Free Response in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

` · A Professional Carpcrurion ‘
j. D1LLON— Host ALAN J_ FISHER
“m1`2°°’> Gsoxos T. Bsauosss
jms; L. Flaws RICHARDA Hmm]
jms: T. Folsv
Camo W. C1-mon
Srsvsm P. Gsaunslx
. Wuium j. Mcrvmon
June 24, 2005 ` Ocbwwu
F .
FRANK E. VAN Buss
Via Facsimile & Re lar Mail
Melissa W. Rawlinson
Fennemore Craig, P.C.
3003 North Central Avenue
Suite 2600
Phoenix, AZ 85012-2913
_ Fax 602/9l6—5593
Re: Steve Schrum v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co.
Court No. O4 CV 619
Dear Ms. Rawlinson:
I am writing in regard to the report of Frank L. Burg. I am
afraid the problem is not with a lack of detail in Mr. Burg' s
report, but that this case is just not a very complex case. Mr.
Burg found ·that while working for the railroad, plaintiff was
exposed to and inhaled hazardous coal, coke and lime dust. As a
result of these inhalations, plaintiff sustained serious
respiratory and sinus health problems as well as a shoulder injury
which occurred when plaintiff became dizzy.
_ Based on the documents produced in discovery, listed by Mr.
Burg· in his report, relied on. by Mr. Burg and not really in
dispute in this case, Mr. Burg determined certain standards that
apply were violated. Mr. Burg lists all the standards verbatim in
his report. The opinions he will testify to at trial are also
listed.
My position is that Mr. Burg's report complies with Rule 26
disclosure requirements. I am enclosing an updated CV which
includes a fee schedule, as well as copies of Mr. Burg’s bills to
date on this case.

542 Soun-x Dsmsosw · Suns 200 · CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60605 - (312) 939-1212 - Tou. Fnss (888) 425-1212
Fix G:12)939-7842 - wwv.·.uoswAmnA.coM ~ E-wai; u 1 _ . 4§e·
Case 2:04-cv—OO619-RCB Document 86-2 Filed O3/O2/2006 Page 1 of 2

Melissa W. Rawlinson
June 24, 2005 —
Page 2 V ·
The next problem I have is that your letters taking exception
to Mr. Burg’s reports are in themselves vague and not specific.
For instance, your January 26, 2005 letter states that “his report
fails to provide a complete statement of all originals,” and
“contains nothing but oonclusory opinions.” In response, no court
will allow an expert to testify to any opinions not in an expert's
report or deposition, and, opinions are by definition conclusions
reached after examining the facts and relevant standards.
Just to be clear, it is Mr. Burg's opinion that the railroad
violated the standards, rules and regulations cited in Mr. Burg's
report and that the violations were a legal cause of injury to the
plaintiff. · _
` Don’t read too much into this case, as I said, it is rather
simple. Plaintiff inhaled these toxic irritants and became sick.
The safety provisions cited by Mr. Burg, if complied with by the
railroad, would have prevented plaintiff's_injuries. Mr. Burg is
not going to testify to anything not contained in his report.
very truly yours,
..:2ae-——

George T. Brugess ·
GTB/mdp
Enclosures
Cc: Frank L. Burg
William Black
Case 2:04-cv—OO619-RCB Document 86-2 Filed O3/O2/2006 Page 2 of 2

Case 2:04-cv-00619-RCB

Document 86-2

Filed 03/02/2006

Page 1 of 2

Case 2:04-cv-00619-RCB

Document 86-2

Filed 03/02/2006

Page 2 of 2