior to the accident and Mr. 24 Pietro was making the money. But had she decided to 25 work and make 25 or $30,000 a year, it wouldn't any 32 1 longer be 45, it would be 90,000 in terms of family 2 income. So clearly the focus of this report is on 3 his earnings capacity, him as a gold mine, not her. 4 Whatever she makes or can do is really very 5 irrelevant for any computations, I think. 6 Q. Now, the figure that you've come up with of 7 $792,393, does that figure include computations for 8 losses which Larry or his family may have sustained 9 for pain and suffering? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Does that number include any losses that they may 12 have sustained for loss of enjoyment of life? 13 MR. BONEZZI: Objection. 14 A. No. 15 Q. Does it include any amount that they may have 16 sustained or may sustain in the future for medical 17 expenses? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Does it include any amount that may exist for mental 20 anguish? 21 A. No. 22 Q. And why not? 23 A. Well, those are not pecuniary damages, that's not 24 what I do, that's not what my expertise is. I put 25 together those dollar damages that I believe will be 33 1 part of the economic loss. It's part of the legal 2 system that the award or damage for those other 3 parts are done by a jury. A jury makes that 4 decision based on the facts of the case. 5 Q. All right. By virtue of your failure to calculate 6 those numbers, are you suggesting that those 7 elements of damage don't exist? 8 A. No. They're real but they're not something that an 9 economists -- at least they're not something 10 economists can place a number on. 11 Q. All right. As it relates to those numbers that are 12 on the tripod -- by the way, let's have the Court 13 Reporter mark that pad of paper there, if we could, 14 as -- 15 MR. BONEZZI: I'll stipulate that she 16 can do that subsequently. 17 MR. HIRSHMAN: All right. And we'll 18 call it Plaintiffs' -- go ahead. 19 MR. BONEZZI: I do, I'll stipulate you 20 can mark this at the conclusion of the 21 deposition as opposed to taking time now doing 22 it. 23 MR. HIRSHMAN: All right. We'll call 24 it Plaintiffs' Exhibit 30. 25 Q. Dr. Eckel, do you have an opinion to a reasonable 34 1 economic certainty regarding Larry Pietro's economic 2 losses? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And what is your opinion? 5 A. In present value terms the total economic loss is 6 $792,393. 7 MR. HIRSHMAN: I have no further 8 questions. 9 VIDEOTAPE OPERATOR: Off the record. 10 - - - - 11 (Thereupon, Plaintiffs' Exhibit 30 was 12 mark'd for purposes of identification.) 13 - - - - 14 (Thereupon, a recess was had.) 15 - - - - 16 VIDEOTAPE OPERATOR: We're on camera 17 record. 18 MR. HIRSHMAN: I neglected to ask you 19 one set of questions before I finished, and I'd 20 like to ask you those now, Dr. Eckel. 21 Q. The jury in this case is going to be asked to make 22 certain calculations based on the damages that they 23 decide are the full damages for the Pietros, and 24 they're going to be asked to multiply by some 25 fraction representing the amount of the lost chance 35 1 that Mr. Pietro lost the benefit of by virtue of the 2 medical negligence in this case. Now, did you take 3 that into consideration in doing your calculations? 4 A. No. I'm not exactly sure what you're describing 5 here, to be candid with you, but, no, I don't think 6 I did. 7 Q. All right. So what you are calculating for the jury 8 is the full amount of economic damages that have 9 been sustained by the Pietros? 10 A. Correct. 11 Q. Without dividing by whatever number it is that the 12 jury determines is the right number to divide by 13 representing the lost chance that Mr. Pietro has 14 sustained? 15 A. That's correct. 16 MR. HIRSHMAN: All right. I have no 17 further questions. Thank you. 18 VIDEOTAPE OPERATOR: Off the record. 19 - - - - 20 (Thereupon, a discussion was had off 21 the record.) 22 - - - - 23 VIDEOTAPE OPERATOR: We're back on 24 record. 25 - - - - 36 1 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF NORMAN L. ECKEL, Ph.D. 2 BY MR. BONEZZI: 3 Q. Doctor, my name is Bonezzi. I happen to represent 4 Dr. Karla Madalin, who is a neurologist in this 5 case. I have some questions for you based upon your 6 testimony. 7 You continued in your direct examination to 8 refer to this scenario as Mr. Pietro suffering from 9 an accident. You are aware, are you not, that he 10 suffered from a cerebrovascular accident, or a 11 stroke? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Okay. So when you used the term accident, that was 14 more of a euphemism as opposed to actually what took 15 place in this case; is that right? 16 A. I normally consider it just -- oftentimes it isn't 17 even -- I'm unaware of exactly what it is. I would 18 call it even the litigation issue or something like 19 that. 20 Q. I understand. I just wanted to clarify that, that 21 what you are doing here is you're attempting to 22 calculate what the lost earnings or the income that 23 would have been generated had Mr. Pietro not 24 suffered from the stroke; that's what you're here 25 for? 37 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. All right. Did you take into account whether Mrs. 3 Pietro had provided any input into the family 4 oriented business prior to the time that Mr. Pietro 5 had the CVA, or the cerebrovascular accident? 6 A. No. 7 MR. HIRSHMAN: Objection. 8 Q. Are you aware whether she did? 9 A. It didn't make any difference to me because in 10 establishing his ability to earn or earnings 11 capacity or wages his W-2s alone were $49,000 or 12 47,000. 13 Q. So in other words, whatever input she may have had, 14 assuming that she had any, was completely discounted 15 by you because her name doesn't appear on his W-2, 16 right? 17 A. I'm -- 18 Q. Right? 19 A. If her -- I assume the W-2 that we have to report to 20 the government are earnings that are earned by that 21 individual. I don't think that we can, and be 22 legal, put other earnings into other people's W-2s. 23 So I have to assume that absolutely that the W-2s I 24 have are true and represent earnings by Mr. Pietro, 25 not his wife. 38 1 Q. I appreciate that. What I'm asking though is 2 whether you took into account at any point in your 3 calculations whether Mrs. Pietro, prior to the time 4 that he had suffered his injury from the stroke, 5 provided any input or betterment into the family 6 business; and your answer I believe is no? 7 A. My understanding of the facts of the case -- I 8 didn't do anything like that, I guess what I'm 9 saying is that -- 10 Q. That's fine. 11 A. -- my understanding of the facts of the case were 12 that in fact there was no substantial or significant 13 contribution by her to the case and if there were 14 the data would show that. 15 Q. Are you aware of whether or not Mr. Pietro presently 16 provides any input, any guidance, any direction to 17 his wife relative to the family business today? 18 A. My understanding is that that's nominal. 19 Q. Does he provide input, regardless of whether or not 20 it is nominal or otherwise into the family 21 business? 22 A. My impression -- I'm not sure I can answer that. 23 Q. Okay. 24 A. Other than by saying my impression is that it's 25 nominal, that it has no real effect. To say no 39 1 would suggest that he doesn't do a single possible 2 thing that has a value of a dime. I don't think I 3 could do that. 4 Q. Okay. Are you aware of whether Mrs. Pietro has 5 chosen, as far as the pursuits that she is following 6 in the family business, has chosen to limit her 7 activities in any shape or form, or is she pursuing 8 it in the same zealous manner that her husband was 9 prior to the time of the stroke? 10 A. I don't know that it was relevant for me to consider 11 one way or the other. 12 Q. So if the family business continues to operate and 13 there is income derived from that business, since 14 Mr. Pietro has only nominal involvement or no 15 involvement, whatever Mrs. Pietro is generating from 16 an income standpoint is not taken into your 17 calculations when you arrive at your losses; is that 18 right? 19 MR. HIRSHMAN: Objection. 20 A. That's right. It has nothing to do with the -- I 21 only did computations of his wage loss, not hers. 22 Q. So in other words, if she continues to operate the 23 business in the manner in which he did but on a 24 limited scale or a lesser scale than his, and if she 25 is able to generate 50 percent of the same type of 40 1 income that he did, that is not taken into account 2 when arriving at your calculations, correct? 3 MR. HIRSHMAN: Objection. 4 A. That's correct. 5 Q. Okay. Now, your calculations were also based upon 6 the fact that the business, as you know it, was 7 going to continue to grow in size, correct? 8 A. No, not really. 9 Q. Were your calculations then based upon the fact that 10 there would be approximately forty some thousand 11 dollars a year generated as income -- 12 A. My calculation -- 13 Q. -- without any growth? 14 A. Not exactly that either. 15 Q. Okay. 16 A. Do you want me to explain that? 17 Q. Please. If I don't do it he's going to afterwards, 18 so go ahead and do it. 19 A. Again, what I have in front of me is a time series 20 of earnings by Mr. Pietro showing an ability to earn 21 $45,000, whether he worked for a company and was a 22 wage earner or whether he was self-employed. 23 Again, an economist is going to believe that 24 any time that he's demonstrated his capacity to earn 25 that money, whether or not he earns it is as a wage 41 1 earner or for the self employment business he had 2 really was irrelevant to me at that point in time. 3 Q. Would it -- I'm sorry. 4 A. Let me just make one last point. And the reason for 5 that is because if one starts a small business and 6 you were making $45,000 or $49,000 working somewhere 7 and you had an ability to sell and do the things 8 that he did, and let's assume the business suddenly 9 doesn't do well and it makes $20,000. As economics 10 demand, everything I understand about economics, 11 guess what, he's going to get rid of the business 12 and he's going to go back to being employed earning 13 the 49,000 he did before. So I view that as an 14 entire package, I guess is what I'm saying. 15 Q. I guess that's supposition that you just made, that 16 if the business does not generate the income that it 17 did in the past, it diminishes down to the figure 18 that you just indicated, 20,000, that ultimately the 19 business will be pushed aside, set aside, and he'll 20 go back to doing what he did prior to commencing the 21 business; is that what you're saying? 22 A. He -- 23 Q. And earning the same amount of money that he did? 24 A. Him, yes. 25 Q. Him, yes. 42 1 A. Again, being very careful that this has nothing to 2 do with Mrs. Pietro's labor efforts in running the 3 business. We're talking about his labor efforts if 4 he were running the business. And if that business 5 didn't do well, yes, I have every reason to believe 6 that he would continue to show that ability to earn 7 those monies that he actually did. 8 Q. I'm curious about that, and forgive me for being so 9 naive, but is it your belief that individuals who 10 are earning, whatever the income is, 20, 30, 40, 11 $50,000 a year and they're salaried then choose to 12 go ahead and open their own business in their area 13 of expertise will benefit from that, but if that 14 business fails they can always go back to what they 15 were doing before the business started earning the 16 same income that they were before they quit; is that 17 what you're saying? 18 A. Not exactly. 19 Q. Because that's what it sounded like. It's almost -- 20 it almost sounded to me as though anybody can go 21 ahead and take a chance at starting their own 22 business because they can always be assured of going 23 back to their previous occupation and generate the 24 same type of income without any type of risk. Now, 25 I guess that's where I'm so naive. Is that what you 43 1 were saying? 2 A. No, not exactly. 3 Q. Tell me, please. Tell this jury what you are 4 saying. 5 A. What I'm saying I think is very clear. If you have 6 an individual who's able to make $45,000, can 7 demonstrate, can do that over and over and has done 8 that, it's not a hypothetical, it's a reality and 9 that individual opens a business, that the normal 10 case of opening a business for most of us would be 11 that we believe if we have our own business we'll do 12 better. And in fact, the probabilities are probably 13 that that is what would have taken place, okay, 14 because he did do very well, he continued to do well 15 before and after. 16 It is my feeling that if there would be a 17 problem with the business, and that's my experience 18 and my background, is that that individual, he was 19 not in a particular situation that was unique in 20 terms of what it was he did that, yes, I believe 21 that -- I think you are suggesting that the day 22 after he decides not to run his business that he 23 goes somewhere and the check would be exactly what 24 it was. I don't think I'm saying that. 25 I'm saying within a reasonable period of time 44 1 that his earnings capacity would be back to what he 2 had demonstrated. 3 Q. What would that reasonable period of time be? 4 A. In the past. I don't know. I don't know if there's 5 data on that, six months, three months. 6 Q. Okay. And that's not taken into calculations when 7 attempting to determine what the future losses would 8 be, correct? 9 A. What's not? 10 Q. What you just talked about, because you're assuming 11 that that business is going to continue on as well 12 into the future as it did in the past, correct? 13 A. I'm sorry, I guess I'm not with you. Could you ask 14 that again? 15 Q. You are assuming when you're calculating your 16 numbers that the business that Mr. Pietro was 17 running will continue to do as good in the future as 18 it did in the past, correct? 19 A. No. That's what we just talked about, I thought. 20 No, that's not exactly what I assumed. 21 Q. Okay. How much is Mr. Pietro receiving in Social 22 Security benefits today? 23 MR. HIRSHMAN: Objection. 24 A. Can I answer that? 25 MR. HIRSHMAN: Yes. 45 1 Q. Yes, you can, yeah. 2 A. Okay. Again, I've got whatever -- there's 3 Defendants' Exhibit D is part of my file, and I'm 4 not sure exactly what that is. It says $8,400. I'm 5 not sure if that's an entire amount for that year 6 or -- because I didn't use it, and so I really -- 7 and I never inquired into that. 8 Q. All right. What did Mr. Pietro do prior to starting 9 his present business? 10 A. Well, he worked for a company called -- in '93 he 11 did the similar thing that he was doing in the 12 business actually, Ceiling Lights and Stuff, Inc., 13 in Brecksville, Ohio, and that was the same company 14 in 1994. And I think in the latter part of 1994 he 15 started a similar business in which that he was an 16 employee in. 17 Q. You have undoubtedly reviewed government statistics 18 that relate specifically to the likelihood or the 19 probability of a small business failing or making 20 it, correct? 21 A. Not really. 22 Q. Oh, you haven't? 23 A. I mean, I taught entrepreneurship. 24 Q. Entrepreneurship? 25 A. Uh-huh. 46 1 Q. And have you reviewed any data that provides any 2 statistical analysis of the likelihood of a small 3 business making it into the future? 4 A. It's very difficult because there are lots of 5 different kinds -- Michael Dell started a small 6 business, Microsoft was a small business. So I'm 7 not sure how I can answer, restaurants, Days Inn was 8 a small business. You'd have to be very, very, very 9 specific about what -- I'm not sure where -- what 10 the question is exactly. But what kind of small 11 business, I guess is what I'm getting at? They're 12 very, very different. Every small business is not 13 every small business. 14 Q. I'm sorry. I'm not the doctor, you are. And what 15 I'm asking is whether or not you've taken a look at 16 the statistical likelihood of a small business 17 making it on its own. And I just presumed, 18 obviously incorrectly, that you had read data 19 relative to the Small Business Administration and 20 their publications that set forth the likelihood of 21 a small business making it or not. 22 And that's what I was asking, the likelihood of 23 the small business being able to make it after a 24 certain period of time, because your calculations 25 are all based upon this business making it. 47 1 MR. HIRSHMAN: Objection. 2 MR. BONEZZI: I have nothing further. 3 Thank you. 4 VIDEOTAPE OPERATOR: Off the record. 5 - - - - 6 (Thereupon, a discussion was had off 7 the record.) 8 - - - - 9 VIDEOTAPE OPERATOR: We're on the 10 record. 11 - - - - 12 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF NORMAN L. ECKEL, Ph.D. 13 BY MS. MOORE: 14 Q. Dr. Eckel, my name is Julie Moore. I'm here today 15 for Rick Strong, who's representing Akron General 16 Medical Center and Dr. Markowski. 17 This is not the first time you've given 18 testimony at trial, is it? 19 A. No. 20 Q. In fact, you've given about 75 court appearances 21 previously, and that's as of early 1997? 22 A. At least, yes. 23 Q. And based upon your deposition testimony, I believe 24 you indicated you do this on average about ten to 25 twelve times per year? 48 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. So it would be fair to say by the date of this 3 videotape you've testified approximately 90 times at 4 trial? 5 A. Again, I don't know, maybe more than a hundred, I 6 don't know, more than 75. I haven't kept track of 7 20 years of work in this area. 8 Q. And part of the testimony that you give does 9 supplement your income; does it not? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And in fact, about 25 percent of your income is 12 derived from doing testimony like this? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And in the cases where you have given testimony, 15 about 80 percent of the time you do that for 16 plaintiffs as opposed to defendants? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. You indicated earlier that you prepared a report in 19 this case; is that correct? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And that report was based upon some computations 22 that you utilized, correct? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And some information that was given to you by the 25 plaintiffs; is that correct? 49 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Is it fair to say that this information then becomes 3 input into a computer and you generate certain 4 numbers from that? 5 A. Actually, not in this case. Well, I should say in 6 most cases I work by mail. 7 Q. In this -- 8 A. I literally -- these calculations are done by hand. 9 Q. These you do -- 10 A. On a calculator. 11 Q. And the report that you prepared for plaintiffs' 12 counsel cost about $1,200 to do? 13 A. I don't recall in this case. I think a typical 14 case, this may have been less or -- I normally base 15 it on the number of damage elements. In this case 16 there were only two. But sort of a typical case is 17 1,200. 18 Q. And you are being paid for your testimony today as 19 well? 20 A. I'm being paid for my time here, you know, my 21 testimony. 22 Q. And what's your rate for your time giving testimony 23 today? 24 A. $400 for the first hour and $100 an hour 25 thereafter. 50 1 Q. You also indicated earlier that you had been 2 contacted by plaintiffs' counsel about a week or two 3 prior to the date of your March 31st, 1999 report; 4 is that correct? 5 A. Again, I don't know. The timing for me means -- I 6 know it would have to have been in advance of March 7 31st. Whether -- sometimes it might be six weeks, 8 sometimes it might be two weeks. It depends how 9 long the information I request gets to me. I can't 10 tell you the date in this case. 11 Q. Well, suffice it to say, you weren't contacted a 12 year prior to the report, were you? 13 A. I don't think so. There are times when attorneys 14 will contact me and I don't hear from them for a 15 year. I don't think that was the case here. 16 Q. I believe you also indicated that your report was 17 based primarily upon tax returns that you received, 18 some W-2s and the information sheet that you 19 received from the plaintiffs, correct? 20 A. Well, and information -- I also had information from 21 Mr. Pietro's accountant. I talked with him and made 22 notes of that telephone conversation verifying that 23 the tax numbers I had for some of the tax returns 24 weren't that useful for me, so that's also part of 25 it. 51 1 Q. And as you indicated earlier, a lot of what went 2 into your report, as far as the economic damages, 3 were based upon certain assumptions that were given 4 to you by Mr. Hirshman, correct? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And that would be that Mr. Pietro was disabled, 7 correct? 8 A. Would not, again, be gainfully employed. 9 Q. And that was one of the primary things that you took 10 into account in coming up with your report? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And you also testified you're not a medical doctor, 13 correct? 14 A. Yes, correct. 15 Q. And you did not review any of the transcripts in 16 this case by any of the physicians in this case, 17 whether they be treating physicians or experts on 18 behalf of plaintiffs or defendants? 19 A. No. 20 Q. So you're relying completely upon plaintiffs' 21 counsel for the representations as to Mr. Pietro's 22 ability to work or not work in this instance? 23 A. That's correct. 24 Q. And again, you did not meet with Mr. Pietro 25 personally, so you've made no assessment of his 52 1 abilities on your own, have you? 2 A. That's correct. 3 Q. And likewise, you did not meet with Mrs. Pietro 4 personally to make any assessments of her abilities 5 in this case? 6 A. That's correct. 7 MR. HIRSHMAN: Objection. 8 Q. Now, if we were to assume that Mr. Pietro was, in 9 fact, capable of working outside the home in some 10 capacity, you would agree then your report would 11 need to be changed to make up for any difference in 12 any wages that Mr. Pietro could, in fact, earn? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And you don't know whether or not that's a 15 possibility in this case, do you? 16 A. It's my understanding that it's not. 17 Q. But you don't know one way or the other? 18 A. I'm not -- again, I'm not here to give medical 19 testimony. I don't make judgments about that. 20 Q. And again, these losses do not consider at all Mrs. 21 Pietro working outside the home because you're 22 basing this solely upon Mr. Pietro's economic loss? 23 MR. HIRSHMAN: Objection. 24 A. Absolutely. 25 Q. So in this case, even if Mrs. Pietro works and earns 53 1 enough to replace her husband's income, this is 2 something that you're not considering in the numbers 3 you've provided today? 4 MR. HIRSHMAN: Objection. 5 A. That's right. This report is on the earnings loss 6 of Mr. Pietro and has nothing to do with his wife. 7 She was not injured, it's him who's been injured. 8 Q. And again, that would still be true even if Mrs. 9 Pietro, as you said, was this gold mine, maybe 10 untapped but a gold mine, and went out and secured 11 other employment, maybe even earning in excess what 12 her husband earned when he was working? 13 MR. HIRSHMAN: Objection. 14 A. When you blow up a gold mine that's able to produce 15 gold, that's correct. Part of -- if you had two 16 gold mines to start with and somebody blows up the 17 one gold mine, that's absolutely you've lost 18 assets. In this case, Mr. Pietro is one of those 19 gold mines that can no longer produce gold. 20 Q. And if we look at the situation that the Pietros had 21 prior to Mr. Pietro's injury, Mrs. Pietro was 22 staying at home with her children, correct? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And that was by choice? 25 A. That's my understanding. 54 1 Q. So now what essentially has happened is a role 2 reversal where Mr. Pietro is now at home and Mrs. 3 Pietro may be working at the business, but this 4 again doesn't apply in your calculations, correct? 5 MR. HIRSHMAN: Objection. 6 A. It doesn't -- I'm not sure I understand what you 7 mean by apply. 8 Q. You've not applied that scenario to your 9 calculations again even -- 10 A. Again, whatever Mrs. Pietro is or is not doing is 11 not relevant to computations for computing economic 12 damages for Larry Pietro. 13 Q. And that's true even though in a certain sense we 14 would call that a break even situation economically? 15 MR. HIRSHMAN: Objection. 16 A. We cannot call that, in any sense, that. That's 17 just an incorrect conceptual framework for this 18 case. 19 Q. And that's your belief, even though the Pietros did 20 file joint tax returns over the years? 21 A. It doesn't matter whether they file joint tax 22 returns or not. She was not earning the money, and 23 even if she earns money now it doesn't make any 24 difference. 25 Q. You testified earlier that Mr. Pietro was involved 55 1 in his own business, correct? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And you're aware that that was a furniture business? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. I believe you told the jury that the calculations 6 that you derived in arriving at an annual income for 7 Mr. Pietro were from the years of 1995 and 1996? 8 A. In terms of the actual computation of a particular 9 number, yes. 10 Q. And you didn't take into account any of the earnings 11 of the business for 1997 or 1998, as I understand 12 it, because that was past the date of injury? 13 A. No. In fact, I did -- I subtracted those earnings 14 out, okay, with an assumption that Mr. Pietro was 15 making some contribution toward those, okay. It 16 wasn't clear to me whether he was or not. 17 If, in fact, he wasn't, the $40,579 and the 18 $21,890 should be added to the economic loss that I 19 have on that exhibit. 20 Q. When we look at the years of earnings for the 21 business over that, let's take 1995 through 1996, 22 you would agree, Doctor, that there was actually a 23 decline in earnings during that time period? 24 A. I would agree that there's a decline but not from 25 the business. The business is whoever's operating 56 1 that business, and so we twitched from husband to 2 wife. 3 Q. Between -- excuse me, Doctor, I was referring to 4 1995 and 1996. 5 A. Oh. 6 Q. Wasn't Mr. Pietro operating -- 7 A. Yes, I'm sorry. 8 Q. And there was a decline during that period of time? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And then from 1996 to 1997 is it your understanding 11 that Mr. Pietro was working with the business 12 primarily during that time until he was injured? 13 A. I had no specific understanding. I -- when I looked 14 at the data, I make judgments from looking at the 15 data. It had appeared pretty obvious to me that 16 that decline was relatively large, but the reason -- 17 and then it went to $21,890. 18 I made an assumption that the conservative way 19 of viewing this was that those earnings were there 20 at least in part because of Larry Pietro. Again, if 21 that's not the case, then I would add those numbers 22 back to my economic damages. 23 Q. But if we look at the years between 1995 and 1997, 24 in 1995 Mr. Pietro earned $47,623; is that right? 25 A. Yes. 57 1 Q. And then by 1997 up until the time he was injured on 2 December 7th, 1997 his earnings were $40,579; were 3 they not? 4 A. No. 5 MR. HIRSHMAN: Objection. He was 6 injured not in 1997. 7 MS. MOORE: I'm sorry. Strike that. 8 MR. HIRSHMAN: He was injured in 1996. 9 MS. MOORE: Strike the question. 10 MR. BONEZZI: He suffered a stroke in 11 1996. 12 Q. Doctor, in looking at the earning from 1995 to 1996, 13 you would agree that there was, in fact, a loss? 14 A. No, there's a loss in -- a loss means the business 15 lost money. A net loss means something. This 16 wasn't a -- the profit was $44,506. There was a 17 decline in earnings, not a loss. A loss means 18 something specific. 19 Q. And again, you did not research any statistics about 20 the survivability versus the failure of small 21 businesses over any particular term? 22 A. To do so, again, with any small business is not any 23 small business. It would only make sense if that 24 kind of data were available on furniture stores of 25 this particular nature, and I'm unaware of any sort 58 1 of data set. 2 Q. And as you sit here today you can't predict for this 3 jury whether that business would have survived or 4 failed, can you? 5 A. I think I can predict that that business or his 6 earnings would have survived, given the history of 7 Mr. Pietro's ability to earn money, yes, I believe 8 it would. 9 Q. Now, you also indicated you've looked at work life 10 expectancy based upon certain tables and you predict 11 that Mr. Pietro would work until age 62, correct? 12 A. I didn't -- I didn't predict that. The table tells 13 me that. 14 Q. And that's, again, based upon the tables but not 15 based upon speaking with Mr. Pietro as to what in 16 fact he intended to do with his work time? 17 A. That's correct. 18 Q. So he may have decided to work longer, he may have 19 decided to retire earlier? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And again, your basis of wages is $46,065 for the 22 years that he would have worked; is that correct? 23 A. That's the base earnings point, yes. 24 Q. And again, you've testified that these economic 25 losses for his earnings would have been $687,000 -- 59 1 $687,500 over that 19-year period? 2 A. For lost earnings or wages, yes. 3 Q. Okay. And again, this was information that you 4 obtained from a statistical chart? 5 A. Well, now -- 6 Q. Based upon -- 7 A. -- we've mixed up a couple things. No, not 8 exactly. 9 Q. Excuse me. Based upon his work life expectancy? 10 A. Oh, yes, the work life expectancy. 11 Q. Okay. Now, you also indicated you had a household 12 chore list that you received from the plaintiffs in 13 this case? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And you have that before you? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Would you agree with me that the largest amount of 18 time that Mr. Pietro spent around the house was with 19 mowing the lawn and taking care of the exterior of 20 the home, raking leaves and so forth? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And that would be seasonal work here in Ohio? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. In fact, that would total about nine and a half, not 25 ten hours, almost a whole Saturday worth of work? 60 1 A. Again, it doesn't matter the total hours here, 2 what's being addressed is the reduction. If you 3 want to cut it in half for the number of months it 4 would be three, and it would be a half and the ratio 5 would be the same, so it didn't really make any 6 difference. 7 Q. And again, these are based upon the table that you 8 looked at for the remainder of Mr. Pietro's life, 9 which was 33 years, as far as calculating what this 10 total loss was of $104,000? 11 A. Not exactly. I'm not sure. Part of the -- there 12 are several components that go into the computation 13 here. Life expectancy is one of them and, yes, life 14 expectancy comes from a table, if that was your 15 question. I'm not sure it was. 16 Q. And I understand you mentioned the other factors 17 with family members and so forth, and that's how you 18 arrived at the 104,000 plus odd dollars? 19 A. That's part of how I arrived at it. That is a 20 single component in that process. 21 Q. And based upon those tables, is there any accounting 22 for what responsibilities other family members may 23 assume or what the children may do down the line? 24 A. It is in terms of the -- as the children live in the 25 household. Okay. In other words, the family 61 1 configuration, the number of children in the 2 household, makes a difference about how much mom 3 provides to the household and also does for dad. To 4 that extent, the answer is yes. 5 Q. Do you have any idea of what the Pietros' children 6 intend to do upon reaching age 18, whether they're 7 going to leave home or if they intend to stay at 8 home? 9 A. I assume they would leave home, which is the normal 10 assumption for the calculation. 11 Q. Okay. Now, you did not ask whether in fact the 12 Pietros have hired anybody to take over the 13 household services which are a part of Mr. Pietro's 14 loss? 15 A. No. 16 Q. And you don't know if anyone is coming in to cut the 17 grass, for example? 18 A. No. 19 MS. MOORE: Could we go off the 20 record. 21 VIDEOTAPE OPERATOR: Off the record. 22 - - - - 23 (Thereupon, a discussion was had off 24 the record.) 25 - - - - 62 1 VIDEOTAPE OPERATOR: We're back on 2 record. 3 Q. Doctor, this chart, I believe, was a fair 4 representation of what your calculations were based 5 upon your report, and I understand that you've 6 indicated that bottom line number is now increased 7 by about $70, correct, of the 792? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. That should be $792,393? 10 A. Correct. 11 Q. Okay. But for my purposes I'm going to use your 12 earlier figure, since this chart was prepared in 13 advance; is that fair? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And again, work life for Mr. Pietro is going to be 16 19 years, correct? 17 A. Approximately. 18 Q. And the service life, approximately 33 years? 19 A. Well, life expectancy, correct. 20 Q. 33 years? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And that would account for those household services 23 he would do his entire life, correct? 24 A. Yes. 25 MS. MOORE: Off the record. 63 1 VIDEOTAPE OPERATOR: Off the record. 2 - - - - 3 (Thereupon, a discussion was had off 4 the record.) 5 - - - - 6 VIDEOTAPE OPERATOR: We're back on 7 record. 8 Q. Doctor, in your field you're generally familiar with 9 investment vehicles? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Treasury bonds, T bills, those sorts of things? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Government securities? 14 A. CDs, yes. 15 Q. Is it fair to say that in today's market a treasury 16 bill would yield about five and a half percent? 17 A. I don't know what the current rate is today for 18 1999. 19 Q. Well, you would agree with me that based upon what 20 the market is doing today that would be a fair 21 assumption for that rate? 22 MR. HIRSHMAN: Objection. He said he 23 didn't know. 24 A. It has, given what the market is doing today, it has 25 not much to do with the particular bond rate. The 64 1 bond rate is a function of expectations of future 2 inflation, so, no, I don't know that I can answer 3 that. 4 Q. Well, if we were to assume for purposes of this 5 example that the treasury bonds were paying about 6 five and a half percent, would you go along with 7 that for purposes of our next example? 8 A. No, because I'm not sure what you're doing. I mean, 9 I can explain what I did in my report, and I've done 10 that. The net discount rates I used are a function 11 of a relationship between growth in something and an 12 investment yield, and that's how I do it, so I'm not 13 sure. I think I have to answer your question no. 14 MS. MOORE: Off the record. 15 VIDEOTAPE OPERATOR: Off the record. 16 - - - - 17 (Thereupon, a discussion was had off 18 the record.) 19 - - - - 20 VIDEOTAPE OPERATOR: We're back on the 21 record. 22 Q. Doctor, if we were to assume that the Pietros did, 23 in fact, receive this entire amount of both economic 24 and household loss at $792,323, and if they were to 25 invest that money at five and a half percent in a 65 1 treasury bond, which would be for a 30-year time 2 period, their net yield would be $43,577 per year, 3 correct? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And that's going to be for 30 years because that's 6 the amount of time that needs to be invested in that 7 particular vehicle, correct? 8 A. No. It won't last that long because what this model 9 is assuming is that this amount stays constant for 10 30 years. In fact, it doesn't. In fact, wages 11 grow. And so we have to be ready to replace not 12 $43,577 this year and next year and the -- it's 13 going to be, I mean, if I had a calculator I could 14 tell you that the earnings will be $60,000 maybe 15 seven or eight years from now. So the answer is 16 this isn't going to last 30 years. It's going to be 17 the principal will be gone. 18 Q. Well, if we view this, Doctor, as a vehicle where 19 the money is going to remain stable, let's say it's 20 in a mutual fund for 30 years and the principal is 21 not touched, we'll still have the same return on 22 that, will we not -- 23 A. No. 24 Q. -- of $43,577? 25 A. No, because the money -- what you're looking at here 66 1 is you're saying, gee, this is what I have to 2 replace, they made 46,000 and we're going to get 3 interest of 43,000 and, gee, it's going to last 30 4 years. It doesn't work that way. 5 That assumption is that we're replacing wages 6 that never change, and that's not the reality of 7 this case nor any case that you work in. The fact 8 is wages grow, and if you do it this way this is 9 going to last ten years. And guess what, they're 10 going to go to that drawer I described earlier and 11 they're going to open the drawer and there will be 12 nothing there, it will be gone. 13 Q. Doctor, you would agree there are places someone 14 could put three quarters of a million dollars and 15 net a return of five and a half percent every year 16 from now for the next 30 years, aren't there? 17 A. I imagine. 18 Q. Well, let's assume that there are places like that 19 and the Pietros do this, you would agree then based 20 upon that calculation their net return would be over 21 one million dollars over that 30-year period? 22 A. No, I wouldn't agree because -- one more time, I'll 23 try it one more time. The $46,000 or 43, I'll use 24 your number, that was being replaced for the 25 Pietros, okay, is going to grow. And it's going to 67 1 grow at rates, if you look at the wage growth in 2 table one, we're talking about roughly four percent 3 a year as an average. 4 If it never grew, then your concept of how this 5 might work would be okay. But the reality of the 6 world is we've got to provide a lump sum award large 7 enough to replace his wages, and those wages would 8 have grown and it would have been 50,000 and then 9 52,000 and 59,000 and 61,000, and so if you want to 10 make him whole and replace him with what the wages 11 would have been and how they would have grown, 12 you're going to run out of money. So, no, I 13 disagree. This is not how it works. 14 Q. And again, Doctor, your figures are based upon Mr. 15 Pietro's business in fact growing over this next 16 19-year period, which is his work life expectancy, 17 correct? 18 A. No, it's based on his wages and/or business earnings 19 growing. In other words, his earnings capacity 20 growing and being manifested itself like it did in 21 the years prior to the injuries. 22 Q. And again, that's based upon an assumption that that 23 will in fact happen, even though you don't know 24 whether that business will fail or survive? 25 A. That's based on the reality of his earnings. I have 68 1 them in front of me, and his earnings were in excess 2 of $45,000. 3 Q. And again, you have no way of knowing whether Mr. 4 Pietro would have, in fact, made the kind of income 5 that you've just suggested to the jury, do you? 6 A. I believe that he would have made more, and I 7 believe that's why he started his business. I think 8 that's the logical conclusion, when one goes from 9 being an employee to running a business is that they 10 believe they're going to do better. 11 Q. But we do know that if money is invested over a 12 30-year period and the principal remains untouched 13 that in this scenario, if in fact that was possible, 14 we would have a net payout of over two million 15 dollars to Mr. Pietro over the course of his life, 16 if in fact he invested that money? 17 A. No, I disagree. The assumption is so flawed that I 18 have to disagree with you. 19 MS. MOORE: Thank you, Doctor. Nothing 20 further. 21 THE WITNESS: You're welcome. 22 VIDEOTAPE OPERATOR: Off the record. 23 - - - - 24 (Thereupon, a discussion was had off 25 the record.) 69 1 - - - - 2 VIDEOTAPE OPERATOR: We're back on 3 camera record. 4 - - - - 5 RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION OF NORMAN L. ECKEL, Ph.D. 6 BY MR. HIRSHMAN: 7 Q. Dr. Eckel, it's Toby Hirshman again. I represent 8 the Pietros. I have a few follow-up questions for 9 you in light of the questions that have been asked 10 on cross-examination. 11 First of all, as it relates to the business and 12 whether or not it would be successful or not, am I 13 correct in understanding that your projections are 14 not dependent on the Pietros' business succeeding? 15 A. Correct. 16 Q. Okay. Am I correct in understanding that it's your 17 projection that in the event that the business 18 doesn't succeed Mr. Pietro would undoubtedly be 19 expected, by virtue of your projections, to go out 20 into the work force and find a job? 21 A. Like he did before. 22 Q. All right. So whether or not his business succeeds 23 or not is irrelevant to your calculations? 24 A. Correct. 25 Q. All right. Now, Ms. Moore has postulated a scenario 70 1 for you where Mr. Pietro receives $792,323 now and 2 invests it at 5.5 percent. And I believe she then 3 stated that, quote, if the principal remains 4 untouched, end of quote, a certain amount of money 5 could be expected to be generated by that principal, 6 correct? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Now, assuming they don't touch their principal for 9 30 years, what is Mr. Pietro and his family supposed 10 to live on? 11 A. I don't know, with the increases that are going to 12 be involved. I don't know. 13 Q. The reality is that the Pietros would need those 14 funds for living? 15 A. The reality is that present value is a concept that 16 provides a lump sum award that allows for both 17 investment yield and growth, wages grow. That's the 18 reality. The typical thing like this, I've seen 19 this probably a hundred times from annuitists, and 20 they always put the same thing up there, that the 21 growth rate is zero, okay. 22 And so what we're saying is we're never going 23 to give you an increase the rest of your work life. 24 We're going to freeze you at $46,000, when that's 25 not the reality for the world. This case, when we 71 1 go to that drawer I've talked about before for the 2 last time and open it up there will be no money 3 there. There won't be any principal left. 4 Q. In other words, the amounts of money if this jury 5 were to award for lost wages and lost household 6 services an amount of $792,323, that money would be 7 utilized -- that money wouldn't be put into a bond 8 because it would be needed for living purposes, 9 correct? 10 MR. BONEZZI: Objection to the form of 11 the question. 12 MS. MOORE: Objection. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. It's fair to say that -- strike that. 15 MR. HIRSHMAN: I have no further 16 questions. 17 VIDEOTAPE OPERATOR: Off the record. 18 - - - - 19 (Thereupon, a discussion was had off 20 the record.) 21 - - - - 22 VIDEOTAPE OPERATOR: We're on the 23 record. 24 25 - - - - 72 1 RECROSS-EXAMINATION OF NORMAN L. ECKEL, Ph.D. 2 BY MR. BONEZZI: 3 Q. Doctor, this is Bill Bonezzi again. I'm going to be 4 very short. 5 In your calculations you reviewed the U.S. 6 Individual Income Tax Returns for '94, '95, '96, 7 '97, '98, and I believe also the one from 1993 when 8 Mr. Pietro was employed by Ceiling Lights and Stuff 9 in Brecksville, correct? 10 A. Well, I'm not sure what -- I have partial tax 11 returns plus I had the conversation with their 12 accountant. I have tax returns. These are not 13 complete ones for -- 14 Q. That's fine. For purposes of my question you don't 15 need the total, believe me. I want you to take a 16 look at your records and tell us, please, when Mr. 17 Pietro started his own business. 18 A. The latter part of '94 is what I understand. 19 Q. Okay. 1994? 20 A. Like December or November of 1994, is my 21 understanding. 22 Q. Okay. Now, I'm going to hand to you, I'm not 23 marking this but I'm just going to hand this to you, 24 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return for 1994, and it's 25 signed by Larry and Valerie Pietro. Tell me what 73 1 their occupation was, sir. 2 A. Sales representative. 3 Q. Both of them or just one? 4 A. That's what it says, it says both of them. 5 Q. Okay. So both Mr. and Mrs. Pietro were sales reps 6 for what business? 7 A. For Capital Business Resources. 8 Q. Okay. So according to this document right here, 9 both Mr. and Mrs. Pietro worked with this business, 10 correct? 11 A. It doesn't mean that to me. 12 Q. Well, this is a tax return, they've signed it and 13 it's indicated that they were both sales 14 representatives for Capital Business Records, 15 Incorporated, at least that's what the document 16 indicates, correct? 17 A. That's what the document indicates, yes. 18 Q. Okay. Now, I want you to take a look at '95, '96 19 and '97 and tell us, please, whether Mr. and Mrs. 20 Pietro signed those tax returns with a designation 21 as sales representatives for Capital Business 22 Records, Incorporated? 23 A. They signed them that way. 24 MR. BONEZZI: I have nothing further. 25 Thank you. 74 1 VIDEOTAPE OPERATOR: Off the record. 2 - - - - 3 (Thereupon, a discussion was had off 4 the record.) 5 - - - - 6 VIDEOTAPE OPERATOR: Stand by. Doctor, 7 you have a right at this time to read the 8 transcription and look at the videotape or you 9 can waive that right at this time. 10 THE WITNESS: I'll read. 11 MR. HIRSHMAN: Okay. This concludes 12 the deposition. Hold on a minute. Off the 13 record. 14 - - - - 15 (Thereupon, a discussion was had off 16 the record.) 17 - - - - 18 MR. HIRSHMAN: Let's go back on the 19 record. 20 VIDEOTAPE OPERATOR: We're back on 21 record. 22 MR. HIRSHMAN: Do you want to re-ask 23 the question? 24 VIDEOTAPE OPERATOR: Yes. Doctor, at 25 this time you can either waive your right to 75 1 review the transcription or at this time you 2 can waive your right on reviewing the 3 videotape. You could either waive, you know, 4 both rights or you can waive the right on the 5 video and not waive your right on the 6 transcription. At this time what would you 7 like to do? 8 THE WITNESS: I waive my rights for 9 either the video or the transcription. 10 VIDEOTAPE OPERATOR: Thank you. This 11 concludes the deposition. 12 (Signature waived.) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 76 1 2 C E R T I F I C A T E 3 The State of Ohio, ) SS: 4 County of Cuyahoga.) 5 6 I, Laura L. Ware, a Notary Public within and for the State of Ohio, do hereby certify that the 7 within named witness, NORMAN L. ECKEL, Ph.D., was by me first duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole 8 truth, and nothing but the truth in the cause aforesaid; that the testimony then given was reduced 9 by me to stenotypy in the presence of said witness, subsequently transcribed into typewriting under my 10 direction, and that the foregoing is a true and correct transcript of the testimony so given as 11 aforesaid. 12 I do further certify that this deposition was taken at the time and place as specified in the 13 foregoing caption, and that I am not a relative, counsel or attorney of either party or otherwise 14 interested in the outcome of this action. 15 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal of office at Cleveland, 16 Ohio, this day of , 1999. 17 18 Laura L. Ware, Ware Reporting Service 19 3860 Wooster Road, Rocky River, Ohio 44116 My commission expires May 17, 2003. 20 21 22 23 24 25 77 1 2 O B J E C T I O N I N D E X 3 OBJECTION BY PAGE LINE 4 MR. BONEZZI: 24 2 5 MR. BONEZZI: 25 11 MR. BONEZZI: 32 13 6 MR. HIRSHMAN: 37 7 MR. HIRSHMAN: 39 19 7 MR. HIRSHMAN: 40 3 MR. HIRSHMAN: 44 23 8 MR. HIRSHMAN: 47 1 MR. HIRSHMAN: 52 7 9 MR. HIRSHMAN: 52 23 MR. HIRSHMAN: 53 4 10 MR. HIRSHMAN: 53 13 MR. HIRSHMAN: 54 5 11 MR. HIRSHMAN: 54 15 MR. HIRSHMAN: 57 5 12 MR. HIRSHMAN: 63 22 MR. BONEZZI: 71 10 13 MS. MOORE: 71 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25