Redacted Report

AN APPRAISAL OF ECONOMIC LOSSRESULTING FROM INJURY TO

DANIEL ECKERD

Frank D. Tinari, Ph.D.

TINARI ECONOMICS GROUP220 South Orange Avenue

Suite 203Livingston, NJ 07039973 / 992-1800 phone

973 / 992-0023 fax

www.TinariEconomics.com

October 4, 2005

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Purpose of Appraisal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Opinion of Economic Damages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Background Facts and Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Components of Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Net Earnings in Past Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Net Earnings in Future Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Pension Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Household Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Appendix of Tables

Qualifications Profile

Statement of Ethical Principles and Principles of Professional Practice

Certification

This is to certify that I am not related to any of the parties to subject action, nor do I haveany present or intended financial interest in this case beyond the fees due for professionalservices rendered in connection with this report and possible subsequent services. Further,I certify that my professional fees are not contingent on the outcome of this matter but arebased on the time expended on the services provided to counsel in connection with subjectaction.

This is to further certify that all assumptions, methodologies, and calculations utilized inthis appraisal report are based on current knowledge and methods applied in thedetermination of projected pecuniary losses.

In addition, this is to further certify that I pledge to abide by the spirit and the letter of theStatement of Ethical Principles and Principles of Professional Practice of the NationalAssociation of Forensic Economics, a copy of which is attached to this report.

Frank D. Tinari, Ph.D.

Eckerd / Law Firm page 2

Purpose of Appraisal

Counsel requested us to prepare an evaluation of the economic damages suffered by DanielEckerd due to his injury. Background facts regarding the plaintiff were provided in a packetof documents pursuant to this matter. Additional information was obtained subsequent to theinitial communication. Facts from these sources as well as additional information gatheredfrom published government documents are fully referenced at the point of use in this report.

The purpose of this report, therefore, is to provide a written appraisal of economic loss in thecase of Daniel Eckerd.

Opinion of Economic Damages

Within a reasonable degree of economic certainty, and based on the analysis contained in thisreport, it is our professional opinion that the total value of the past and future pecuniarylosses resulting from injuries suffered by Daniel Eckerd amounts to between

THREE MILLION,TWO THOUSAND,

TWO HUNDRED EIGHT-NINE DOLLARS

[ $3,002,289 ]

and

THREE MILLION,SEVENTY-THREE THOUSAND,

EIGHT HUNDRED EIGHTY-EIGHT DOLLARS

[ $3,073,888 ]

This range of estimated losses is a function of the degree of plaintiffs impairment inperforming household services, a matter ultimately to be determined by the trier-of-fact.Further, our valuation does not take into account the ramifications of intangible, non-economic losses such as human suffering, love, emotional feelings, or consortium that mayhave been suffered by plaintiff.

Eckerd / Law Firm page 3

Background Facts and Assumptions

1) Plaintiff: Daniel Eckerd, male2) Date of birth: July 3, 19633) Date of injury: June 2, 19994) Residence: New York5) Prior health: good, prior knee surgery6) Education: less than high school7) Spouse: Sarah (dob: 5/15/69)8) Children: Timothy (dob: 9/14/87)

Joan (dob: 10/11/95)Jennifer (dob: 2/4/98)

9) Life expectancy: as of June 2, 1999, males of Mr. Eckerds age (35.92 years) live, onaverage, an additional 40.80 years. [SOURCE: New York State Courts, Pattern JuryInstructions 2002, based on National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics of theUnited States, Vol. II, Mortality, Part A, Section 6.] Therefore, persons of plaintiffs genderand age have an expected total life span averaging 76.72 years, implying a statistical date ofdeath of March 31, 2040.

10) Statistical retirement age: as of June 2, 1999, males of Mr. Eckerds age (35.92 years)and level of education (less than high school) have 25.57 years until statistical retirement.[SOURCE: Tamorah Hunt, Joyce Pickersgill and Herbert Rutemiller, Median Years ToRetirement and Work Life Expectancy for the Civilian U.S. Population (Prepared Using1992/93 BLS Labor Force Participation Rates), Journal of Forensic Economics, 10(2), 1997,pp. 171-205, Appendix A - Table 4, by interpolation.] Applying these years results in aprojected date of retirement of 61.49 years, occurring on January 7, 2025. However, thenormal retirement age under plaintiffs union pension plan is age 62. [SOURCE: PensionFund.] Therefore, we project plaintiffs statistical age of retirement to age 62 years, occurringon July 3, 2025 (26.09 years from the date of injury).

11) Expected working years: worklife expectancy tables provide statistics descriptive of theactual working life experience of the civilian population by age, employment status, andschooling. As of June 2, 1999, males of Mr. Eckerds age/education/labor-force-activitystatistical cohort average 20.30 years of remaining labor force activity. [SOURCE: JamesCiecka, Thomas Donley, and Jerry Goldman, A Markov Process of Work-Life ExpectanciesBased on Labor Market Activity in 1997-98, Journal of Legal Economics, 9 (3), Winter1999-00, pp.33-68.]

Eckerd / Law Firm page 4

12) Worklife-to-retirement ratio: the number of years from June 2, 1999, until Mr. Eckerdsprojected retirement date (26.09 years) exceeds the number of expected working years (20.30years). Thus, arithmetically, the number of years of worklife for this statistical cohortcomprises 77.81% of the total remaining years until retirement.

13) Occupation and employment history: prior to his injury, plaintiff was employed as aunion laborer. Plaintiff primarily worked for Allen Construction, and was first hired by thecompany in 1989. (A review of plaintiffs W-2 Wage and Tax Statements indicates that Mr.Eckerd worked for various other companies over the years preceding his injury.) During hisemployment with the union Mr. Eckerd had worked primarily as a laborer, but had alsoworked in a foreman capacity on several jobs. [SOURCES: interview with Daniel Eckerd,deposition transcript of Daniel Eckerd, and W-2 Wage and Tax Statements.] For the purposeof our analysis we assume plaintiff would have continued working as a construction laborerthrough his retirement at age 62. Had Mr. Eckerd received a promotion to the position offoreman, the loss of earnings associated with his injury would be significantly higher thanthat calculated in this appraisal report.

Between the years 1990 and 1998 plaintiff worked an average of 1,628 hours per annum. Ahistory of plaintiffs annual hours worked through the union is presented in the followingtable. [SOURCE: Pension History.]

YearHours Worked

Per Year YearHours Worked

Per Year

1990 1,647 1995 1,455

1991 1,483 1996 1,886

1992 1,536 1997 2,153

1993 1,638 1998 1,432

1994 1,422 1999 152*

* hours worked through date of injury: June 2

In the early part of 1999 plaintiff experienced short-term unemployment, as represented bythe reduced hours worked, limited earnings and increased unemployment compensation in1999. As noted above, prior to 1999 plaintiff worked, on average, 1,628 hours per year,which is equivalent to 31.3 hours per week (1,628 hours / 52 weeks). In 1999, plaintiffworked a total of 152 hours which represents approximately 5 weeks (152 hours / 31.3hrs/week) of employment in 1999, prior to his injuries. At the time of the injury plaintiff was

Eckerd / Law Firm page 5

employed. Based on plaintiffs past earnings and work history, we assume Mr. Eckerd wouldhave continued his normal employment through the union in the second half of 1999.

14) Earnings history: [SOURCES: personal income tax returns, W-2 Wage and TaxStatements, and 1099 forms.]

Year W-2 Earnings

Welfare Fund(SupplementalBenefit Pay)

TotalEarnings

UnemploymentCompensation

1995 $49,590 $1,996 $51,586 $6001996 55,971 2,141 58,112 2,1001997 67,473 3,992 71,465 01998 55,115 6,721 61,836 1,825

1999* 8,072 2,586 10,658 6,5702000 0 418 418 0

* date of injury: June 2

For the purpose of this analysis we include the supplemental benefit pay received by plaintiffin his annual earnings.

It should also be noted that prior to his injuries, Mr. Eckerd received unemploymentcompensation for the years 1995, 1996, and 1998. Because plaintiff will no longer receiveunemployment compensation, this represents an additional loss of income. To calculate theloss of unemployment compensation we take an average of plaintiffs unemployment benefitsduring the years prior to the injury (1995-1998). This yields average annual unemploymentbenefits of $1,131, in 1999 dollars.

As noted previously, Mr. Eckerd experience short-term employment in 1999, but hadreturned to work at the date of the accident, which would have continued but for the accident.We assume normal employment from the date of the accident (June 2, 1999) through the endof the year, approximately 56% of the year. We then apply this percentage to Mr. Eckerds1998 earnings, yielding a value of $30,864 ($55,115 x 56%). Thus, we assume, but for theinjury, plaintiff would have earned $38,936 ($8,072 + $30,864) plus a supplemental benefitof $2,586 in 1999.

To establish plaintiffs earnings potential in this report, we take an average of his earningsof the years 1996 to 1999, expressed in 2000 dollars. This is accomplished by first converting

Eckerd / Law Firm page 6

these earnings amounts to constant 2000 dollars as shown in the table below. The conversionfactor applied is based upon changes in the wages and salaries of private industry,construction workers from 1996 through 2000. [SOURCE: Employment Cost Index, wagesand salaries, by occupation and industry group, not seasonally adjusted, U.S. Department ofLabor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov/ncs/home.htm.]

Year

Conversion Factor to 2000Dollars

Actual Gross Earnings

(Earnings &Supp. Pay)

Gross Earnings (2000 Dollars)

[(2) x (3)]

(1) (2) (3) (4)

1996 1.1578 $58,112 $67,282

1997 1.1179 71,465 79,890

1998 1.0848 61,836 67,081

1999 1.0481 41,522 43,520

2000 average: $64,443

As shown above, plaintiffs pre-injury base earnings are established at $64,443 in 2000dollars.

15) Fringe benefits: as a union member plaintiff received various fringe benefits in hisemployment including, health insurance, prescription coverage, dental insurance, pensionplan, and annuity contributions. Given the prospective nature of insurance, we limit the lossof fringe benefits in past years to out-of-pocket medical expenses (none reported) and annuitycontributions. It is our understanding that Mr. Eckerd currently receives health insurancecoverage through his wifes employer. [SOURCE: interview with Daniel Eckerd.] Therefore,we do not quantify a loss of health insurance. The loss of employer contributions to the unionannuity fund is valued at 10% of earnings in past and future years. The loss of pensionincome is valued in a separate section of this report.

16) Pension income: as a union member, Mr. Eckerd is eligible for a pension. As a result ofhis injury Mr. Eckerd took early retirement, and applied for a disability pension. As ofJanuary 1, 2000, Mr. Eckerd was eligible to receive a joint and survivor pension benefit of$857 per month, or a single annuity pension of $1,194 per month. Plaintiff elected to receivethe survivor pension ($857/month). [SOURCE: Pension Fund: Joint and Survivor AnnuityBenefit Statement.] However, in order to make an accurate comparison, we assume Mr.Eckerd is receiving the single annuity ($1,194/month).

Eckerd / Law Firm page 7

17) Functionality and employment prospects: subsequent to his injuries Mr. Eckerd has notreturned to work. He continues to suffer from pain in his knees, low pack pain, fatigue,headaches, difficulty sleeping, numbness in his right foot, weakness in his lower extremities,and occasional dizziness. A vocational evaluation prepared by Edmond Provder concludesthat Mr. Eckerd is unable to perform his past relevant work as a Construction Laborer. Mr.Provder further opines that Mr. Eckerd is unable to perform any Sedentary, Light, Medium,Heavy, or Very Heavy Work existing in the local or national economy on a sustained, full-time, regular, competitive basis. He further states that plaintiff is unemployable for any jobexisting in the competitive labor market. [SOURCE: Edmond Provder, Employability andEarning Capacity Evaluation on Daniel Eckerd.]

Since the date of injury, Mr. Eckerd has undergone several surgeries. Most recently plaintiffunderwent a total knee replacement. [SOURCE: interview with Daniel Eckerd.] Based uponthe foregoing information and for purposes of this report, we assume that Mr. Eckerd willnot reenter the competitive labor force. Should new information become available regardingother potential vocational alternatives for the plaintiff, we reserve the right to issue anamended report.

18) Other sources of income: Mr. Eckerd received $16,321 in Social Security Disabilitybenefits for the period December 1999 through November 2000. Thereafter, he received$1,408 per month. Plaintiff then received a retroactive increase in his benefits based onadditional earnings not included in the initial award calculation. Mr. Eckerd received $3,181for benefits due from December 1999 through November 2003. Thereafter, his monthlybenefit was increased to $1,446. [SOURCES: Notice of Award, Social SecurityAdministration, dated and Notice of Change in Benefits, Social Security Administration.]Because it is our understanding that Social Security Disability benefits are considered in aseparate hearing subsequent to the trial, this appraisal makes no subtraction for the SocialSecurity benefits received by plaintiff.

19) Job-maintenance expenses: we have assumed that, as a result of this injury, Mr. Eckerdwill not be returning to work. His earnings, therefore, must be adjusted (downward) toaccount for those job maintenance expenses he would have continued to incur in maintaininghis employment. These expenses typically include transportation expenses, union dues,clothing, meals outside the home, and other costs. For purposes of this analysis we estimateMr. Eckerds job maintenance expenses in his former occupation at ten (10) percent ofearnings based on a review of plaintiffs tax returns.

Eckerd / Law Firm page 8

20) Household services: prior to his injury, plaintiff reportedly performed basic householdservices, such as cleaning and cooking, and would also fix items around the residence andassist in moving the larger objects around his apartment (i.e., furniture). Mr. Eckerd is alsoless able to care for the children. [SOURCES: deposition transcript of Daniel Eckerd,interview with Daniel Eckerd, and deposition transcript of Sarah Eckerd.]

Based on the above information, we estimate a range of lost ability to perform householdservices of 50%, 60%, and 70%. The precise degree of loss is left to a determination of thetrier-of-fact upon a full hearing of all relevant facts in this matter. We reserve the right toamend this report should further information become available.

Components of Loss

The pecuniary value of loss resulting from injury to plaintiff is estimated by considerationof the following components:

1. net earnings in past years2. net earnings in future years3. pension income4. household service losses

These components are analyzed separately in the following sections of this appraisal report.

Eckerd / Law Firm page 9

Loss of Net Earnings in Past Years

This loss component consists of the net earnings Mr. Eckerd, had he not been injured, wouldhave been able to earn from date of injury to the present. Plaintiffs earnings potential as anunion worker is established at $64,443 supplemented with annual unemployment benefits of$1,131. We assume the unemployment benefits stay fixed at their current value. To generateearnings values for subsequent years, we apply a 3.5% wage growth, rate reflecting unionwage trends. [SOURCE: Union Wage Schedules, effective from July 1, 1996 to June 30,2006.] Application of this growth rate yields gross earnings figures through the present, asfollows:

YearGross Earnings

[@ 3.5%]

2000 $64,443

2001 66,699

2002 69,033

2003 71,449

2004 73,950

2005 76,538

Gross earnings are adjusted to take into account several factors that help determine netearnings. An adjustment for worklife expectancy is necessary because the number of yearsof actual working life is generally less than the total number of years until retirement. Theestimated remaining years of worklife, given in the Background Facts and Assumptionssection above, amounts to 77.81% of the total remaining number of years until retirement forpersons of plaintiff's statistical cohort.

Another adjustment made in such appraisals takes into consideration the likelihood of periodsof unemployment during a persons expected working life. Unemployment is aneconomy-wide phenomenon, but various statistical cohorts of the labor force experiencedifferent rates of unemployment. This adjustment is usually necessary since unemploymentis not taken into consideration by worklife expectancy figures. The latter indicate the numberof expected years of participation in the labor force, whereas unemployment refers to periodsof no work of those persons already active in the labor force. However, because Mr. Eckerdsearnings already reflect periods of unemployment, no additional adjustment is made.

Eckerd / Law Firm page 10

Another adjustment to earnings losses takes into account the value of fringe benefits. Asmentioned in the previous section, fringe benefits are valued at ten (10) percent in past andfuture years.

A final adjustment is job maintenance expenses which Mr. Eckerd will no longer incur.These include travel expenses and vehicle maintenance, work clothes, union dues and mealsaway from home. These expenses are estimated at ten (10) percent of earnings.

Algebraically, the preceding adjustments are summarized as follows:

UnemploymentEarnings Benefits

Gross Earnings Base 1.00 1.00x Worklife Adjustment 0.7781 0.7781= Worklife-adjusted Earnings 0.7781 0.7781x (1 + 10%, 0% fringe benefits) 1.10 1.00= Fringe Adjusted Base 0.8559 0.7781x (1 - 10%, 0% job maintenance expenses) 0.90 1.00= Net Earnings Factor 0.7781 0.7781

The preceding calculations indicate that net earnings are 77.81% of gross earnings in past and future years as are net unemployment benefits.

Eckerd / Law Firm page 11

Earnings losses through the end of September 2005 are calculated as follows:

Year

Earnings Unemployment Benefits

Actual Income

Annual Loss[(3) + (5) - (6)]

Gross[@ 3.5%]

Net[(2) x 77.81%] Gross

Net[(4) x 77.81%]

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

1999.56 $30,864 * $24,015 $ 0^ $ 0 $24,015

2000 64,443 50,143 1,131 880 $418 50,605

2001 66,699 51,898 1,131 880 52,778

2002 69,033 53,715 1,131 880 54,595

2003 71,449 55,595 1,131 880 56,475

2004 73,950 57,541 1,131 880 58,421

2005.75 57,404 44,666 848 660 45,326

total: $342,215

* assumed gross earnings from date of injury through the end of 1999^ no unemployment compensation loss assumed in 1999

Loss of Net Earnings in Future Years

Future losses are calculated beginning October 1, 2005, and continue through plaintiffsstatistical date of retirement on July 3, 2025. Plaintiffs 2005 gross base earnings areestablished at $76,538 with annual unemployment benefits established at $1,131. A growthrate of 3.5% per annum is applied to project future earnings, as previously established.

It is our understanding that New York court rules stipulate that future losses are not to bediscounted to present value by the economist. Therefore, future loss values are not discountedin this appraisal report.

Eckerd / Law Firm page 12

Application of the preceding information yields a total value of plaintiffs future net earningsloss, calculated as follows:

Year

Earnings Unemployment Benefits

Annual Loss[(3) + (5)]

Gross[@ 3.5%]

Net[(2) x 77.81%]

Gross[@ 3.5%]

Net[(4) x 77.81%]

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

2005.25 $19,135 $14,889 $ 283 $220 $15,109

2006 79,217 61,639 1,131 880 62,519

2007 81,990 63,796 1,131 880 64,676

2008 84,860 66,029 1,131 880 66,909

2009 87,830 68,340 1,131 880 69,220

2010 90,904 70,732 1,131 880 71,612

2011 94,085 73,208 1,131 880 74,088

2012 97,378 75,770 1,131 880 76,650

2013 100,787 78,422 1,131 880 79,302

2014 104,314 81,167 1,131 880 82,047

2015 107,965 84,008 1,131 880 84,888

2016 111,744 86,948 1,131 880 87,828

2017 115,655 89,991 1,131 880 90,871

2018 119,703 93,141 1,131 880 94,021

2019 123,892 96,401 1,131 880 97,281

2020 128,229 99,775 1,131 880 100,655

2021 132,717 103,267 1,131 880 104,147

2022 137,362 106,881 1,131 880 107,761

2023 142,169 110,622 1,131 880 111,502

2024 147,145 114,494 1,131 880 115,374

2025.53 80,717 62,806 599 466 63,272

total: $1,719,731

Eckerd / Law Firm page 13

Pension Income

As stated in the Background Facts and Assumption section, plaintiffs pension payout hasbeen compromised as a result of his early retirement due to injury. Based on union pensionguidelines, pension benefits for a member working after 1980 are established as follows:

Credits Earned x Benefit Rate = Monthly Pension Benefit

Under the pension guidelines, pension credits are earned based on the number of hoursworked per year. For each 150 hours worked, the member earns one (1) credit, with amaximum of ten (10) credits per year. The benefit rate is currently defined at $6 for creditsearned through 1993, and $20 thereafter. [SOURCE: Union Pension Fund.]

Had he not been injured plaintiff would have be eligible to accrue additional service credits,increasing his pension benefit. At the time of his injury, plaintiff had accrued 39 creditsthrough 1993, 47 credits from 1994 through 1998, and 1 credit for 1999 (the year of injury).As previously stated, service credits are determined by dividing the number of hours workedby 150 hours, rounded down to the nearest whole number. The number of service creditsaccumulated in one (1) year cannot exceed ten (10).

From 1990 to 1998 plaintiff worked an average of 1,628 hours per annum, which isequivalent ten (10) service credits. During the period 1995 through 1998 plaintiff averaged1,732 hours. During this time period Mr. Eckerd had two (2) years in which he earned nine(9) service credits, and two (2) years in which he earned ten (10) service credits. At no pointbetween 1990 and 1998, did Mr. Eckerd earn less than nine (9) service credits. For thepurposes of our calculations, we assume plaintiff would continue to earn nine (9) servicecredits per year. Therefore, from the date of injury to his statistical date of retirement weproject plaintiff would have earned an additional 234 credits (9 credits/yr. x 26.09 years ofloss).

Based on current pension guidelines, a retirees benefit is derived by multiplying 1) theservice credits earned through 1993 by $6, and 2) the credits earned thereafter by $20.[SOURCE: Union Pension Fund, Section XIV - Appendix A.] However, a review of thepension plan guidelines indicates that the benefit rate has increased over time. Based on pasthistorical growth we apply a conservative two (2) percent growth rate to project the futurebenefit rate beginning in 2006. Application of this assumption yields a benefit rate of $29.72in 2025. Therefore, we calculate plaintiffs pre-injury monthly pension at retirement, asfollows:

Eckerd / Law Firm page 14

Time Period Credits Earned Benefit Rate Benefit Earned

pre-2004 39 $ 6.00 $ 234

1/1/04-12/31/05 107 20.00 2,140

1/1/06-7/3/25 175 29.72 5,201

monthly benefit $7,575

As established above, plaintiffs projected monthly pension benefit in 2025 is established at$7,575, or $90,900 per annum. We assume that Mr. Eckerd would have begun to collect hispension upon retirement at age 62 on July 3, 2025.

Plaintiff began to collect a monthly Disability Pension benefit of $857 beginning in January2000 (paid retroactively). This payment is based on a joint survivor annuity benefit option.To calculate the future pension loss/(gain), we use the single annuity benefit which was$1,194 per month, or $14,328 per annum.

Based on the preceding analysis, the following table shows our calculations of pensionincome loss/(gain).

Year

ProjectedNormal Retirement

Single Annuity

ActualDisability Pension

Single Annuity

AnnualLoss/(Gain)

[(2) - (3)]

(1) (2) (3) (4)

2000 $14,328 ($14,328)

2001 14,328 (14,328)

2002 14,328 (14,328)

2003 14,328 (14,328)

2004 14,328 (14,328)

2005 14,328 (14,328)

2006 14,328 (14,328)

2007 14,328 (14,328)

2008 14,328 (14,328)

2009 14,328 (14,328)

2010 14,328 (14,328)

2011 14,328 (14,328)

2012 14,328 (14,328)

2013 14,328 (14,328)

2014 14,328 (14,328)

Eckerd / Law Firm page 15

Year

ProjectedNormal Retirement

Single Annuity

ActualDisability Pension

Single Annuity

AnnualLoss/(Gain)

[(2) - (3)]

(1) (2) (3) (4)

2015 14,328 (14,328)

2016 14,328 (14,328)

2017 14,328 (14,328)

2018 14,328 (14,328)

2019 14,328 (14,328)

2020 14,328 (14,328)

2021 14,328 (14,328)

2022 14,328 (14,328)

2023 14,328 (14,328)

2024 14,328 (14,328)

2025 $42,723 14,328 28,395

2026 90,900 14,328 76,572

2027 90,900 14,328 76,572

2028 90,900 14,328 76,572

2029 90,900 14,328 76,572

2030 90,900 14,328 76,572

2031 90,900 14,328 76,572

2032 90,900 14,328 76,572

2033 90,900 14,328 76,572

2034 90,900 14,328 76,572

2035 90,900 14,328 76,572

2036 90,900 14,328 76,572

2037 90,900 14,328 76,572

2038 90,900 14,328 76,572

2039 90,900 14,328 76,572

2040.25 22,725 3,582 19,143

total: $761,346

Eckerd / Law Firm page 16

Loss of Household Services

In the United States, time devoted to work is usually compensated indollars and cents. A major exception is household work. Those who dothis work include most of the women, children and men in our society.A significant cost of this work to the family is time, and not just a littleof it!

Household work is indispensable to the functioning of the family andsociety. It generally takes place outside the context of the businessworld, however, and therefore time spent at it is not normally given adollar value. ... Household services take time to provide, if not thehousewife's then the time of someone else. ... When the householdservices are turned over to someone else to produce, they have a moneyvalue--the value of the time spent by the worker. The same services arejust as valuable when provided by a family member. Consequently, amoney value can be given to the services... [SOURCE: William H.Gauger and Kathryn E. Walker, The Dollar Value of Household Work.Information Bulletin 60, New York State College of Human Ecology,Cornell University, September 1980, pages 1, 3.]

As noted previously, the assumption is made that plaintiff has lost a portion of his formerability to perform household services. Based on the information noted in the BackgroundFacts and Assumptions section of this report, it is reasonably assumed that plaintiff's loss ofhousehold services began on the date of his injury and will continue through his statisticaldate of death. In this appraisal, the assumption is made that Mr. Eckerd has lost between fifty(50) and seventy (70) percent of his former ability to perform household services.

Studies have been conducted to determine the extent and value of household servicesperformed by various members of the family unit. According to a well known study, theamount of household services provided by a married male in the labor force varies with thenumber and age of dependent children, as shown in the table below. [SOURCE: David H.Ciscel and David C. Sharp, Household Labor in Hours by Family Type, Journal ofForensic Economics, 8(2), 1995, page 117 Table 1.] We reduce these hours by twenty (20)percent because plaintiff resides in an apartment.

Moreover, with advancement in years, physical strength naturally diminishes. As people age,the probability of being able to perform all of the household chores which were once done

Eckerd / Law Firm page 17

also diminishes. The elderly are more prone to slips, falls and various disabling illnesses.Statistical research provides data on the probability of such disabling occurrences by gender.Thus, we reduce the annual hours of household services by 8% between the ages of sixty-five(65) and seventy-four (74) and by 23.4% after age seventy-five (75) to account for theprobability of plaintiff becoming disabled over his remaining statistical life expectancy.[SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Current Population Reports, Disability,Functional, Limitation, and Health Insurance Coverage: 1984/85, Household EconomicStudies, Series P-70, No. 8, Table G, p. 8.]

Application of the preceding information yields the adjusted number of hours assumed foreach time period as described above:

NumberChildren

Age ofYoungest

ChildAge of

Plaintiff

AnnualNumberof Hours

ApplicableTime Period

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)3 < 6 years < 65 years 355 6/2/99 - 2/3/043 6 - 11 years < 65 years 344 2/4/04 - 9/13/052 6 - 11 years < 65 years 291 9/14/05 - 2/3/092 > 11 years < 65 years 333 2/4/09 - 10/10/131 > 11 years < 65 years 269 10/11/13 - 2/3/160 n/a < 65 years 298 2/4/16 - 7/2/280 n/a 65 - 75 years 274 7/3/28 - 7/2/380 n/a > 75 years 228 7/3/38 - 3/31/40

Turning to the monetary value of these hours, average hourly earnings of nonsupervisoryworkers in the Private Service-Providing industry sector were $13.07 in 1999, $13.60 in2000, $14.16 in 2001, $14.56 in 2002, $14.96 in 2003, and $15.26 in 2004. [SOURCE: U.S.Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Monthly Labor Review, March 2005, Table29, p. 101, http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/03/cls0503.pdf.] To obtain a correspondingvalue for 2005, we apply a growth rate of 2.0%, which is the rate exhibited by the databetween 2003 and 2004. This yields a wage rate of $15.57 for 2005.

Eckerd / Law Firm page 18

The pecuniary value of the household services that would have been provided through thepresent time is provided in the following table:

YearAnnualHours

AnnualValue

1999.56 199 $ 2,5982000 355 4,8282001 355 5,0272002 355 5,1692003 355 5,3112004 345 5,2702005.75 258 4,017

total: $32,219

Services in future years are calculated beginning October 1, 2005, and extend until Mr.Eckerds statistical date of death on March 31, 2040. A growth rate of 4% per annum isapplied to project future wage growth. [SOURCE: Principal Economic Assumptions, 2005Annual Report to the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-age and Survivors Insurance andDisability Insurance Trust Funds, Table V.B1, http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR05/tr05.pdf.]

Application of the aforementioned information yields a total value of future householdservices as calculated below:

(see table on following page)

Eckerd / Law Firm page 19

Year Annual HoursAnnual Value

[@ 4%]2005.25 73 $ 1,1332006 291 4,7122007 291 4,9012008 291 5,0972009 328 5,9742010 333 6,3082011 333 6,5602012 333 6,8232013 320 6,8232014 269 5,9612015 269 6,2002016 295 7,0592017 298 7,4292018 298 7,7262019 298 8,0352020 298 8,3562021 298 8,6902022 298 9,0382023 298 9,4002024 298 9,7752025 298 10,1672026 298 10,5732027 298 10,9962028 287 11,0032029 274 10,9362030 274 11,3732031 274 11,8282032 274 12,3012033 274 12,7932034 274 13,3052035 274 13,8372036 274 14,3902037 274 14,9662038 252 14,3372039 228 13,4702040.25 57 3,502

total: $325,775

Eckerd / Law Firm page 20

Correspondingly, in light of these findings, the range of losses, based on a diminution ofability to perform household services estimated at between fifty (50) and seventy (70)percent, is provided in the following table:

Value of HouseholdServices

Assumed Range of Loss

50% 60% 70%

Past Years[$32,219] $ 16,110 $ 19,332 $ 22,554

Future Years[$325,775] 162,887 195,465 228,042

Total Loss $ 178,997 $ 214,797 $ 250,596

Eckerd / Law Firm page 21

Summary

The preceding findings evaluating the magnitude of the loss components analyzed in thisappraisal report are summarized as follows:

Range of Value of Loss50%* 60%* 70%* Components of Loss

$ 342,215 $ 342,215 $ 342,215 net earnings in past years1,719,731 1,719,731 1,719,731 net earnings in future years

761,346 761,346 761,346 pension income16,110 19,332 22,554 *household services in past years

162,887 195,465 228,042 *household services in future years$ 3,002,289 $ 3,038,089 $ 3,073,888 total value of loss

It is important to understand that each total loss figure is a cumulative value of loss and hasnot been discounted to present value. In addition, please note that pre-trial or pre-judgmentinterest has not been calculated. These interest losses are typically determined at the time oftrial and would be in addition to the losses calculated in this appraisal report.

The preceding findings are based on information provided to us as of this date. They aresubject to revision should additional information be forthcoming that would change any factsor assumptions upon which this analysis rests. We also note that damages are anapproximation and are provided by the economic expert as a guide to the trier-of-fact.[SOURCE: Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Pfiefer, (1983), 103 S. Ct. at 2555.]

Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Page 10Page 11Page 12Page 13Page 14Page 15Page 16Page 17Page 18Page 19Page 20Page 21Page 22Page 23