INDUSTRIAL BACKGROUND
I have a Bachelors Degree in Industrial Arts (Technology) and post graduate study with special
emphasis in manufacturing, engineering, materials, and advanced transportation technologies.
Post graduate seminar course work in specialized materials, processes, business, quality engineering,
and five plus years of engineering experience in materials, processes, product development, tooling,
manufacturing and production engineering, quality and failure analysis. My combined senior level
industrial and engineering experience exceeds 23 years. I have lectured at major aerospace and
military manufacturers on manufacturing materials, processes and technologies.
I have submitted three patent disclosures to the US Dept. Of Navy while working as a manufacturing
research engineer at Lockheed Martin Aerospace and have expert witness experience on a large
multi-million dollar patent infringement case, as well as, several other large cases. I have direct
technical experience in mechanical test laboratories and basic failure analysis. I have been
trained on CADAM (Cad-Cam).
KEY SKILLS: Research, forensic examination of component failure, sub contracted laboratory work,
product design, patent protection, some OSHA and quality related issues, quality assurance,
manufacturing related contracts and agreements, legal consulting and expert
witness activities.
TECHNICAL BACKGROUND: Machines, machine tools, hand tools, cutting, welding, manufacturing
operations, production operations, product design for manufacturing, general shop / factory layout
and safety, plastics, composites, and metallic materials, shop / school / factory accidents, precision
measurement, industrial manufacturing methods, product liability, etc...
______________________________________________________________________________________
CASE EXPERIENCE: (Actual names of Clients, companies and law firms removed for confidentiality)
Case Name: Major Chemical Manufacturer v. Distributor. 6-13-2008
Representing: Plaintiff
Case Requirements - Industrial Materials and Quality Engineering: Technical background
in textile manufacturing, Quality Assurance Engineering, Distributor relations, contracts and
Inventory management.
Case Description: Industrial Manufacturing / Distributor Case. Distributor withheld payments for
Invoices exceeding 1.5 Million Dollars over perceived quality issues. Plaintiff is trying to collect
money due.
Case Work: Reviewed the sales records and the current inventory held by the distributor. After
review of the financials, several inaccuracies in the calculations provided by the Distributor.
In addition, we looked at the suspect textile materials and made recommendations for a objective testing
program to examine the defendants claims of out of tolerance products.
Case Outcome: Out of court settlement, monies paid to the plaintiff.
Case Name: Client v. Large Aerospace Distributor. 10-2006
Representing: Defendant
Case Requirements - Industrial Distribution: Knowledge of Manufacturing and Distribution
agreements and the standard practices used as it relates to business contracts.
Case Description: Large aerospace distributorship accused defendant of breach of contract
which led to a small manufacturer terminating their exclusive distribution agreement. The distributor
seeks damages from loss of revenue.
Case Work: Researched distribution agreements and reviewed depositions. Expert report submitted.
Case Outcome: Settlement was reached with monies paid to the counter suing defendant. Case settled.
Case Name: Client v. Large Broom Manufacturer. 3-21-2006
Representing: Plaintiff
Case Requirements - Industrial and Materials Engineering: Research the design,
manufacture, and current condition of a Broom. With focus on the material, process and
Forensic testing, develop an opinion on whether or not there was technology available
at time of manufacture to prevent the failure, and how it failed.
Case Description: Product Liability Case. As a result of a possible product failure, a girl
was partially blinded when a broom broke apart.
Case Work: Examined failed components and prepared for laboratory analysis. Research and report
submitted.
Case Outcome: Out of court settlement with monies awarded to Plaintiff. Case closed
Case Name: Major Toy Company v. Large Plastics Manufacturer. 9-1-2001
Representing: Plaintiff
Case Requirements - Industrial Manufacturing Engineering: Technical background in
plastic Injection molding, tooling, materials and processes.
Case Description: Industrial Manufacturing Case. Toy Company sued a design engineering
firm and Injection molding manufacturing company because the manufacturer could not deliver toy
products on time. The manufacturer blamed the prototyping engineering firm. The Engineering
firm blamed the manufacturer.
Case Work: Reviewed blueprints, the history with the manufacturer, process and tooling specifications,
depositions, and quality assurance reports. Gave deposition stating my opinion that the defendants
were not equally negligent and assigned primary responsibility to the design engineers for an overall
tooling design that failed in the injection molding manufacturing facility. Deposition taken.
Case Outcome: Out of court settlement with multi million dollar settlement awarded to Plaintiff. Case settled.
Case Name: Client v. Major Insurance Company. 3-7-2001
Representing: Plaintiff
Case Requirements - Accident Reconstruction: Technical background in automotive
dynometer and smog test equipment.
Case Description: Smog check technician was injured at smog station while using dyno smog testing
equipment. The Plaintiff sued the machine manufacturer based on the premise that past machine
problems and repairs made resulted in a malfunction that caused the injury.
Case Work: Reviewed machine maintenance records and repair logs. Interviewed plaintiff at the facility to
reconstruct the scene of the accident. Research and opinion concluded that the plaintiff may not have been
injured in the manner he represented. Furthermore, the research showed the machine was in perfect working
order and only operator error could be established. The attorney may have chosen not to admit
my findings.
Case Outcome: Case pending.
I have a Bachelors Degree in Industrial Arts (Technology) and post graduate study with special
emphasis in manufacturing, engineering, materials, and advanced transportation technologies.
Post graduate seminar course work in specialized materials, processes, business, quality engineering,
and five plus years of engineering experience in materials, processes, product development, tooling,
manufacturing and production engineering, quality and failure analysis. My combined senior level
industrial and engineering experience exceeds 23 years. I have lectured at major aerospace and
military manufacturers on manufacturing materials, processes and technologies.
I have submitted three patent disclosures to the US Dept. Of Navy while working as a manufacturing
research engineer at Lockheed Martin Aerospace and have expert witness experience on a large
multi-million dollar patent infringement case, as well as, several other large cases. I have direct
technical experience in mechanical test laboratories and basic failure analysis. I have been
trained on CADAM (Cad-Cam).
KEY SKILLS: Research, forensic examination of component failure, sub contracted laboratory work,
product design, patent protection, some OSHA and quality related issues, quality assurance,
manufacturing related contracts and agreements, legal consulting and expert
witness activities.
TECHNICAL BACKGROUND: Machines, machine tools, hand tools, cutting, welding, manufacturing
operations, production operations, product design for manufacturing, general shop / factory layout
and safety, plastics, composites, and metallic materials, shop / school / factory accidents, precision
measurement, industrial manufacturing methods, product liability, etc...
______________________________________________________________________________________
CASE EXPERIENCE: (Actual names of Clients, companies and law firms removed for confidentiality)
Case Name: Major Chemical Manufacturer v. Distributor. 6-13-2008
Representing: Plaintiff
Case Requirements - Industrial Materials and Quality Engineering: Technical background
in textile manufacturing, Quality Assurance Engineering, Distributor relations, contracts and
Inventory management.
Case Description: Industrial Manufacturing / Distributor Case. Distributor withheld payments for
Invoices exceeding 1.5 Million Dollars over perceived quality issues. Plaintiff is trying to collect
money due.
Case Work: Reviewed the sales records and the current inventory held by the distributor. After
review of the financials, several inaccuracies in the calculations provided by the Distributor.
In addition, we looked at the suspect textile materials and made recommendations for a objective testing
program to examine the defendants claims of out of tolerance products.
Case Outcome: Out of court settlement, monies paid to the plaintiff.
Case Name: Client v. Large Aerospace Distributor. 10-2006
Representing: Defendant
Case Requirements - Industrial Distribution: Knowledge of Manufacturing and Distribution
agreements and the standard practices used as it relates to business contracts.
Case Description: Large aerospace distributorship accused defendant of breach of contract
which led to a small manufacturer terminating their exclusive distribution agreement. The distributor
seeks damages from loss of revenue.
Case Work: Researched distribution agreements and reviewed depositions. Expert report submitted.
Case Outcome: Settlement was reached with monies paid to the counter suing defendant. Case settled.
Case Name: Client v. Large Broom Manufacturer. 3-21-2006
Representing: Plaintiff
Case Requirements - Industrial and Materials Engineering: Research the design,
manufacture, and current condition of a Broom. With focus on the material, process and
Forensic testing, develop an opinion on whether or not there was technology available
at time of manufacture to prevent the failure, and how it failed.
Case Description: Product Liability Case. As a result of a possible product failure, a girl
was partially blinded when a broom broke apart.
Case Work: Examined failed components and prepared for laboratory analysis. Research and report
submitted.
Case Outcome: Out of court settlement with monies awarded to Plaintiff. Case closed
Case Name: Major Toy Company v. Large Plastics Manufacturer. 9-1-2001
Representing: Plaintiff
Case Requirements - Industrial Manufacturing Engineering: Technical background in
plastic Injection molding, tooling, materials and processes.
Case Description: Industrial Manufacturing Case. Toy Company sued a design engineering
firm and Injection molding manufacturing company because the manufacturer could not deliver toy
products on time. The manufacturer blamed the prototyping engineering firm. The Engineering
firm blamed the manufacturer.
Case Work: Reviewed blueprints, the history with the manufacturer, process and tooling specifications,
depositions, and quality assurance reports. Gave deposition stating my opinion that the defendants
were not equally negligent and assigned primary responsibility to the design engineers for an overall
tooling design that failed in the injection molding manufacturing facility. Deposition taken.
Case Outcome: Out of court settlement with multi million dollar settlement awarded to Plaintiff. Case settled.
Case Name: Client v. Major Insurance Company. 3-7-2001
Representing: Plaintiff
Case Requirements - Accident Reconstruction: Technical background in automotive
dynometer and smog test equipment.
Case Description: Smog check technician was injured at smog station while using dyno smog testing
equipment. The Plaintiff sued the machine manufacturer based on the premise that past machine
problems and repairs made resulted in a malfunction that caused the injury.
Case Work: Reviewed machine maintenance records and repair logs. Interviewed plaintiff at the facility to
reconstruct the scene of the accident. Research and opinion concluded that the plaintiff may not have been
injured in the manner he represented. Furthermore, the research showed the machine was in perfect working
order and only operator error could be established. The attorney may have chosen not to admit
my findings.
Case Outcome: Case pending.
| (8 7 7) 7 3 9 7 3 7 8 |
E x p e r t W i t n e s s S o l u t i o n s
