In this case Dr. Dwight Steward provided a critique of the opposing economic expert’s damage report. Dr, Steward finds that the opposing expert’s future earnings and non-market economic loss assumptions are unfounded in a number of areas. Among the issues, the opposing expert assumed that the plaintiff would have had steady employment with wages and health and retirement benefits despite the plaintiff having worked nearly 40 different jobs in the last decade. The plaintiff’s actual earnings statements also showed were far less than what the opposing expert assumed in his analysis