 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Boyd v. Allied Signal12/30/2004
le considered that the elevation of the roadway portion where the trailer was parked might result in an aerodynamic downwash of the gas plume. He also considered the fact that the leak involved a heavier-than-air gas, but noted that at some point the mixture of air and BF sub3 becomes neutrally buoyant, behaving no differently than normal air. He pointed out that AlliedSignal, Inc. had guidelines on modeling for BF sub3 which allowed the option of using dispersion models for neutrally buoyant gases, such as CALPUFF.
Mr. Hoffnagle used another model, the HGSYSTEM model for heavy gas relcases, in the first segment of his analysis in order to determine the point at which the BF sub3 released became neutrally buoyant. According to that determination, the gas plume became neutrally buoyant within eight feet of the leak in the afternoon hours and within 46 feet of the leak in the evening hours. Mr. Hoffnagle further defended his limited use of the HGSYSTEM model for heavy gas releases in the first segment of his analysis by explaining that the user's manual for that model permitted selective use of the model's individual modules. He also expressed his opinion that the HGSYSTEM model was superior to the SLAB model used by Dr. Sajo in determining the downwind density and drop of the plume before it becomes neutrally buoyant. Mr. Hoffnagle criticized Dr. Sajo's use of the SLAB model as inappropriate for analyzing the dispersion of BF sub3 in its gaseous state, as SLAB was designed to analyze dispersion of liquid aerosols.
By using the CALPUFF model, Mr. Hoffnagle was able to incorporate the sigma theta variable, or standard deviation in wind direction, to achieve what he felt were more accurate results in modeling the dispersion of the gas. He explained that the greater the fluctuation in wind direction, the smaller the concentration of the gas downwind would be, and the closer the maximum concentration would be to the source of the release, with the result that the plumes would be shorter.
The hourly isopleths derived from Mr. Hoffnagle's analysis and modeling differed markedly from those obtained by Dr. Sajo, being much shorter in length and smaller in area. In his opinion, the amount of BF sub3 mitigated by the application of water from the three fixed monitors (2,250--3,000 gallons per minute) was much higher than the 32% minimum figure estimated by Dr. Wilkins. Mr. Hoffnagle emphasized the fact that for purposes of analysis he assumed the amount of BF sub3 released to have been 900 pounds, more than the 700 pounds assumed by Dr. Sajo. Based upon his analysis of the extent of dispersion, Mr. Hoffnagle testified that he could not attribute the browning of Mrs. Pennington's trees to the release.
The defendants presented by report and deposition the opinions and conclusions of an expert in emergency medicine and toxicology, Marc Bayer, M.D., on the issue of the plausible connexity of the documented health complaints of various plaintiffs to the incident. He analyzed the same deposition testimony and medical records of the plaintiffs reviewed by Dr. Lowry. Based on those records, Dr. Bayer concluded that none of them sustained any lengthy or disabling injuries attributable to the release, and that none were exposed to concentrations of BF sub3 significant enough to cause more than mild or transient symptoms. In addition to pointing out supposed inconsistencies in the medical histories and complaints of those plaintiffs, he emphasized Dr. Lowry's lack of medical credentials and criticized his toxicological methodology as flawed and unscientific.
The trial court in Hampton compounded its error as to the prima facie evidence of numerosity and objectivity by its "failur
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|