Expert Witness Services

Independent actuarial testimony for high-stakes healthcare disputes.

I provide clear, defensible actuarial analyses—built on rigorous methods, documented assumptions, and transparent exhibits—so counsel and fact-finders can understand what the numbers mean.

Services available for plaintiff, defense, and neutral appointments. Confidentiality respected.

Typical Use Cases

  • ERISA fiduciary / plan administration analytics
  • Healthcare pricing & reimbursement disputes
  • Managed care finance, utilization, and trend analyses
  • Risk adjustment and coding-driven revenue analytics
  • Class certification support: common impact & damages frameworks

If you need a tight, litigation-ready workplan (data → methodology → exhibits → deposition), you’re in the right place.

Engagement types

Testifying expert

Opinions supported by transparent actuarial methods, reproducible workpapers, and exhibits designed for depositions and trial. I aim to be understandable to non-technical audiences without sacrificing rigor.

Consulting expert

Analytic support for case strategy: scoping data requests, stress-testing opposing expert reports, constructing alternative damages models, and identifying methodological weaknesses early.

Neutral / referee

Independent, court-facing analyses where both parties need a credible actuarial evaluator: reconciliation of datasets, benchmarking, or adjudicating disputed assumptions.

Subject-matter focus

Employer-sponsored plan economics

  • Plan cost modeling (allowed amounts, paid amounts, member cost share)
  • Network & contracting impacts (unit cost vs. utilization decomposition)
  • Trend, seasonality, IBNR logic, and credibility
  • Fiduciary analytics: reasonableness, benchmarking, and governance signals

Pricing transparency & reimbursement disputes

  • Claims repricing, billed vs allowed analysis, fee schedule comparisons
  • Hospital/payer transparency files: structure, limitations, and interpretability
  • Reasonable value / market comparisons (with explicit caveats)
  • Exhibit construction suitable for discovery and testimony

Risk adjustment analytics

  • Coding intensity / chart review impact analysis
  • Risk score movement decomposition and outlier detection
  • Revenue attribution frameworks & sensitivity analysis
  • Data provenance and audit-ready methodology documentation

Damages frameworks

  • Common impact / class-wide frameworks (where appropriate)
  • Overcharge and differential cost models with guardrails
  • Counterfactual construction and uncertainty bounds
  • Rebuttal and critique of opposing models

Note: I do not provide legal opinions. My work is limited to actuarial/quantitative analyses and the interpretation of data using accepted methods.

How engagements run

1

Intake & scope

Objectives, forum, posture, deadlines, data availability, and target exhibits/testimony needs.

2

Data & reproducibility plan

Define source-of-truth datasets, QA checks, and a workpaper trail built for litigation scrutiny.

3

Methods & sensitivity

Primary model + alternative specifications; document assumptions; test robustness and limitations.

4

Exhibits & report support

Draft exhibits for clarity; align narrative to the quantitative record; prepare for deposition.

Credentials

  • Actuarial credentialing: ASA, MAAA, FCA
  • Healthcare finance and employer plan analytics
  • Pricing, trend, utilization, and risk-based revenue mechanics
  • Litigation-ready modeling: QA, documentation, reproducibility

Counsel often needs an expert who can do two things at once: (1) build a model that stands up to critique, and (2) explain it cleanly to non-technical audiences. That’s the lane I operate in.

FAQ

Do you work on contingency?

No. I work on an hourly basis with an engagement letter and retainer as appropriate for the matter.

What do you need to start?

A short case summary, the role you want me to play (testifying vs consulting), deadlines, and a preliminary data inventory (claims extracts, contracts, reports, discovery status).

Can you move quickly?

Yes—when scope is controlled and data is available. The fastest path is a clearly defined question and an exhibit-first plan.

Do you provide a “gut check” on another expert’s report?

Yes. I can provide a structured critique: assumptions, data provenance, methodological validity, sensitivity gaps, and where conclusions overreach the analytics.

Request a conflict check

Send a brief note describing the matter type, parties (for conflict screening), venue, and deadlines. I will respond with availability and next steps.

Confidentiality note: Please avoid sending privileged materials until a formal engagement is established.