EXAMPLES OF CASES
IN WHICH EXPERTISE HAS BEEN PROVIDED |
| Year |
Retained By |
Description |
Deposed? |
Trial? |
| 2022 |
Plaintiff |
Plaintiff was being transported to a medical appointment within an NEMT
vehicle. The driver testified that he connected two wheelchair occupant
restraints together to secure the plaintiff. When abruptly stopping for
a stoplight, the plaintiff fell from her wheelchair fracturing her right
tibia and fibula. Mr. Schuch testified to the nationally-accepted standard
of care for the proper application of a Wheelchair Tiedown and Occupant
Restraint System (WTORS) and demonstrated how the driver failed to properly
apply the WTORS pelvic belt. Mr. Schuch applied engineering mechanics and
biomechanics to demonstrate to the jury how a properly-secured passenger
would not fall out of their wheelchair and how an improperly-secured passenger
could fall from their wheelchair. |
Yes |
Yes (judgement for the plaintiff in the amount of $5.0M) |
| 2021 |
Plaintiff |
Defendant was providing wheelchair transportation to decedent, taking
her from her residence to a medical appointment. Driver failed to properly
secure the passenger. Twenty-four seconds into the trip, plaintiff fell
from her wheelchair, fracturing her leg. Rather than call 911 for assistance,
the driver attempted, unsuccessfully, to lift the passenger back into her
wheelchair, causing extreme pain and distress. Trial before a Circuit Court
judge who ruled Mr. Schuch was qualified as an expert and who accepted Mr.
Schuch's testimony as to the standard of care with regard to the use of
a Wheelchair Tiedown and Occupant Restraint System. |
Yes |
Video deposition (judgement for the plaintiff) |
| 2020 |
Defendant |
Adult with cerebral palsy provided a power wheelchair with head array
for operating the wheelchair. Four years after receiving the wheelchair,
the gentleman became pinned against a table, resulting in positional/mechanical
asphyxiation. Plaintiff claiming negligence in ongoing service and repair
of the wheelchair and head array. |
Yes |
No (case settled) |
| 2020 |
Plaintiff |
Plaintiff received a new Action Trackchair. Within one month of acquiring
it, he turned off the wheelchair, plugged it in to charge it, and went to
cover it with a tarp. The wheelchair powered back up and drove over the
plaintiff, causing serious injuries to the plaintiff’s lower extremities.
At issue is whether a wheelchair should be operable while charging. |
Yes |
No (case resolved via mediation) |
| 2020 |
Defendant |
Paratransit driver arrived at Dialysis Center where he was to pick up
a passenger. However, the driver needed to go inside the Dialysis Center
to use the restroom prior to assisting the passenger. As the driver was
entering the Dialysis Center, the passenger unlocked his wheelchair brakes,
rolled forward, and turned the wheelchair. While inside the Dialysis Center,
the passenger rolled down a slope, rolled off the curb, tipped over in his
wheelchair, and fractured his hip. At issue in this case is the duty of
care of the transportation driver and the point at which transportation
assistance begins. |
Yes |
No (case settled) |
| 2018 |
Plaintiff |
Plantiff, who ambulates with a rolling walker, was visiting an automobile
dealership in Las Vegas, Nevada. While exiting the premises, one of the
rear legs of the walker caught on a doormat inside the premises, significantly
buckling the doormat and causing the plaintiff to trip and fall. Provided
opinions related to the design of the walker (specifically, the rear glides,
which are unnecessarily unsafe), the condition of the doormat (which did
not lay flat on the floor), and ADA (in terms of accessible routes). |
Yes |
No (case settled) |
| 2018 |
Plaintiff |
A Maryland Medicaid wheelchair transportation provider was transporting
a passenger to a medical appointment. The driver failed to use the Wheelchair
Tiedown and Occupant Restraint System as needed. The passenger fell from
the wheelchair during transit, breaking both legs. Provided opinions as
to the the applicable ADA regulations and standard of care in transporting
passengers seated in wheelchairs and the multiple breaches of the ADA regulations
and standard of care by the defendants. |
Yes |
No (case settled for $1.5M) |
| 2017 |
Plaintiff |
An elderly woman with Multiple Sclerosis was provided a power wheelchair
with a joystick and electronics that had design defects. The electronics
had 5 programmable "drive" modes, the desired mode selected by
engaging a Down button or an Up button. However, the system was designed
as a circular loop in that repeated engagement of the Down button moved
the wheelchair from drive mode 1, programmed with the slowest and least
responsive parameters, directly into drive mode 5, programmed with the fastest
and most responsive operational parameters. Further, this could be done
while the joystick was being used. While driving the power wheelchair in
her home in drive mode 1, the plaintiff inadvertently bumped the Down button
on the joystick, causing the wheelchair to rapidly accelerate, propelling
the plaintiff and wheelchair into the wall, breaking the plaintiff's leg.
Provided opinions related to the system's defective and unsafe design and
the defendants' failure to provide any warnings on this safety issue. Of
note, other joystick designs are available and used by other wheelchair
manufacturers that do not possess this design defect. |
Yes |
No, case resolved through arbitration. |
| 2017 |
Defendant |
Plaintiff claimed the defendant infringed on a Canadian patent related
to a "mobility aiding device." Provided testimony pertaining to
the qualifications and common general knowledge of the POSITA, construction
of the 18 claims of the patent, rebuttal to the claim of infringement of
2 of the 18 claims, and validity of the 18 claims (anticipation, obviousness,
and mere aggregation). |
|
Yes |
| 2016 |
Defendant |
Plaintiff using a 3-wheel scooter on a cruise ship got temporarily stuck
on an exterior door threshold. Once free, the plaintiff exited the doorway,
drove down a ramp, and made a sharp turn, tipping over. Testified to the
instability of 3-wheel scooters, made worse by the fact that the plaintiff
was a lower extremity amputee, the prevalence of scooter tipover accidents
absent getting stuck on a threshold, and the liklihood that the plaintiff
would have tipped over without becoming stuck prior to exiting the door. |
Yes |
No (case settled) |
| 2015 |
Defendant |
Plaintiff in a skilled nursing facility was using an electronic bed for
2.5 years when a part of the bed broke. The skilled nursing facility continued
to use the bed while waiting for replacement parts. The plaintiff fell from
the bed breaking her leg, which contributed to her death. Testified to the
design of the bed, the functionality of the bed prior to, and after, its
breakage. Offered opinions, based on testing of an exemplar bed, that proved
the fundamental assumptions of the plaintiff's expert were flawed, his opinions
on the cause of the incident, which were based upon his assumptions, were
erroneous, and that the malfunctioning bed did not contribute to the plaintiff's
fall and injuries. |
Yes |
No (case settled) |
| 2014 |
Plaintiff |
Patent infringement case. Inventor of a four-wheel walker (rollator) claimed
that his patent was infringed upon. Retained to investigate that claim. |
No, case settled |
| 2014 |
Defendant |
Power wheelchair rider hit and killed by driver of city fire department
fire truck. |
Yes |
No (case settled) |
| 2014 |
Plaintiff |
Plaintiff was being transported in City's paratransit vehicle. Plaintiff
slid out of wheelchair when City transit driver slammed on brakes, resulting
in broken femur. |
Yes |
No (case settled) |
| 2013 |
Plaintiff |
Resident of skilled care facility was placed in wheelchair with an oxygen
tank on the back, two wheelchair cushions to increase seat height, but no
anti-tippers on the wheelchair. Wheelchair tipped over backwards with resident,
who hit head on concrete floor resulting in significant injuries. |
Yes |
No (case was arbitrated) |
| 2012 |
Defendant |
Obese woman with lower extremity amputations was backing power wheelchair
out of transport van and onto wheelchair lift. Woman accelerated out of
van, hit outer lift barrier, and flipped over backwards, falling to the
ground. Retained to address lift design standards and standards of care
for transporting individuals with disabilities. |
No, case settled |
| 2011 |
Defendant |
17 year old slid out of wheelchair, striking her face on pavement, resulting
in facial and dental injuries. |
Yes |
No (case settled for $25,000) |
| 2010 |
Plaintiff |
Older adult was being assisted at curbside check in of a major airport.
She fell, breaking her hip. |
Yes |
No (case settled) |
| 2010 |
Plaintiff |
Older adult in wheelchair was being transported by public transportation
system. Driver assisting the passenger got her wheelchair stuck on van ramp.
While trying to pull the wheelchair loose, the driver tipped the wheelchair
and passenger over. Passenger landed on ground, suffering serious injuries. |
Yes |
No (case settled) |
| 2006 |
Plaintiff |
Plaintiff had received new power wheelchair and custom contoured seating
system. In very short timeframe, plaintiff developed severe pressure sores
from new wheelchair seating system. |
Yes |
Yes - judgement for plaintiff |
| 2005 |
Plaintiff |
Patient in rehabilitation hospital was being provided a bath. She was
assisted to a shower chair that was improperly set up. Padded seat fell
off and a part of the shower chair structural tubing impaled the plaintiff.
Plaintiff died. |
Yes |
(defendant admitted liability) |
| 2005 |
Defendant |
Plaintiff claimed vendor provided power wheelchair without antitip bars.
Upon accessing the ramp to plaintiff's home, plaintiff claims to have tipped
rearward, suffering head injury. Retained to assess the general safety of
the wheelchair, the ramp, and the liklihood of the chair tipping as decribed
by eyewitness testimony. |
Yes |
Yes
(verdict for the defense)
|
| 2003 |
Plaintiff |
Plaintiff received walker from vendor. However, vendor combined legs of
walker from one vendor with frame of walker from another walker. The components
were incompatible, resulting in the collapse of the walker, and a femoral
fracture suffered by the plaintiff. |
No (defendant did not challenge my findings) |
No |
| 2003 |
Defendant |
Rear tip of manual wheelchair. |
Yes |
No
(plaintiff dropped case) |
