Columbia economist the go-to guy when money comes up at trial

If you’re a lawyer in South Carolina and you’ve had a case involving economic issues, chances are you’ve already made the acquaintance of Dr. Oliver Wood. It was a good day or bad day, depending on whether he was working with or against you.

Wood, who taught banking and finance courses at the University of South Carolina for 29 years, is now the economist-in-residence at the Charleston School of Law. He has spent his entire professional life working in academia after earning a doctoral degree in economics from the University of Florida in 1965, with one exception: Since 1969, he’s been the go-to guy for economic testimony in legal cases.

“He’s the authority on economic issues in cases,” Kingstree, S.C., lawyer Billy Jenkinson said of Wood. “He’s unmatched in the depth and breadth of his knowledge, and he has the respect of the bench and the bar.”

Myrtle Beach attorney Fayrell Furr said he first met Wood over 40 years ago after Wood’s presentation to a continuing legal education class. He said he’s been using him ever since.

“I may have been the first one to use him for all I know,” Furr said.

Wood, based in Columbia, said he doesn’t remember who first called him to testify in a case, but it was out of the blue. “An attorney was casting around trying to find someone to help prove economic loss,” Wood said. Once he testified that first time, Wood said, he started receiving calls from other attorneys.

Furr said Wood is often retained by plaintiffs’ attorneys because plaintiffs bear the burden of proving damages. But Wood isn’t exclusively a plaintiffs’ expert. Sometimes, Furr said, the other side gets him first, and Furr has to find another economist. The fact that either side will use him proves his objectivity, Furr said.

“Oliver’s value is that he is able to translate hard concepts for a jury to grasp and turn them into easy figures, so the jury doesn’t have to worry about figures when it deliberates,” Furr said.

That’s what Wood did in a recent case decided by the Court of Appeals, Kingstree lawyer Jennifer Kellahan said.

In Powell v. Bank of America, Wood broke down Bank of America’s earnings by week, day and hour. That was important, Kellahan said, because it appeared that the jury assessed punitive damages against the bank based on one of those figures – its hourly earnings.

Wood was able to use that technique in part because of his testimony in the 2000 case Bryant v. Waste Management, which involved an accident that resulted in the partial amputation of plaintiff Terrence Bryant’s right foot. The jury awarded Bryant $1.75 million after hearing testimony from Wood regarding Waste Management’s financial condition. Wood testified that the company’s net income per day totaled $731,589. He also testified about changes in shareholder equity and annual operating revenue. Waste Management objected to Wood’s testimony, but the Court of Appeals upheld the jury’s verdict.

The case, Wood said, established that an economist can use measures other than net worth to establish a company’s value.

Columbia attorney Gray Culbreath, who was on the other side of Wood in the Waste Management case, said testimony from an economist is frequently needed in personal injury cases in which plaintiffs lose income as a result of injury or death. In injury cases involving ongoing medical care, Wood is often asked to establish the present value of a care plan extending over a person’s expected lifespan. In death cases, he is asked to place a value on a person’s estate.

Expert economic testimony is required in all manner of commercial disputes ranging from the value of a business to lost profits to “any issues involving the financial health or lack thereof of a financial entity,” Culbreath said.

Wood said he played a role in some of the most prominent cases in South Carolina over the past decade, from the Graniteville chlorine spill cases to the Charleston firefighter cases.

He also worked on five cases for families of victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.  In those cases, the Department of Justice established a formula to compensate families of those killed in the attacks. “It was necessary to determine the economic loss of victims within the government’s model,” Wood said. He and the lawyers handled those cases pro bono.

Wood said he was interested in economics from the time he was a boy. Talks with his dad, who sold life insurance, turned invariably into discussions about providing economic security for people facing adversity.

That isn’t a far stretch from what lawyers do, he said.

“We have to have a framework to resolve wrongs in the economy,” Wood said. “Lawyers are a critical part of providing an environment in which people can function and do business.”

For the most part, Wood said, by the time he testifies, lawyers have already educated themselves on the economics involved in cases. “I’m an expert economist,” Wood said, “but they’re the experts in their cases. They understand the importance and necessity of economic testimony.”

Wood said he shares a lot of personality traits with lawyers. “I enjoy solving problems and helping people get a satisfactory resolution in a case.” And, in law and in economics, Wood said, there are always unanswered questions, always another frontier to explore.

Wood said he’s testified in thousands of cases and currently handles about 50 a year. He said he’s been heartened by what he’s seen of the inner workings of the legal system.

“By and large, juries get the right answer,” he said. “Sometimes they don’t, but most times 12 citizens listening to the facts get the right answer. I don’t know where justice is done better.”