The Plaintiff’s alleged that the conduct of the Defendants has damaged their business. The opposing expert believed that the Defendant’s alleged actions had caused plaintiffs loss of sales in their Houston and San Antonio markets. The opposing expert projected that the Defendant’s alleged actions have caused plaintiff to incur past and future lost sales from several lost clients and prospective clients. He indicated in his deposition that plaintiff’s attorneys provided him with the list of lost clients, prospective clients, and certain revenue assumptions. According to the opposing expert’s work papers, he indicates that he calculated lost profits for four allegedly lost practices. His analysis calculated the lost monthly revenue for each of these practices for a six year time period at the beginning of the damage period. After subtracting his estimate of the incremental cost of production for the practices, he discounts the monthly revenue losses by a business discount factor to arrive at his final estimate of the alleged lost profits. He then uses a similar approach to produce his damage estimate for the three allegedly lost prospective plaintiff clients. The opposing expert presents no evidence, economic or otherwise, to support the assumption that the contracts would have been automatically been renewed by plaintiff. The opposing expert’s assumption was particularly troubling given the fact that there are no medical practices that has been providers for the plaintiff for the six year time period assumed by the expert. The opposing expert inappropriately understated estimates of plaintiff’s incremental operating costs further artificially inflate the alleged economic damages in this case. In his analysis, he assumes a profit margin of 66.6% of revenues for plaintiff’s services. According to his work papers, the opposing expert appears to calculate the profit margin using the accounting measure of cost of goods sold, or COGS. It is generally recognized that the accounting measure of the cost of goods sold do not necessarily completely capture all of incremental costs incurred by a business. For instance, firms will typically incur some portion or fraction of administrative and marketing costs as they deliver a service or product. The accounting measure of cost of goods sold used by the expert does not account for these types of incremental costs and in all likelihood results in an unrealistically low estimate of the business’ actual incremental cost of production. It was clear that the opposing expert’s analysis of the clinics he studied actually incurred any economic damage. In fact, it is not clear if the four clinics that he assumes were lost due to the Defendant’s actions were in fact lost. According to the plaintiff’s revenue data, the plaintiff appeared to continue to earn revenue for some period of time from the alleged lost clinics. The revenue data provided by the Plaintiff also do not clearly indicate that the affiliations with these medical practices were terminated.