FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2600507385> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2600507385 startingPage "219" @default.
• W2600507385 abstract "IntroductionWhen used appropriately, statistical sampling can be a powerful weapon in a litigator's arsenal. In a complex case, statistical sampling may be used to draw scientifically-supported conclusions from data, and to quantify concepts that would otherwise be amorphous, with the added bonus that it may be utilized relatively inexpensively.2On the other hand, statistical sampling has its limitations: the science can be difficult to explain, the results can only be presented as ranges which may seem imprecise to fact-finders, and the scientific methodology can be difficult to apply correctly.3When it comes to using statistical extrapolation to calculate damages, there is no clear-cut rule of common law allowing or disallowing its use across the federal courts of the United States. Some courts cite the Seventh Amendment as authority to disallow the use of statistics in calculating actual damages, since a statistical approach may deprive the defendant of their constitutional right to have every contended fact tried by a jury.4 Other courts opine that using statistics does not run afoul of the Seventh Amendment, so long as the defendant has the opportunity to challenge or rebut the statistical evidence.5The use of statistical extrapolation is already prevalent in several areas of litigation, and this paper will explore and analyze that use, and propose other areas of jurisprudence where the use of statistical sampling might be advisable. This paper will evaluate the differing treatment of statistical extrapolation between jurisdictions, the reasoning behind those opinions, and the public policies for and against using statistical extrapolation in this fashion. Finally, the paper recommends a course of action for the courts (or Congress) with regard to the use of statistical extrapolation to calculate damages.Background on Statistical ExtrapolationStatistical extrapolation is [t]he process of estimating an unknown value or quantity on the basis of the known range of variables or [t]he process of speculating about possible results, based on known facts.6 This process can be applied to any type of data, including calculation of damages in civil litigation. Courts have allowed sampling to calculate damages in a variety of circumstances, including political district apportionment cases, pornography prosecutions, drug prosecutions, labor and employment litigation and others.7 In cases that can include hundreds, or thousands, of potential claims within a single lawsuit, a claim-by-claim presentation at trial may simply be untenable and overly tedious, if not logistically impossible.8Alternatively, class actions that are comprised of a large number of class members and where compensatory damages need to be determined on an individual basis could be good candidates to allow sampling to determine the damages in a more efficient manner. In such instances, where the number of claims within a given case is simply overwhelming administratively and logistically, statistical sampling provides an alternative to claim-by-claim proof by providing a means of estimating with reasonable certainty the aggregation of large quantities of data without having to measure each individual data point. Accordingly, many courts accept and encourage the use of statistical sampling in certain types of cases.Federal courts have repeatedly held that the government may use statistical sampling methods when calculating claims overpayments or actual damages in health care fraud and abuse cases. In holding that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services enjoyed this authority, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found extrapolation based on statistical sampling to be reasonable where the defendant provider had the opportunity to challenge the statistical sampling methodology.9 The other federal circuit courts have held similarly.10 These cases hold that a statistical sampling-based estimate of overpayment creates a rebuttable presumption that defendant providers can challenge through introduction of countervailing or claim-by-claim evidence if the provider chooses. …" @default.
• W2600507385 created "2017-04-07" @default.
• W2600507385 creator A5034022930 @default.
• W2600507385 creator A5044867087 @default.
• W2600507385 creator A5090605517 @default.
• W2600507385 date "2016-01-01" @default.
• W2600507385 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W2600507385 title "Statistical Extrapolation in Complex Litigation: Science or Guesswork?" @default.
• W2600507385 hasPublicationYear "2016" @default.
• W2600507385 type Work @default.
• W2600507385 sameAs 2600507385 @default.
• W2600507385 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2600507385 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2600507385 hasAuthorship W2600507385A5034022930 @default.
• W2600507385 hasAuthorship W2600507385A5044867087 @default.
• W2600507385 hasAuthorship W2600507385A5090605517 @default.
• W2600507385 hasConcept C105795698 @default.
• W2600507385 hasConcept C106131492 @default.
• W2600507385 hasConcept C114289077 @default.
• W2600507385 hasConcept C132459708 @default.
• W2600507385 hasConcept C140779682 @default.
• W2600507385 hasConcept C149782125 @default.
• W2600507385 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2600507385 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2600507385 hasConcept C2776119841 @default.
• W2600507385 hasConcept C2777381055 @default.
• W2600507385 hasConcept C31972630 @default.
• W2600507385 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2600507385 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2600507385 hasConcept C48057537 @default.
• W2600507385 hasConcept C71043370 @default.
• W2600507385 hasConceptScore W2600507385C105795698 @default.
• W2600507385 hasConceptScore W2600507385C106131492 @default.
• W2600507385 hasConceptScore W2600507385C114289077 @default.
• W2600507385 hasConceptScore W2600507385C132459708 @default.
• W2600507385 hasConceptScore W2600507385C140779682 @default.
• W2600507385 hasConceptScore W2600507385C149782125 @default.
• W2600507385 hasConceptScore W2600507385C17744445 @default.
• W2600507385 hasConceptScore W2600507385C199539241 @default.
• W2600507385 hasConceptScore W2600507385C2776119841 @default.
• W2600507385 hasConceptScore W2600507385C2777381055 @default.
• W2600507385 hasConceptScore W2600507385C31972630 @default.
• W2600507385 hasConceptScore W2600507385C33923547 @default.
• W2600507385 hasConceptScore W2600507385C41008148 @default.
• W2600507385 hasConceptScore W2600507385C48057537 @default.
• W2600507385 hasConceptScore W2600507385C71043370 @default.
• W2600507385 hasLocation W26005073851 @default.
• W2600507385 hasOpenAccess W2600507385 @default.
• W2600507385 hasPrimaryLocation W26005073851 @default.
• W2600507385 hasRelatedWork W10374584 @default.
• W2600507385 hasRelatedWork W138178976 @default.
• W2600507385 hasRelatedWork W1489897463 @default.
• W2600507385 hasRelatedWork W1509027228 @default.
• W2600507385 hasRelatedWork W1545904619 @default.
• W2600507385 hasRelatedWork W1588000316 @default.
• W2600507385 hasRelatedWork W1872235980 @default.
• W2600507385 hasRelatedWork W2001987112 @default.
• W2600507385 hasRelatedWork W2241952684 @default.
• W2600507385 hasRelatedWork W2543209414 @default.
• W2600507385 hasRelatedWork W272436053 @default.
• W2600507385 hasRelatedWork W3003249176 @default.
• W2600507385 hasRelatedWork W3122569534 @default.
• W2600507385 hasRelatedWork W3123816670 @default.
• W2600507385 hasRelatedWork W3178607648 @default.
• W2600507385 hasRelatedWork W345268929 @default.
• W2600507385 hasRelatedWork W35114841 @default.
• W2600507385 hasRelatedWork W2777231529 @default.
• W2600507385 hasRelatedWork W3121667199 @default.
• W2600507385 hasRelatedWork W3122295828 @default.
• W2600507385 hasVolume "8" @default.
• W2600507385 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2600507385 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2600507385 magId "2600507385" @default.
• W2600507385 workType "article" @default.