Request Expert

Expert has the technical and scientific expertise to navigate the maze of environmental regulations. He concentrates on resolving the synergistic, interdisciplinary environmental issues posed by the discovery and remediation of toxic and hazardous chemicals. More importantly, he has the ability to translate technical issues for clients, to make them understandable
He has dealt with analysis of industrial and commercial related environmental issues with extensive experience performing real estate environmental due diligence activities; reviewing Phase 1 ASTM audits; and, working with regulatory authorities. Additionally, he has worked with attorneys and has [peer] reviewed many environmental legal claims.
Expert's interdisciplinary experience and training has helped him to continually illuminate and crossover diverse, though related disciplines to resolve problems. His work has routinely required critical analysis resulting in both written and verbal reports to summarize his efforts.

Client's environmental manager was indicted in state court for not reporting an oil spill into a private lake in a timely manner and 7 birds died. He proved the bird deaths where not the result of indigestion of chemicals found in the oil - the indictment was withdrawn and a civil, monetary settlement was agreed to by the state.Client -- a chrome plater -- was accused of dumping 55 gallons drums of toxic material is the desert. He was able to educate the judge in federal court that there was minimal environmental damage resulting from the spill so that additional time was not added to the client's prison sentence for this violation. Reviewed $1.5 billion property insurance settlement, for almost one year, covering historic soil and groundwater contamination on over 49 oil industry related sites. Based upon my detailed analysis, the final settlement amount was reduced by over 80% from that originally proposed.He reviewed and analyzed groundwater and soil contamination data resulting from the investigations of three engineering firms over a ten year period. The case had been handled by four different law firms when he was asked to review the data. His conclusion was that instead of my client being the responsible party for contaminating the adjoining property, the data sowed that the ground water direction was actually reversed, i.e., they had cause to sue the plaintiff for damages. The case was subsequently dismissed with prejudice by plaintiff.He was asked to support the defense of an engineering firm that had been accused of malpractice by a real estate developer in their assessment of contamination from an existing underground storage tank. His research into available documentation showed that the plaintiff was suing everyone because their credit rating had cratered and their major financial partner had pulled out. The lawsuit really had nothing to do with defendant's engineering work product. An offer of $250,000 was made; the plaintiff refused. Plaintiff subsequently went to trial and lost.