When can vocational experts rely on general statistical surveys? Johnson v. Montoya Explained

In Johnson v. Montoya, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed the admissibility of vocational expert testimony that relied on general statistical surveys to calculate future earning capacity losses. The case provides important guidance on when experts can combine broad demographic data with individualized assessments.

Background and Facts

After a motor vehicle collision on I-15, Johnson sued Montoya for damages. Johnson’s vocational expert testified that her injuries reduced her future earning capacity by 50-69%. The expert based this conclusion on custom questionnaires, medical records, and data from the American Community Survey and Current Population Survey. An economic expert then calculated Johnson’s losses at over $619,000 based on the vocational expert’s findings. The jury awarded Johnson $475,725.16.

Key Legal Issues

Montoya challenged the reliability of the vocational expert’s methodology, arguing that her custom questionnaires lacked peer review and that relying on general national surveys was inappropriate for an individual case. Montoya also contended the expert improperly assumed Johnson would qualify for the surveys’ “ambulatory disability” category without sufficient factual support.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed, applying Rule 702‘s threshold reliability standard. The court emphasized that Rule 702 requires only a “basic foundational showing of indicia of reliability,” not the higher “reasonable degree of certainty” standard Montoya advocated. The vocational expert’s testimony that the surveys were commonly used by professionals in her field satisfied the general acceptance requirement. Critically, the expert did not rely on general statistics in isolation but combined them with individualized assessment, medical records, and personal observations of Johnson. The court found sufficient evidence supporting the expert’s assumption that Johnson had serious difficulty with stairs based on Johnson’s own testimony about her limitations.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that experts may rely on general statistical surveys if they combine them with case-specific information. Practitioners should focus challenges on whether experts considered individualized factors rather than attacking the use of broad demographic data per se. The ruling also reinforces that Utah’s Rule 702 standard is more permissive than some practitioners assume, requiring only threshold reliability rather than scientific certainty.