AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY, VOLUME 37, ISSUE 1,2019/65

FORENSIC MUSINGS: THE METAPHYSICS OF "HEDONIC LOSS"

Kenneth J. Weiss, M.D.

What do psychiatrists really know about loss and adaptation? A re-

cent U.S. District Court ruling took on the question of hedonic loss in a
case of a young man who committed suicide in jail. Amid the various
opinions was the reiteration of a principle in New Jersey law, that the
determination of loss of life's pleasure was not related to the ability of
the individual to perceive pleasure. Thus, in this case, the decedent could
be entitled to hedonic damages during the interval between the discovery
of the hanging and the death seven hours later. This article explores the
theories of hedonic damages, the use of expert testimony in calculating
them, and the differences between hedonic loss and pain and suffering
While the quantification of damages is the role of the forensic economist,
the mental health expert can identify, characterize, and explain the un-
derlying mental states.
I was minding my own business when struck by an item in the New
Jersey Law Journal (1). The headline, "Hedonic Damages Claim on Be-
half of Comatose Inmate Can Go Forward," caused me to question
what I knew about mental suffering in tort claims. If "hedonic" refers
to the experience of pleasure, how can it be construed in the absence of
conscious awareness? Curious, I decided to dig deeper into the under-
lying legal theories, mindful of the potential for psychiatric expert tes-
timony. The following are my preliminary findings.
In jurisdictions that permit it, civil litigants may receive monetary
damages apart from actual "pecuniary" losses. These may take the
form of punitive damages, intended to punish the defendant for
wrongdoing, and nonpecuniary damages such as pain and suffering or
loss of companionship, intended to compensate the plaintiff/estate for
loss of intangibles. Hedonic damages, awarded for loss of life's enjoy-
ment, are distinguished from loss of earning power and the manifest
Copyright 2019 American Journal of Forensic Psychology, Volume 37, Issue 1. The Journal is a
publication of the Americah College of Forensic Psychology, P0 Box 5899, Balboa Island, Cali-
fornia 92662. This article was originally published in the American Journal of Forensic Psychia-
try, Volume 32, Issue 4, 2011.
-id aq PIflOD DJoJ asuosuowwoD (S1Otfl iq s u
9T d ) pJOM oLlI jo sus poiq ay UT ajjjjo ainsEId aLlI 2uin
M 'fl[A uop upnsui uj sdqspieq sjj JnpU M
U4M OSj nq 'DJ &TTI!uIS S(Aqq OjU XJUJ1Op1 JS am U4M L1uo
ou 'ujkjss puc uj2u AJOSWJUT aq ol ajll jo IjIS aqj jo aSuagetlD
ajOqAkaT4j pUJJ suq UWfl14 3M '1AOT4 'Ajjiu insiid si JM
S1 linuua puc 'sinjj 'ssdn 'sauJpqD L111m Sn Sulluas
-aid ujq juiod 'AJTcp sn ju pig ST jjj inDTJJTp Alasualui sLu!u1os
OSI-B jnq LTA SLUj4UJOS ST J!T JO SSDOJd [uisuop
-eq] SUS toiicu ui ains-eald jo flfCA aT41 upnsui axe am
Ajdun 01 uw IOU op Qm 'sains1d SJTJ oi 2uuipi uj Jq jo flJcA
SSUTUJL'a io joqul ai4l moij ind puc onds 'jj wog AJ1p suq
ucwnq I-eqj kiij, aill io uoTycJsqis 'insjd oqj JO anjUA ;)T41 01
S.TJI ajjj , jo flJA DJuopq 3qL,, :sMofloJ sp 1dDuoD x4l pupp qns
PUP JTqS)OOJ 'SSID U1S kW ajil E UO flJA E UTD1Id velp SmSpo
-JMOIDJDy ) jooq 0661 E UJ 3DTAple S4 ZWiOJ puc () s0861 3141
UT uc sc pi;qsaT 04M 'q1Tu1 ius 1sJwOUOD/1OSSJo1d McI
ol ppi uq scq sJ11dx jo Apoq c sc s$ctucp Tuopq jo uopc
-jnmoid 041 Inq 'Mcj 044 oi MOU IOU sI iuouiAouo jo ssol ioJ uopcsuod
-LUOD JO 4doDuoD 041 (p011RU.IOd OJO4M) S.IOATAIflS 044 SuOWE ainscojd
jo uoqnuurnp c puc 'unpiA 3LIJ JOJ o, jij Ao(uo 04 Jc!4uaod JO SSOJ 5!
aiaLp '4 0P IflJU0JM JO 0SD 044 UJ AIJJJqcSJp JUPPUaIlle sij pup Ain (UT
U1 04 SUOPT01 S0UO WOIJ A104cicdOS pacsuodwoD oq UD 0J!I AO(UO
ol 1cJ4U40d 044 Jo ssol 0TI4 4tfl ST S0cU1cp DJUOpO4 JO A10044 04J
SJOATA.IflS
(q po.iojns ASnO!AqO OS soTq!2uclu! 044 .TOJ spivmp IOJJO Pu op SUO!4
-DipSufil OLUOS 'IOAOMO4 '4fl0 SlUTOd ()inIDDN S\{ SOSEDiLTnIU! puc
'OD!TDc.Tdfcw '44E0p InJUO.XM UT P.TeMle I04 044 OSEOIDU! 11ET4Uc45qflS
UED SSOJ D!U 0PO4 °J P'Y U0M ITAP 044 4JumOD 04 40U DJqnd
044 UE 4UU0J0 044 04 O8ESSOUI E pUOS 04 'cpuoc UOD0S c ST 01044
'ojqssod sc oioqM,, sc Micd poin1u 044 IOpUOJ 04 sl Apouioi DflOU
-ODO uu JO Ira II . 0A0 043. 01!4M SSSOJ a[qjucu! pu 0]UE3. qoq
UO 0flJA IC 4OS 04 AIUTP10DDc pOPfll4SU! OIc 50!.Tflh M!J!qcsp JO SIDOJJO
SS01 3INOG9H SSIM/99
 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY, VOLUME 37, ISSUE 1,2019/67

suasive to a jury considering damages, irrespective of whether the

award is incorporated into a lump sum for all losses (hedonic, voca-
tional, social, etc.) or calculated separately. As we shall see, however,
the basis for the calculation has been much debated and the admissi-
bility of testimony variable.
In some jurisdictions hedonic damages are rolled into what has
traditionally been termed "pain and suffering." In that case, a jury
would not tend to receive a separate instruction on loss of pleasure of
life, as held by the Supreme Court of Ohio (5). Smith has urged that
the two be distinguished, thereby opening up great potential for jury
awards, both in wrongful death and in injury cases (6). Bagenstos and
Schianger (7) make the distinction this way: "Pain and suffering dam-
ages traditionally compensate 'for the physical discomfort and the
emotional response to the sensation of pain caused by the injury itself,'
and mental anguish damages traditionally compensate for 'shock,
fright, emotional upset, and/or humiliation' caused by the tort. He-
donic damages, by contrast, compensate for limitations 'on the injured
person's ability to participate in and derive pleasure from the normal
activities of daily life, or for the individual's inability to pursue his tal-
ents, recreational interests, hobbies, or avocations" (7, at 748, internal
citations and footnotes omitted). It appears that this could be argued
without the aid of a mental health professional. The quantification of
the .loss, however, falls to the forensic economist.
Hedonic damages may be assessed on behalf of the index individu-
al or the secondary "victims" of the loss who have been deprived of a
relationship or "services" provided by the individual. In the case of a
wrongful death claim, both types of losses can be assessed. There is no
requirement that expert testimony be used to describe or quantify he-
donic losses, since they may be inferred intuitively from the type of
injury. Thus, the average person, such as a juror, would be expected to
appreciate that, for example, the loss of a hand would tend to deprive
the claimant of some of life's pleasures. How long the hedonic deficit
would persist is controversial. Hedonic damages may also be assessed
-OD U Ul 3q oi auo SSflD kinu1 SflOJ110 UT4M SSJX T4DT4M juawired
-uJT pur ATJ!q1sTp JUJ OI atIl ioj sawp jo pd su papumu aq Aw 3jjj
JO juawAofua JO SSOI .JOJ sa5rLuup,, juqj paTOU jmoD •S-fl T4 '(Si) MEJ
SD A3SJ3J MN SUTJID IP11J ST4 PU73 U.IaAFd 1JA1 uMq d!qsuoTuid
-LUOD JO SSOJ OT np lou 4flOLp 'S1LU1p DTUOpLJ ol PITTP-' q ppu
Aw alulsa aT41 luT41 juawnO.Tu sJJ!u!Jd x1l pioddns iino qi
su1uoD
TuE1odTn! jo iquinu E uo pr1I Inq'sluaLunS.Tu JLo I4 jou pp ino
S'fl Ljj SLUp DTUOpq JO UOTITSOdUH 3T41 D'UTpnj:)UT'sjunoD 111AS
uo juaL0pnfkivLuLuns psnbi suipupp 041 kJJJq4 Jo sopooq
jo .ioqwnu u iopun pons (so) AffwJ suopoDop oqj .xoj sinoq
UOAOS uuji ssal prop paunouold SM 04 0104M jdsoq Iu.TauaS u o
0T0JSUE1T Sum 04 'JJES (q pOIOAODSTp UO4M OA!TE TIllS IPP SJ4 OJOJ
-oq sAp inoj uoqndod jioua uj poDId sm Inq I juaLussassu
upuod 4DJ,M opp!ns poopo-JnoD uo uooq piq E10Aj
JAI 10M04S pD IT1 kUflOD SI4 U1O1J S3,004S poq 4TM Jpsuiq pouq
'10A!)J ossof 'uopoDop pIo-.rai-STatli'() 7V ja djunoD DJVSSVJ
it V.2241w UJ 011S LTOAODSIp OLIJ U! JJTS SUM UO!ll!I u4iopun oq
pflo3 pTiSTJ Sfl UI ApUODOI UO pojni SM juqjamAas.Taf MON UT
0D}JJflS aill ol itISnoiq OJOM S08IUep DTUOP34 JO suonuuod oqj
,AIVSS33N SS3NSflOI3SNO3 SI 5]Idflfa NISS3SSV
sUollD!pS!JnI Auim U! oqsUodwoD am S0SSO 3!U0p04
'x (ci) SSTO1OqDASd put (zi -01) ssTuiouoDo '(6) SI IO4DS [a8oi qoq
UIOJJ OITJ UMIp sq TdODU0D aT41 JO XDLU!11 0I OT41 •(6) s.noA JU7W
ioj poqop puu pouo!TSonb uooq S4 uaxe SIT41 UT AUOW!S0 DU1OUOD0
jo AjjjjqvTja.T PUP MTpJA DTJL1UO!3S 041 ) ojnuuoj puu SJ0OU1 IUD
-TTSll IA 'ODU1pTfl OpTAOJd OT pOSfl oq O k[0)T!T OIOLU OJ 'pUq IOipO
3111 UO 'SS!UJOUOD0 DTSUO.TOd LUTJD DTUOpO4 t UO iunowu iop v ind
ol SSOJ u ju oq PTflOM 'Aduiatjj JO SOD 04T UTUJ!S0 pUOAOq 'IOAOMO4
'SJEUOTSSOJOId 4DflS TUO!SS0JOJd qpoq J!4U0ffl i Aq poUp4dxo lsaq
'jo-in u JO U0)I aqj puoAoq oq keLU SIO1JELU 0S041 TIOJUIODSTP PnPTS
-0.1 puu osuodsoi TUO!OLU0 oqTJJUop! we SODnpOid AInIUI aLIJ UO4M
SSO1 OINOH :5513M/89
 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY, VOLUME 37, ISSUE 1, 2019 / 69

matose or vegetative state" (15, P. 662). Explaining, the Rivera court

said, "There is no requirement that the party who has suffered the tor-
tious injury need be aware of what he or she has suffered, nor of the
life he or she is unable to enjoy in a comatose or vegetative state" (14,
p. 8). While puzzling at first, the decision distinguishes hedonic from
pain and suffering elements in the calculation of damages.
The court also addressed the defendants' argument that because
the decedent committed suicide there were no hedonic injuries: "De-
fendant argues that Mr. Rivera's suicide suggests that he was not en-
joying life, and so is not entitled to hedonic damages. The Court will
expressly decline to make that assumption. It is both unseemly and
unfair for the Court to punish the victim and speculate on his ability to
enjoy life at the time of his suicide. A jury may decide that hedonic
damages should be limited because of Mr. Rivera's mental state, but
the Court will not do so" (14, p. 9). Thus it is ambiguous, and left for a
jury to decide whether to index hedonic loss to the decedent's clinical
state at the time of the hanging versus to his status in better times.
The court then turned its attention to the question of the time in-
terval to assess the hedonic damages. In the typical wrongful death
scenario, they note, the tortious act and the injury occur at about the
same time. But here, there is no claim that the alleged negligence (put-
ting Mr. Rivera into general population) caused his death; rather, it
was a self-inflicted injury made possible by the lack of supervision.
Thus, the hedonic losses did not start when Mr. Rivera was moved, but
• four days later when he hanged himself. In that analysis, less than 7
hours would have elapsed until death, after which no losses to Mr. Ri-
vera could be assessed. In terms of the defendants' request for sum-
mary judgment, the court granted it with regard to hedonic losses of
"society and relationship." The court did not identify any dispute as to
the survivors' claims of loss—"companionship, guidance, advice,
• counsel, services and earnings caused by the death of their son" (14, p.
12). Therefore, the plaintiffs were free to argue at trial for damages on
these pecuniary losses.
uOTSTDp SI JO 1IJ iE!1 MU 73 UTpU1UT1 'S3Ew1p UO jU31USpnf
IOJ
3111 pQS.T;DA;D.1 nq A3JJTqrnj ssinu aill ppqdn inoz) ajpjj;)ddp ai4j
uipisAqdaqj jo uo iuox qinsp IOU pp uois
-PP Vw0dj aT4,L pppp Ljnf aill jalm O DflOJ aq premp aT4114
io uio jo popd P SUI.T;DAO:) sup DuOpq 1AOD1 IOU
PIflOD u!wp 'p1idd uip sinu oqL -p-T-em-c all Suillwil
snip 43 Jo jjpd aqj uo A3!JJqiJ Ou SM J141 sneDq
palroddL, osIL, {aqj satuip uopq Ul ooc'zi$ jEuojpp UP pip
-10 apn1 ITII x4j pup pJJT MU U JOJ p)JS A341 MOI 1( IUPP04S,,
P0P!SU0D 1S -U 4:)!4M 'J!I JO iAoii J °J OOc'LT$
JO sa&tupp ppIeM ktnI UDTSA4d psepup ZRIJ uiiox
Aqip 'qsuodsI %OO[ s.inu juvpuajapaip punoJ lanf aill
' S 1) jij JO JU;DU.IAO(U0 Jo uo!eA!Jdp ST141 ioJ jquosi s inns
4]IM dn OWOD 04 axe noA pup 'io pip kp iptIm 'uJop pou q
4M 'uinoLI sq uq S!q ol iopd p!p spuj 1pi4m noA
PI° Aq Pup p JUS 01 pU 5M ?4 ET4 JJ1 4T PUP piJqsa1 OM
i14jOW UIOJJ JO—JO AUOWIIS31 Oql piq aA,noA pup snows
-UODUfl up U! jdsoq x4l ui SM x4 U4M awpajil sq ui po!Jd IPT44
ioj olui 3wL,:)sire DJED 'sire kiuouijnd 11saIlp SIL14 1ptp
LUt mO.TJ JO S!DUJdJO J!J 4T JO UOULcOçU IJO UO!AJJdp
all jnoqp jjv4 am UM 's Juiq Jipo J4M s jui4j pupalpiso
'Mo,,:sacrnp D!U0Pq UO lonf x-11 pPflJSUJ P4 pn1 J!J aqj
popdIPT44 oQui-inp J!I Ao fua ol A4JJ!qiui pup kiqsip p° ip JOJ
Sa2utupp IOU Sa$M Jo ssoj UOJ-iA tLIOJJ SUISTIE sattuip AJi!u
-nDd ppic uq .ipju pq avelso aqj'Ajju:)jjj:)adS sup inb
-pu u!w!ID pdd Aqi 'ppAId sJJJuiId aill qnoipj si
-ipo pup sinu pans (woA sj, 'qow sUp
-op)alp4saqj SSUSfl0!DSU0D Suiuidoi flO4!M IA v Inoq-eIoJ
-A!AJflS 1ppSflS1 sM pup Luo:) oU! psd H ATEflb
-p 0U spivi Inq AJJflS Topppjqjjp2 9861 J3jJP JLTA0DI OA!1EIdoSOd
UT uq P4 'LZ 'JO 'hAl 'wpDp 14J I3,EU1 41.Ep JflJU01M/DT
-D1IdJiW I!PW v SM vtuod,7 '(ci) 1661 Ut SE:) OV '4 vwoA
sAsif MN U0 'id U! 'v.2d4J U! 5 U!ItU s! psq TIIIOD 's'n aijL
SSO'I 3INO3H :SSIJM/OL
 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY, VOLUME 37, ISSUE 1, 2019 /71

rested on the controversial notion that the assessment of hedonic

damages need not depend on whether the individual in question was
conscious of the loss. To summarize, they separated disability and im-
pairment from pain and suffering, in that the latter would entail
awareness. Explaining, "It would be fallacious to sever loss of enjoy-
ment of life from disability and impairment by equating it with the
anxiety suffered as a result of being aware of that loss. As stated, anxie-
ty is compensable only if it is consciously suffered. However, the actual
loss of enjoyment of life is not a function of pain and suffering" (15, p.
452). One can infer from this distinction that psychiatric expert testi-
mony about the description and quantification of hedonic losses may
be less important than it would be about pain and suffering. In juris-
dictions where the distinction is not made, a forensic economic analy-
sis could be complemented by psychiatric analysis.
BEING AND WELL-BEING

While compensation for pain and suffering has intuitive validity,

the concept of hedonic damages remains controversial. Indeed, it ap-
pears that jurisdictions are divided as to the existence of such an
award. The Eyoma court (15, p. 446), quoting Cramer (16), posited the
problem this way: "There exists... a ... category [of damages] which is
recognized in approximately half the states—loss of enjoyment of life.
Loss of enjoyment of life damages are those damages which flow from
physical impairments which limit plaintiffs capacity to share in the
amenities of life. Currently, three different views prevail among those
jurisdictions that have addressed the issue of whether loss of enjoy-
ment of life is a recognizable category of injury for which damages
may be awarded. A minority of jurisdictions refuse any recovery for
loss of enjoyment of life. Most of these jurisdictions, however, base
their positions on decisions rendered at the turn of the century that
largely have been ignored. The majority position allows consideration
of loss of enjoyment of life, but only as one of the numerous factors
characterizing a general damage award for pain and suffering. Finally,
proponents of a third position assert that loss of enjoyment of life is a
-Ull PUP A3Jq1sJp pejol x4l ioj swep jo ixe d sv popiemu aq Aiw
ij jo uwAo(u jo SSo JOJ S ag 13Uflp T4 PI°4 A'1 'Aiuituns UJ A111U
-nd pdo.1duJT .10 0ATIV InDa ds AJ1AO q IITM p.TPmP kuP 4PT41 ppnsid
IOU j\A -,?jPnjPA3 PUP UES.1Ufl ol kin 1OJ :)T.T;Dl osa 001 SI
dJuoD t IOU sT sqj pDupdx A4 PIflOM spupo Supq UUifl4
aill Irill juauAofm jo SS0[ ip qSUU1Jp IOU sop J '1AMO4
SO4 .1AO ULIJJflS PUP Ufld .Iq.1flj Aw ssol all jo a.Tump
Apusaid aq ol Aliliqui S< uI!PTA :ppnpuo 1noD qj saetup
nuop .Ip!SUOD 04 SUfl( Iluimd o:i SM 'pdmi ow s qims
I1JI SUOI I OU 'VWO/([ UJ 11 uo ip sksif MN Sp.11M sawp 4UU1
-1dlUT 01 M04 PUP SS0 DU0p4 JO USJXO all qoq pJJ ol M04 0
SP suoipipsunl uom .1flEDS juPDjjjux9is Si IPqj ju3xPddPsi u
UP IOU ST SSUIM 4DT4M .IOJ 'kIJTqSJp jo jua tussas
-SP I11A0 aT41 0UJ piau q UD SSS0J DTU0p4 10J S1EM (s pui
SflOTDSUOD Aq PTU1dU10DD oq isnui Oupajjns PUP ured ioj
siuij (L soJ uq SE4 IiqM jo ieM ST p(qns JpIUa
uiAjdwi 'SSOI IflJU!Um pogxi PI°45 satrnp DTU0pq Suip.IPMV
(9 (v SLUTEID JJOL iipj atli mpun '%) suiip Apund iuud
STM.II0 IOU sop IPT41 uotpipsunl E UT AJJiDdS ';D Aljjundl Podd-e IOU
pnoqs samp D!UOPH (ç l juPjui UP si jco fqns oq U4M 'IdwEx IOJ
'P 1!flb 1 Tou sikinfui ;)tll jo PTMOUI ( j) uuiAou
SJTI JO SSOJ JOJ a1iSTflb 11d P IOU ST SSUSflOTDSUO ( () uuJJns
PUP upd U!qITM A1uo JqEsudwoD axe sassol Duopq 'suoTplpspnl
u (zz)Du,?jsixo jua pua da pUT UP 0APq snill puc Supagns UE uud
JO TqrL opsino T[J S~SSOI D!UOpH (i :fc1AS pSTJ 1flOD VWOi
4J 'SEUflp JTUOp4-~UTtlDlewddu JO SA.EM SflO1U1flU axe ;mall
JiUOpq sul ulJop
U! JflJdpT4 q PIflOM i(UOWTST DT1TT4DXSd iidx 1?i144M JO vuiody UT
UOJULU OU SEM 31
DILL (L96-996 dd '91) UWp ip.ud
-pUE UE SE 10 UT.TJJnS PUP u!cdjo pc1aTu! UP, su palu;ujaq
PIfl05 11 .144M pUflOIE S1UD JTT JO juaw,(o(UO JO SSOI SUTpunolins
aEqp U11UD aLIL ppJEME q pjnoqs UOTESUdU1OD 4D!4M .1OJ '2uT.xJ
-JflS UE UTEd U1O.1J PUTSTp PUP ajuiudm 'SaEWEp JO UUIp idoid
SS01 3INO13H :SS9M/L
 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY, VOLUME 37, ISSUE 1, 2019/73

pairment which exists when tortious injury causes one to be in a co-

matose or vegative [sic] state" (15, P. 453). The question of expert tes-
timony may then turn on how personalized the hedonic loss was to the
victim, versus a standardized economic analysis of the value of life's
enjoyment. In the former case, mental health input could be im-
portant.
PUT ME IN, COACH

Should psychiatrists jump into the determination of loss analysis;

and, if so, what would they offer uniquely? One might think that, with
the term hedonic, there would be a natural match between litigators
and mental health professionals. In practice, however, it is forensic
economists who, armed with equations, tables and economic model-
ing, appear to be doing the heavy lifting.
There is scant mention of psychology and psychiatry in Brookshire
and Smith's text for litigators on both sides (4). They do allow for a
division of labor between mental health and economics experts in
medical malpractice and wrongful death cases: "A qualified psychia-
trist or psychologist or other mental health practitioner can determine
the diminution, in percentage terms, of the quality of life of the victim
due to a particular trauma. . . .A forecast can be made as to the prospec-
tive loss in future years. This diminution may then be used along with
the total hedonic loss to estimate the reduction of hedonic value. For
instance, if a woman who loses both legs in an accident is viewed to
have lost approximately 50% of her hedonic value of life, and if that
percentage loss is estimated to remain constant throughout her re-
maining life expectancy, then the loss may be estimated to be approx-
imately one-half the total hedonic value of her life. This is separate and
apart from palpable pain and suffering since we are measuring the loss
of the pleasure of life, not the onset of pain, suffering and anguish" (4,
pp. 172-173). This sounds straightforward enough, but, unlike the ana-
log scale of Global Assessment of Functioning (Axis V) or the familiar
percentage of service-connected disability in Veterans Affairs deter-
ol SSUUJJ]M,, r pOSfl atj '('[c) asm u '1dwx
1ø:T DUdDD 41M laui SAEMI jou SE4 'SaUiip D!UOpq UO S1flOD
SUTIUmpa Ui iuoid qnoq 'JPSWN ipJU1 UIOpSTM )JJOJ UE4 42O
4TM uoT!sod iiaLp pup ol alqu aq pinos ktuj aqj olui dinn
-4STM ssuiqDi(sd SJflOD A1I1IUUOUflOD v SMOJJOJ onlICA DiUOpq JO
A1AODI J! 'ppuI qj UE MOTI14S spunos Auppns (MJqsp luau
-uwd o psoddo s) SSO] juopLJ uuituid sn o pu pjno&
squij jo ssoj q2 ILL11 Supjass-essupt idx uiqAsd atIl 'snq
ffIODflO pu sino:) UMOU)JUfl u-e qTM ssDo1d L, ol ipEoJdd1 psq
-aDuopTA U ol sjuossjoid qfq i'-''-'-' ioj lInDipip aq p1nom
TT urt aiuQ ini1aij siql ipj !
1 !I!urJ 2uissLd si3 qnui os A4
ssJ.IJqDAsd MJ jnds o jes q JflOM u (o)
jo aDpd siq 1ssu!dd1q poA!DJd iau upnpoid JT4M Issol ol UOT
--eld-epp jo ssDo.xd tq S
ouilsaHns inij osie ST 'Aiuspd
-ins ION '(ZSL d L) SSnS S1flOD pU S1LMJ SAM ay ui lu;)UjAof
-U Sj 1T4 !U1!J STJ!qS!p 14 I-eqj aA3ij;Dq ol pual IOU op pij UT
s1qsTp qi'& jdood,, i,ip Tp1sJ p D T oJoqDi(sd w s.ioqnE
'upnidspn trnisuretu 01 AII.TUO (6J7L d 'L) JonqpuoD Jo
ST p— MqES!p 4T UT IU1OU! U!qJ(UE OU—S!Ufl1JOddO
JE1TDOS JO SSOJ pu uiid JEDTSA4d ST 11 'SSOJ JTU0pq UTflUTUOJ DU
- dX Aaql juqj luoixa aqj01 s!T!q1 sTp Tiaill o
!1 ol pUI sopn
-U! 04M jdod,, vey aOU i8ujtpg puu sosua
- 'inst1d SCJ!T TW!T X.1pussaoau jou sop k1flTqtsTp JUT41 SUTnSjV
(L) m!T 1AO !Ddm DTUOPaII aAoidLui ssuodsi 3ATI&pe IP141 pn
-1 AE SJJpOw DTU10UO3 J!I UTUTW1 JO UOt
-inp OT4 1OJ jumsuoD SUTIU1 ssol aTp Imp SSD !D.TdJm/AJfl1UJ UT
UO!1dWflSS ST TP°-'-' SC4TTUIS i1Ti\ suiqoid pou 3T41 jo 3uo
s$uip uTTw!s U! s!Luouo q psn uaill axe ST,U1tS
pw S1tUtS3 'uiuoipunj JUOtEdflDDO pui 'EpOS
'fEDTP 1d JO SUTi1IOp lflOJ aip U! SSOJ JO
-p aT41 OuqeN •IJS JT1 JO 1fl5iTd S0j pqs!Jqnd 'A S!XV 01 ssoj
DTuopq 2uiz1$01iu '(61) SflII0D ptn EJ1[ '(fr) Lioq PTUIS
UO Suiplinq Sfl JO Isoui ol ETUODU! Pj.Taj si flJA DTuOpq 'SUOTUTU1
SS01 3INOIH :SSI3M/L
 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY, VOLUME 37, ISSUE 1,2019/75

pay" model as a basis for calculating the value of life and hedonic loss
(a method of addressing the trade-offs inherent in human transac-
tions). The Supreme Court of Nebraska found that his methodology
was flawed and should not have been admitted by the trial court; it was
neither scientifically valid nor helpful to the trier of fact. I have no data
at this point to demonstrate the acceptance of mental health testimony
in hedonic loss cases.
DISCUSSION

Psychiatrists providing expert opinions in matters of physical and

mental injury and of the dimensions of wrongful death may believe
that, in the absence of scientific guidance, they can blithely state the
obvious. On the plaintiff's side, life's former pleasures and loss thereof
are recited in a lachrymose litany. For the defense, the mental health
professional can state that hedonic value expands or shrinks to fit the
reality of the individual, and should not be inferred from an econo-
mist's table. Whereas plaintiffs' counsel would argue that many physi-
cal losses are permanent, it may not be true that life's enjoyment is
limited by what was lost, and may be true that alternate hedonic
sources compensate over time. Given what is known about the plastici-
ty of the brain and behavior, there may be an important role for foren-
sic mental health professionals in defining these parameters. Practical-
ly, however, little may be known about an individual's capacity for ad-
aptation at the time of litigation, casting doubt on the applicability of
hedonic adaptation as a defense.
The ontologic status of hedonic loss is in dispute, or at least is sub-
ject to regulation by statute or case law. Most jurisdictions
acknowledge its existence, but some are reluctant to give it a life of its
own, presumably to contain jury awards. As noted, New Jersey courts
have decided to trust the jury to be fair and nonpunitive (15). Suffice it
to say that, in legal circles, theories of life and loss valuation are very
much in flux (22). What was jarring about the recent ruling in Rivera
(14) was the separability of hedonic loss from consciousness. In those
 (s861 •TII E[N) 6c1 -dd-n 4 6Z9 '-'H A P01-4S c
Tc-T:sg OO AJ iJ fj Sc[ s1u1p qp ITo1M
,jo kiop mau pup ssoj noq kios e :Monos pj :fy S.TnIDDW
661 f98oczozT MfMMM//:dWJ
1-0 UJJUO '11J 'LZ Ajnf 'I mwl IN 1M1oJ oS U1D ajLnu
-U SOEU10D JO jjqq UO JU!JD SIUp D!UOpH : IPUITD •1
S33N3I
•J3UUU1
njdpq put, jjiups Isoui aLli ui asi jxa dx;Dpuc a2palmoul 1c1dd UED
M Os CSUOTPTPSTInI AJPdS1 mO UT MEJ SuTjjLAa idaqjol Inl-e q
Sn suOqtuTLumap 4DflS moJ ssEq DUp!A ol s p~)I-eD npaaq o
suossjomd ipjiq wum moj injdjq q PIflOM j 'sjq JT;) LIJ asn uUD
SIST UJOUODD DJSU1OJ aroJq pinbm s 'mAOMOJ-1 uod siqj
t D jJjjUa lDS uq DTsTuoTssmdmT OJOLU aqku w sssoj all ol sauDmd
uujssy pmmJu q uc sssoj pu ip os 'jj sLuJpJA OT41 Jo dDs
-pucj o1qj SUTT4DJOIS UT jnpsn aq hIM Xmosq DJmJqDAsd aill 'puIqwo
aju 55SO U4M TTIILUrJ 11 M qDqM L111M smu—kijqsp
pu 'umJJns 'ud umomj pnds ST 11 UT4M SSOJ DTUOp a ll UTSSSSE
UT sTEuoissJomd 4[4 JEUUJ 1OJ IOm PUTpP A1Iep OU si a nT41
JUOiS
-sJomd qpq jtuum P jou 's!u1ouoD up p aDuJAomd aT41 a q pjno
uo psq sunp p uonpeo ;)Ljj - s;)S-eUj-ep UI UOTPnP
- q PIflOD mip juT41 smidd j 'qp oiI4 psnD ol.{A& 'sucpujp
ou iupap q2 sum j aD u is puy muuw pujpp U! JTJ pAo(
-U A4 PIflOM uosmod oT41 1T44M IOU 'sso Jo 4UJ p 01 Sul
-p.ioxoo pajulnDlin oq SSOJ uop i4 o uacs siLp ul 'up
<sms 41 sJsEq juLp uo samp aLp kjjuEnb ol kinI a q 4 ol dn 11 ijz)l
Aa Lp I[f101 'Ji[ pO1U AflJ 10U pJflOM TJ 11ppIflS SM 1 AI)J DU!S
11-all juown&veS1LIpUJp pSSTLuS!p jjnoD -S- fl qi iv q:çj
IflJUO1M SCJ(SII MN mpun papiumu aq p1noD surep DJUOpq
qpp puc uJUEq supaip all uMq smnoq UA5 A1wxomddi
SS01 3NOGH :SS!MI9L
 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY, VOLUME 37, ISSUE 1,2019/77

4. Brookshire ML, Smith SV: Economic/Hedonic Damages: The

Practice Book for Plaintiff and Defense Attorneys. Cincinnati, An-
derson, 1990
5. Fantozzi v. Sandusky Cement Products Company, 64 Ohio St. 3d
601; Ohio 138; 597 N.E.2d 474 (1992)
6. Brookshire ML, Smith SV, de Seve CW: 1991/1992 Supplement to
Economic/Hedonic Damages. Cincinnati, Anderson, 1991
7. Bagenstos SR, Schianger M: Hedonic damages, hedonic adaptation,
and disability. Vanderbilt Law Rev 2007; 60:745-797
8. Oswald AJ, Powdthavee N: Death, happiness, and the calculation
of compensatory damages. IZA Discussion Paper No. 3159. Avail-
able at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1033:')87
9. Guerin EJ: Pandora's damages and the undoing of tort reform: an
argument against the recovery of hedonic damages under Michi-
gan's wrongful death act. Detroit Coil Law Rev 1992; 1:77-117
10. Lambrinos J: Hedonic damages: economic theory, statistical foun-
dation, strategy. Def Counsel J 1991; 58:391-397
11.Harmon OR, Lambrinos J: Hedonic damages revisited: some em-
pirical findings. Def Counsel J 1994; 61:436-441
12. Liuzzo AL: Hedonic damages: concepts, measurements, and prob-
lems. J Legal Econ 1991; 58-65
13. Lees-Haley PR: Hedonic damages testimony: Is it science or snake
oil? American Psychology-Law Society News 2000; 20:6-7
14. Estate of Jesse M. Rivera, et al. v. Passaic County, et al. 2011 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 80629
15. Eyoma v. Falco, 247 N.J. Super. 435; 589 A.2d 653 (1991)
16. Cramer CR: Loss of enjoyment of life as a separate element of
damages. Pac Law J 1981; 12:965-986
17. Talle v. Nebraska, 249 Neb. 20; 541 N.W.2d 30 (1995)
18. Flannery v. United States, 297 S.E.2d 433 (W.Va.1982)
 TU 1 O1d drqsMop AIIET43ASd Disu1oj JO lOPJiQ alumos
-sy Si q IT4M 'iUATi(SUUd Jo 43. Ile f(J !4DiSd D!SU 1Od
JO JOssaJOJd T)TUTTD JJO T qoj ST UJ'\I 'SS!M f quu>J
UOHIflV 3HJ. lflO8V
691
- zT:c8 600Z A1 MJ UN JH UUJfl4 EJO T41.TOM f)J uou
(s661) Z'L PZMN 8TS 1c9
StZ 'sD!A.Ts jupoS jo A uOsJpuy j
z8c-sc96 AOJ M1J uoqdi
-p,e DJUOpqJO SWflq uppi 41 :,bnfui Supollu-jpS}-j siunM o
8- T 0661 uoj uioj f qDo1dd1 IlrnTdoDuoD u :Ainluj
-id pUE su11p D!UOPH ipai 'JTAI 11 LTS)TOO.IH 'dg EJ1 61
SSO-1 3INOIH :SSIM/9L