Motion for Expert Witness List in Phillip Bentley vs. BP Chemical Texas City| Trellis.Law

On June 14, 2022 a Defendant's Designation of Expert Witnesses - Designation of Witness was filed involving a dispute between Bentley, Phillip, and Ineos Us Chemicals Company, for Injury/Damage - Other in the District Court of Galveston County.

Preview
Filed: 7/27/2023 6:47 PM
JOHN D. KINARD - District Clerk
Galveston County, Texas
Envelope No. 77967360
By: Shailja Dixit
7/28/2023 8:08 AM

CAUSE NO. 22-CV-1082

PHILLIP BENTLEY § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § 122nd JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
BP CHEMICAL TEXAS CITY §
Defendant. § GALVESTON COUNTY, TEXAS

DEFENDANT’S DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESSES

COMES NOW, Defendant, INEOS US Chemicals Company, formerly known as BP

Amoco Chemical Company (misidentified as BP Chemical Texas City) (“Defendant”), and

in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, file this, it’s Designation of Expert

Witnesses. In support thereof, Defendant designates the following individuals as expert

witnesses:

(1) Dr. David Vanderweide
333 North Texas Ave., Suite 200
Webster, Texas 77598
(281) 481-2649

Dr. Vanderweide is a board-certified orthopedic surgeon and a Fellow of the

American Academy of Orthopedic Surgery. Dr. Vanderweide earned a Bachelor of Science

degree from Texas A&M University and a Doctorate of Medicine from Baylor College of

Medicine.

Dr. Vanderweide is expected to testify that Plaintiff has recovered from any injuries

he sustained as a result of the June 15, 2020 incident. Dr. Vanderweide is also expected

to testify that Plaintiff does not require any additional treatment as a result of the incident.

Additionally, Dr. Vanderweide is expected to testify Plaintiff has no medical restrictions

or limitations attributable to the incident.

1
Dr. Vanderweide is expected to testify regarding the necessity of treatment in the

past, whether Plaintiff should have recovered from any injuries caused by the Incident by

now, whether Plaintiff has recovered, whether any future medical care is required,

whether Plaintiff’s complaints are consistent with his injuries, whether Plaintiff has any

orthopedic injuries or other debilitating condition(s), whether Plaintiff has any pre-

existing orthopedic injuries or other debilitating condition(s), and other issues raised by

Plaintiff’s medical experts and/or treating physicians, if any.

Dr. Vanderweide is expected to opine on the cause and effect of Plaintiff’s injuries,

if any, the reports of Plaintiff’s medical providers, and related medical records/bills. Dr.

Vanderweide will testify about his review of Plaintiff’s medical treatment records, reports,

and/or Plaintiff’s medical expenses related to her treatment. Dr. Vanderweide will also

testify regarding the results of any Independent Medical Examination of Plaintiff. Dr.

Vanderweide’s opinions are more fully discussed in his report which is attached hereto,

and fully incorporated herein by reference.

Dr. Vanderweide may also express opinions, rebuttal or otherwise, within his field

of expertise which are raised by Plaintiff’s treating physicians or expert physicians who

may testify on his behalf in the present litigation. Dr. Vanderweide may offer expert

opinions on other topics which are relevant to any of the disputed medical issues in this

case.

Dr. Vanderweide’s expert opinions are expert opinions and conclusions are based

upon his knowledge, education, experience, and training in orthopedic surgery, as well as

the data, information, documents, and materials he reviewed which are set forth below.

1. Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition;
2. Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures;

2
3. Plaintiff’s Objections and Answers to Defendant’s First Set of
Interrogatories;
4. Plaintiff’s Objections and Responses to Defendant’s Request for
Production;
5. Photos of Plaintiff’s injury;
6. University of Texas Medical Branch – Medical, Radiology, and Billing;
7. Kroger Pharmacy; and
8. Deposition transcript and exhibits of Plaintiff Phillip Bentley.

Defendant reserves the right to provide Dr. Vanderweide with additional materials

and documents as they are acquired through the discovery process. This section shall be

supplemented as those documents are reviewed. Dr. Vanderweide’s CV, fee schedule,

deposition testimony list, expert report, and other documents required pursuant to Tex.

R. Civ. P. 195.5 are fully incorporated herein and attached as Exhibit A.

(2) Mr. James W. Stanley
Kevin Beauregard
FDRsafety, LLC
360 Cool Springs Blvd., Ste. 101
Franklin, Tennessee 37067

Mr. Stanley and Mr. Beauregard are a certified safety and health professionals. Mr.

Stanley is a former OSHA Compliance Safety and Health Officer, OSHA Area Director,

and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA. Mr. Beauregard is a former OSHA

Compliance Safety and Health Officer, Safety Compliance District Supervisor for OSHA,

and Assistant Deputy Commissioner for OSHA. Mr. Stanley and/or Mr. Beauregard may

testify concerning safety and operations including OSHA and process safety management

standards and regulations, and other applicable industry safety standards, guidelines,

regulations and practices. Mr. Stanley and/or Mr. Beauregard will also offer testimony to

critique and/or rebut the analysis and findings of any potential rebuttal experts

designated by Plaintiff.

3
Mr. Stanley and/or Mr. Beauregard is expected to testify that neither Defendant,

nor Turner Specialty Services, LLC (“Turner”) violated applicable OSHA requirements on

the date of the incident. Specifically, Mr. Stanley and/or Mr. Beauregard are expected to

testify OSHA standard 1926.56(a) requires adequate lighting in work spaces, and neither

Defendant, nor Turner, violated this standard by allowing and/or providing the use of

temporary drop and tripod lights. Additionally, Mr. Stanley and/or Mr. Beauregard are

expected to opine on OSHA standard 1926.1101(e)(4), which requires all persons entering

an asbestos-regulated area without the use of respirators. Had Plaintiff been allowed to

work in the asbestos-regulated area without using appropriate respirators as requested

by Plaintiff, it would have potentially exposed employees to asbestos and would have been

a direct violation of 1926.1101(e)(4). Mr. Stanley and/or Mr. Beauregard are expected to

testify that OSHA standard 1926.21(b)(2) require Turner to instruct and train their

employees in hazard recognition and mitigation, and OSHA standard and

1926.1101(k)(9)(i) requires Turner to train employees who perform Class I through Class

IV asbestos operations.

Lastly, Mr. Stanley and/or Mr. Beauregard are expected to testify that neither

Defendant, nor Turner, failed to follow OSHA’s construction training requirements,

OSHA’s specific asbestos-related training requirements, or any other applicable OSHA

training requirements pertaining to asbestos remediation. Specifically, Mr. Stanley

and/or Mr. Beauregard will testify that if communication was an issue that presented a

hazard, Plaintiff or other Turner employees could have stopped work per Turner’s

company’s policy.

4
Mr. Stanley and/or Mr. Beauregard’s opinions are more fully discussed in the

report which is attached hereto, and fully incorporated herein by reference.

Mr. Stanley and Mr. Beauregard’s opinions are based upon their respective

education, training and experience, as well as his review of case-related pleadings,

deposition testimony and documents.

Mr. Stanley and/or Mr. Beauregard reserve the right to amend and/or supplement

their general impressions and opinions if made necessary by facts developed through

further discovery and/or deposition testimony as discovery progresses in compliance with

the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Mr. Stanley and/or Mr. Beauregard may be made

available for deposition after Plaintiff has complied with the requirements of Texas Rule

of Civil Procedure 194.2(f) to provide all of the mental impressions and opinions of

Plaintiff’s experts and the bases for such opinions, and after further discovery has been

conducted.

Mr. Stanley and/or Mr. Beauregard has been provided, reviewed and/or prepared

the following documents, tangible things, reports, models, or data compilations in

anticipation of their respective testimony, each of which is in Plaintiff’s possession:

1. Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition;
2. Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures;
3. Plaintiff’s Objections and Answers to Defendant’s First Set of
Interrogatories;
4. Supervisor Incident Report;
5. Witness Statement – Andrew Cruz;
6. Witness Statement – Kevin Espinoza;
7. Turner Industries Asbestos Abatement Job Safety Analysis; and
8. Deposition transcript and exhibits of Plaintiff Phillip Bentley.

5
Mr. Stanley’s and Mr. Beauregard’s CV, fee schedule, deposition testimony list,

expert report, and other documents required pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 195.5 are fully

incorporated herein and attached as Exhibit B.

(3) Jason English, M.S., P.E., CSP
English Engineering Inc.
543 William D Fitch Pkwy, Ste. 112
College Station, Texas 77845
Phone: (979) 431-0702

Mr. English is a Registered Professional Engineer and Board-Certified Safety

Professional. Mr. English may testify concerning safety and operations including process

safety management standards and regulations, and other applicable industry safety

standards, guidelines, regulations and practices. Mr. English will also offer testimony to

critique and/or rebut the analysis and findings of any potential rebuttal experts

designated by Plaintiff.

Mr. English will opine that the actions of Turner employees, Kevin Espinoza and

Andrew Cruz, which resulted in the incident are not reasonably foreseeable actions which

Defendant would know about, nor would have reasonable control to prevent. Defendant

reasonably relied on Turner, a specialty contractor, to provide a properly trained asbestos

remediation crew with proper supervision to perform the necessary work associated with

the remediation project.

Mr. English will also testify to Turner’s roles and responsibilities when their

employees perform asbestos remediation work. Mr. English is expected to opine that

Turner, as a specialty contractor, was responsible for suppling an adequate number of

properly trained workers to perform the contracted asbestos remediation work, and knew

or should have known of their responsibility to exercise reasonable care to perform their

contracted services in a safe manner to do their part in maintaining a workplace

6
reasonably free of hazards likely to cause serious physical harm to their employees and

crew. Mr. English will also opine on industry standards and requirements with regard to

asbestos remediation. Additionally, Mr. English is expected to testify that Turner was

responsible for providing a properly trained crew to perform the project associated with

the asbestos remediation in the control room and responsible in the control room and is

responsible for training their employees in their assigned work tasks. Mr. English’s

opinions are more fully discussed in his report which is attached hereto, and fully

incorporated herein by reference.

Mr. English’s opinions are based upon his education, training and experience, as

well as his review of case-related pleadings, deposition testimony and documents.

Mr. English reserves the right to amend and/or supplement his general

impressions and opinions if made necessary by facts developed through further discovery

and/or deposition testimony as discovery progresses in compliance with the Texas Rules

of Civil Procedure. Mr. English may provide a report or be made available for deposition

after Plaintiff has complied with the requirements of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure

194.2(f) to provide all of the mental impressions and opinions of Plaintiff’s experts and

the bases for such opinions, and after further discovery has been conducted.

Mr. English has been provided, reviewed and/or prepared the following

documents, tangible things, reports, models, or data compilations in anticipation of his

testimony, each of which is in Plaintiff’s possession:

7
7. Turner Industries Asbestos Abatement Job Safety Analysis; and
8. Deposition transcript and exhibits of Plaintiff Phillip Bentley.

Mr. English’s CV, fee schedule, deposition testimony list, expert report, and other

documents required pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 195.5 are fully incorporated herein and

attached as Exhibit C.

II.
NON-RETAINED EXPERTS

The opinions of the following non-retained experts, who may provide an expert

opinion at the trial of this matter, may be found within their records or testimony:

(1) Any and all employees, personnel and custodian(s) of records and bills for:

University of Texas Medical Branch
Custodian of Records
301 University Blvd.
Galveston, Texas 77555
(409) 772-1011