Major Litigation Suport Efforts

Air Products vs. Eaton Metal Products

This consultant wrote report and advised attorneys on the requirements in the ASME Section VIII, Division 1 and Division 2 Codes for pressure vessels subject to cyclic service. This consultant identified the responsibilities of the owner and the manufacturer of the vessel with regard to design responsibilities. This consultant also reviewed and advised on the metallurgical aspects of cracks in welds, the nondestructive examination requirements of the Code, and the related acceptance criteria. Case settled out of court shortly after deposition was taken.

El Paso vs. Mitsubishi

This consultant wrote reports and advised attorneys regarding ASME Section I Code requirements for pull penetration welds. No deposition because case settled. Was to be an arbitration.

J. D. Cousins & Sons, Inc. vs. Hartford Steam Boiler Insp. & Insur.

This consultant prepared a report for Hartford identifying the duties and responsibilities of the ASME Authorized Inspectors and Authorized Inspection Agencies. The litigation involved a cancelled contract for a pressure vessel that was determined to not comply with ASME Code. No deposition but Case was settled in client's favor.

Tudor-Saliba vs. MTA Los Angeles County

This consultant testified and was deposed regarding the implementation of the Tudor - Saliba Quality Control Program for the construction of the Los Angeles subway system. The consultant also testified regarding "Buy America" requirements for the project. Deposition was taken. The Case was decided in favor of the MTA by the jury.

Lewis vs. The Dupps Company

This consultant prepared report for Dupps regarding the opening of the quick-actuating closure while the pressure vessel was under pressure. Mr. Lewis died as a result of burns received. No deposition, but Case was settled in a favorable manner shortly after report was submitted.

Odums vs. Dupps Co.

This consultant prepared a technical report for Dupps Company and was deposed on the issue of a quick opening closure that was taken from a worn-out Dupps pressure vessel and installed on a re-manufactured vessel. The closure had been in service for many years and was finally deposed of after it was worn-out. The re-manufacturer purchased the vessel as junk, and a used the original quick-opening closure on re-manufactured vessel. Only about 10% of the original Dupps vessel was made part of the re-manufactured pressure vessel. Without going to trial, a Summary Judgment was entered in favor of the dependents Dupps. The Judge’s ruling quoted portions of my report several times. There was no deposition.

Cano vs. Figgie, International

This consultant was deposed for Figgie on issue of ASME Code requirements for quick-opening closures. Testimony pertained to safety aspects of the Code requirements. Favorably settled out of court.

Enserch vs. Exxon

This consultant prepared testimony for Exxon and gave deposition on the issues of hydrostatic testing of pressure piping systems; welding programs, quality assurance, B31.3 Piping Code, and miscellaneous construction issues. Because of judge - imposed time constraints, testimony was not given in court.

Bell vs. Dane Co.

This consultant prepared testimony for Dane and gave deposition regarding reasons for the release of anhydrous ammonia from a railroad tank car. This case settled out of court shortly after deposition was given.

Smieja vs. Dupps Company vs. Central Bi-Products Inc.

This consultant prepared testimony for Dupps regarding ASME Code requirements for design and construction of pressure vessels and cause of failure of a quick-opening closure. This was a personal injury case. Injuries were caused by unsafe working practices and unauthorized equipment modifications. Settled out of court.

Gilhooly vs. Pyropower Corporation

This consultant acted as expert witness and consultant for Pyropower in case involving the dismissal of Mr. Gilhooly. Issues involved quality assurance, ASME Code requirements for power boilers, and management conduct. Case settled shortly after deposition.

Syncrude vs. Catalytic

This consultant provided expert testimony for Syncrude in the area of traceable material. Catalytic Construction had performed maintenance activities a short time before the problem occurred. The problem was the cause for the destruction of the petroleum plant. Provided guidance to attorneys on Code requirements and evaluation of technical experts reports, including aspects on materials, fabrication and examination. Settled out of court in favor of Syncrude. (Reports and Testimony in Canada.)

James Wyatt vs. The Dupps Company

This consultant provided expert testimony for Dupps regarding the design of a jacketed pressure vessel with a quick opening closure. Mr. Wyatt was seriously injured during the operation of the quick opening door. (Deposition and Testimony.)

John B. Pike & Son, Inc. vs. General Electric Company

This consultant provided testimony for General Electric regarding inadequate quality assurance efforts on the part of the contractor who overran cost and schedule at a nuclear power plant. Settled out of court.

Washington Public Power Supply System vs. General Electric

This consultant prepared testimony for Washington Public Power Supply System regarding ASME Code requirements and General Electric's mismanagement of design requirements for the containment vessel. Provided evidence which showed that GE was responsible for the design errors. Settled out of court in favor of WPPSS. (Deposition given.)

Commonwealth Edison Company vs. General Electric

This consultant was hired to prepare testimony for Commonwealth Edison Company regarding ASME Code requirements and General Electric's mismanagement of design requirements for the containment vessel. Would have provided evidence which showed that GE was responsible for the design errors. Settled out of court in favor of ComEd.

Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) vs. General Electric

This consultant prepared testimony for NPPD regarding ASME Code requirements and General Electric's mismanagement of design requirements for the containment vessel. Provided evidence which showed that GE was responsible for the design errors. Settled out of court in favor of NPPD. (Deposition given.)

City of Austin vs. Houston Light & Power (HL&P)

This consultant provided testimony for HL&P regarding Code requirements for piping and supports, welding, and quality assurance issues. Provided additional testimony regarding HL&P's prudent management of the project. HL&P won case in jury trial. (Deposition and Testimony.)

Key Houston vs. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

This consultant prepared testimony for Key Houston regarding construct ability and adequacy of pressure vessels supplied for NASA. Provided documented evidence from ASME which showed Corps of Engineers and their experts were incorrect in their judgment that the pressure vessels did not meet Code requirements. Settled out of court in favor of Key Houston.

Stellar Manufacturing vs. Tennessee Valley Authority

This consultant provided testimony for TVA on weldability and construct ability of embedments that were improperly constructed by Stellar. TVA won lawsuit. (Tried by Judge.) (Testimony.)

Louisiana Power and Light (LP&L) vs. Mercury of Norwood

This consultant provided testimony for Mercury regarding applicability of quality assurance and Code requirements to installation of piping and supports, and on scheduling, manpower, and management practices at the Waterford Nuclear Plant. Testified that Mercury followed the appropriate QA practices of the industry and that most of the non-conformance reports written by LP&L and Ebasco were insignificant or based on misunderstandings of requirements and did not concern the quality of the equipment. The testimony also included review and assessment of the LP&L and Ebasco management of the Mercury project. Assisted attorneys in the overall strategy planning for the technical aspects of the case. Mercury won the lawsuit in a jury trial. (Report and Testimony.)

Louisiana Power and Light Company (LP&L) vs. Tompkins-Beckwith (T-B)

This consultant prepared testimony for T-B regarding construction of the Waterford Nuclear Plant which was about the same as used in the Mercury litigation above. Settled out of court in favor of T-B, at least partially on the basis of the testimony we provided in the Mercury litigation.

Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) vs. Pittsburgh Des Moines (PDM)

This consultant prepared testimony for PDM regarding construction of containment vessel, quality assurance, design, welding and application of ASME Code rules. Case dismissed by Judge.

Department of Energy vs. Pittsburgh Des Moines (PDM)

This consultant provided testimony for PDM regarding construction practices, quality assurance, welding, and prudent management of project. The project was a nuclear spent fuel storage facility. PDM built the steel liners for the concrete vaults. PDM won the lawsuit in a trial by Federal Judge. (Testimony.)

Houston Light & Power (HL&P) vs. Brown & Root

This consultant prepared a report for HL&P regarding quality assurance issues and the adequacy of welding performed by Brown & Root. Our research showed that the Brown and Root welding was adequate and met all Codes and Standards. Our Report was then used as the foundation for City of Austin litigation and PUC hearings. HL&P won the case against Brown and Root, but welding was never raised as an issue.

Atlas vs. Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)

This consultant testified as expert witness for TVA regarding design and construction of weldments and embedments and adequacy of structural welds. Assisted attorneys in planning strategy on technical matters. TVA won the lawsuit. (Testimony and Report.)

To see the resume of the expert associated with this case study, see the link below.