___

Safety Officials Shy on Grounding Chopper

by Andrew Heasley
The Age (Australia)

Aviation safety officials have again baulked at grounding a popular type of helicopter with a known fire risk, despite investigating another crash in which two people were burnt alive.

The latest investigation involves the crash of another Robinson R44 helicopter, which is widely used by joy flight and charter operators. The investigation again highlights a known problem with its fuel tank design that allows petrol to spill out on impact or if the aircraft tips over. Yet a recommended fuel tank modification kit to cut the risk of fire remains in scarce supply, and no safety regulator has made it compulsory.

The drama aboard the Robinson R44 began when a lock-nut holding flight control linkages together broke soon after take-off from Cessnock Aerodrome in New South Wales on February 4 last year, rendering the chopper uncontrollable. A flying instructor wrestled the controls but the helicopter banked sharply, hit the runway, tipped on its side, and burst into flames. One pilot on board managed to scramble out of the wreckage but the injured instructor and a passenger trapped inside were incinerated. ”Fatal injuries sustained … were due to the post-impact fire,” investigators said.

Advertisement: Story continues below A year to the day later, two prominent filmmakers, Australian Andrew Wight and a US colleague, Mike deGruy, were killed in a fiery Robinson R44 crash at Jaspers Brush, NSW. That investigation continues.

US aviation lawyer Ladd Sanger told The Age Robinson knew since 2006 the R44 had a fatal fuel-system design flaw. High-mounted fuel tanks, made of rigid aluminium, can split on impact, and poor tank vent design allows fuel to pour into the cabin if the helicopter tips over. In response, Robinson devised a flexible fuel bladder and fuel lines, a vent valve and a redesigned rotor switch to cut the fire risk, but the $US6800 ($A6489) kits are in limited supply. As of March, only about 25 fuel bladder kits were earmarked for Australia’s fleet of more than 450 R44s. Neither R44 helicopters involved in the fiery crashes at Cessnock or Jaspers Brush had been retrofitted with the tank bladders.

The US Federal Aviation Administration – whose lead Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority follows – has baulked at mandating the modifications or grounding the helicopters.

But CASA is becoming increasingly uneasy with the situation. ”If there is evidence fuel systems are not being replaced in a timely fashion CASA will consider if further action is necessary,” a spokesman said. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau says it ”is satisfied that the action taken by the helicopter manufacturer will, when completed, adequately address the safety issue”, despite finding the number of R44s without tank bladders a ‘’significant safety issue”.

Link to story.

It’s that “collegial” atmosphere that has also helped his law firm, Slack & Davis, become one of Austin’s preeminent law firms when it comes to personal injury and products liability. Davis and his fellow attorneys truly care about their clients. That commitment makes him the best candidate for this week’s Wednesday interview.

1. Describe your legal practice.
I lead our firm’s personal injury and products liability practice, representing victims of life-altering and catastrophic incidents related to commercial truck and automobile collisions; oilfield, electrical, and construction site accidents; and defective products including drugs and medical devices, tires and child safety seats.

2. What are the biggest challenges of those you interact with on the legal front and what is the key to helping them resolve those challenges?
The clients I represent come to us at what is probably the lowest point of their lives. They have experienced personal loss and/or injury, and are going through the process of getting their lives back in order. People in this vulnerable state need reassurance and a reliable team to help them navigate the legal process. Because our clients frequently have neither the power nor the resources to take on powerful defendants and their insurance carriers, we have to be prepared to supply the resources, legal skills and experience necessary to level the playing field for them.

3. What are the advantages to practicing law in Austin?
I come from five generations of Austin residents. Growing up in Austin, I knew I lived in a special place. A lot has changed, of course, but Austin is still special and unique. That uniqueness extends to the Austin legal community. Although we have become a big city and cannot completely escape some of the attributes of a big, urban practice, the Austin bar continues to be more collegial than most. There are still some elements of a smaller-town practice. You can still count on the word or handshake of lawyers you know or have worked with over the years rather than working under a cloud of distrust in which you have to have every little thing documented, signed and filed with the court.

4. How would you improve the legal profession if you could?
I would work to make the judicial system more open and accessible to those who need it. Over the past several years, laws and rules have made it increasingly difficult for the average citizen to gain access to the courthouse. I fear that we are quickly approaching a time when only the rich and powerful will have the ability to access the judicial system. I would like to see some balance restored to the system.

5. Who or what was your biggest influence in becoming a lawyer and why?
My parents. My dad’s influence is fairly obvious. He was one of the first lawyers in Austin to represent injured people. He went on to serve as president of both the Texas Trial Lawyers Association and the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (now American Association for Justice). I grew up traveling around the country with my dad as he spoke at various legal seminars. But my mom also played a role. Mom was always the champion of the underdog – always willing to take a stray animal or a stray kid under her wing. My parents taught me to help people in need and to stand up for those who cannot protect themselves. I like to believe that is what we do as personal injury attorneys.

The undersigned is an attorney, aerospace engineer and active pilot currently representing several spectators injured in the Reno crash.  These comments are based upon evidence and testimony presented during the January 10, 2012 hearing, prior investigations conducted by the NTSB as well as interviews with spectators and persons associated with race teams and information in the public domain.

The Reno Air Races are conducted on a closed ovoid course, defined by pylons, where multiple aircraft race together in a “first to finish” fashion.  The basic concept is similar to oval track auto racing.  In contrast, the Red Bull Air Race Series features single aircraft flying around a closed pylon course and the order of finish is determined by fastest time around the course.

The Reno crash presents a number of safety issues or risk areas for spectators and race pilots that are worthy of the Board’s attention.  In summary, the basic risk areas include:

1)      Spectator exposure - the risk that spectators could be involved in a mishap involving race participants;

2)      Aircraft fitness - the risk that an aircraft could experience structural failure or loss of control when being operated at race airspeeds;

3)      Pilot fitness - the risk that a pilot could become incapacitated and unable to operate the aircraft controls; and

4)      Aircraft collisions - the risk that aircraft flying in close formation could come in contact.

Spectator Exposure

The Reno crash sequence, while still under investigation, appears to have initiated after an elevator trim tab on a highly modified P-51 separated from the aircraft causing the aircraft to go out of control.  The pilot was apparently incapacitated during the resulting sequence of events and was unable to regain control of the aircraft before crashing into an area occupied by spectators.

The NTSB’s Preliminary Report on the Reno crash describes the crash sequence as follows, “The airplane had completed several laps and was in a steep left turn towards the home pylon when, according to photographic evidence, the airplane suddenly banked momentarily to the left before banking to the right, turning away from the race course, and pitching to a steep nose-high attitude.  After roll and pitch variations, the airplane descended in an extremely nose-low attitude and collided with the ground in the box seat area near the center of the grandstand seating area.”

At the time of the incipient event, the kinetic energy of the impaired aircraft was directed generally toward the spectator seating area, which is situated near the home pylon.  A diagram of the race course submitted by the Reno Air Race Association illustrates that, on each lap, the energy of multiple aircraft converging on the home pylon is generally directed at the spectator seating areas.  Therefore, any incident during the race that results in the loss of control of one or more race aircraft converging on the home pylon poses a serious risk of harm to spectators.

There are several historical examples of aircraft racing at Reno involving a loss of control.  Documented loss-of-control situations at the Reno Air Races have occurred following engine failures, collisions involving other aircraft and structural failures.

Prior to 2011, at least two (2) race aircraft have experienced documented structural failures with resulting loss of control while racing.  In 1998, a modified P-51 lost a left trim tab resulting in a high-g loss of control un-commanded upward pitch.  The pilot managed to regain control after becoming unconscious and landed the aircraft (http://www.warbird.com/voodoo.html).  In 1999, another modified P-51 experienced rudder flutter resulting in a catastrophic airframe failure.

Because control was regained by the pilot in the 1998 incident, no one was injured.  The 1999 incident occurred just after the aircraft had begun its turn past Pylon 1, directing its energy away from the spectators.  However, the resulting structural failure produced a complete loss of control and the aircraft impacted the ground approximately one mile east of the airport, and the wreckage debris was spread over a half-mile northeasterly path.  Media reports stated that one person on the ground was injured, a home was damaged and power was knocked out in the neighborhood where the plane crashed.  This incident underscores the distance that an impaired, uncontrolled race aircraft can travel after loss of control.

The obvious consequence of the race course layout and spectator viewing areas at Reno, when the litany of loss-of-control incidents at Reno is considered, is that spectators have long been and will continue to be at risk if an aircraft loses control when the energy of the racing aircraft is directed towards the spectator area.  The fact that the race organizers have not taken the initiative to modify the race course and relocate the spectator areas to segregate spectators from the energy of the racing aircraft is surprising given the prior incidents.  Had the 1999 incident occurred while the plane was converging on the home pylon, it is very likely that a mass disaster involving spectators and the public would have resulted.

A review of the incidents that have occurred at the Reno Air Races over the years seems to substantiate the conclusion that an uncontrolled race aircraft poses the greatest risk to spectators.  The 1999 incident illustrates that this risk extends to populated areas proximate to the Reno racing venue.  Mitigating or eliminating loss-of-control scenarios or confining the consequences to an area void of spectators or the public would therefore seem to greatly reduce the likelihood of another tragedy like that which occurred in 2011.

The testimony and evidence provided by the International Council of Air Shows and various air show performers is that air show aircraft are confined to a defined area or “box” and that area is offset from the spectators by an appropriate distance relative to the energy associated with the performing aircraft.  The performing aircraft is also required to conduct its maneuvers parallel to spectators with no energy directed toward the spectator area while the performing aircraft is airborne.  Consequently, the air show community has not experienced any spectator casualties since these criteria were adopted.  Adopting a similar approach to energy management and segregation of spectators from the airborne aircraft would appear to present a significant risk mitigation opportunity for the Reno Air Races.

Aircraft Fitness

The incidents in 1998, 1999 and 2011 all involved structural failures on highly modified P-51 aircraft participating in the Unlimited class.  Unlimited class aircraft operate at very high airspeeds, often exceeding 500 mph.  The website for the Galloping Ghost, the aircraft that crashed in 2011, describes the aircraft as “heavily race modified” with a maximum airspeed of 550 mph at 5,000 mean sea level (http://www.leewardairranch.com/racing/galloping-ghost-specs).  Persons familiar with the modifications to the Galloping Ghost have indicated that the elevator trim system, among other aircraft systems, had been extensively modified.

The Galloping Ghost, like most of the other Unlimited class aircraft, was highly modified from its original design and performance specifications.  Such aircraft operate at very high airspeeds, resulting in very high dynamic pressure and aerodynamic loads.  The inertial loads or acceleration forces (often referred to in “g’s”) imposed on the structures due to maneuvering are also significant.

Conversations with persons who possess extensive race and aircraft support experience with the Reno Air Races reveal rather perfunctory maintenance-style aircraft inspections with little or no substantive attention paid to evaluating the effect of aircraft modifications on static and dynamic structural integrity or the aircraft’s stability and control characteristics.  This lack of attention to the cumulative effect of modifications on the structural integrity of race aircraft is borne out by the history of structural failures at the Reno Air Races.

Since a structural failure of a control surface or other critical aircraft structure is likely to produce an uncontrollable aircraft, mitigating the risks associated with the Reno Air Race format would suggest implementation of more rigorous substantiation requirements, similar to the procedures described by the Red Bull racing representative.  The substantiation requirements should assess static, dynamic and aeroelastic characteristics of the modified aircraft and produce at least a 99% or greater probability that no critical structural failure will occur within the airspeed range of a given race class.

Pilot Fitness

The 1998 incident bears very strong similarities to the 2011 Reno crash.  The primary, and tragic, difference is that the 1998 pilot regained consciousness and control of the aircraft and landed safely.  Both pilots obviously experienced very significant positive acceleration forces after the trim tabs failed.  The altitude gained by both aircraft immediately after the tab failure substantiates the high positive acceleration forces.  The aircraft reaction and resulting acceleration forces were confirmed by the pilot of the 1998 aircraft.

Aside from the risk of high acceleration forces imposed after a mishap or event, the race pilots experience sustained high accelerations while racing.  The exposure of pylon-racing pilots to sustained and extremely demanding flight conditions was recognized by the organizers of the Red Bull series and their testimony revealed that special fitness criteria and screening were implemented at the initial pilot screening level as well as before races.

Given the rather obvious implications that pilot fitness has for maintaining aircraft control, more rigorous pilot fitness criteria should be developed by the Reno Air Race organizers to ensure that race pilots can retain control during races or in the event of an unexpected high g event.

Aircraft Collisions/Multiple Aircraft

The history of incidents at the Reno Air Races includes instances when loss of control was caused by race aircraft colliding (http://check-six.com/RTSMishapList.htm).  At the Reno Air Races, aircraft are raced in multi-aircraft heats.  The proximity of the aircraft, the course and the speeds involved make the likelihood of an in-flight collision very significant.  Once a collision occurs, the resulting probability of a loss of control by one or more of the involved aircraft is high.  The history of collisions at Reno substantiates this conclusion.

There is no risk of aircraft-to-aircraft collisions associated with the Red Bull format since there is only one aircraft on the course at a time.  Thus, the extent to which collisions contribute to loss-of-control scenarios has been eliminated in the Red Bull format.

There is no apparent risk rationale utilized by the Reno Air Race organizers to determine how many aircraft should be racing in a given heat within a certain class of aircraft or at various airspeeds.  A thorough risk assessment of the multiple-aircraft collision scenarios, where risk is assessed as a function of number of aircraft in a heat, would seem to yield important safety information that could mitigate the risk of collisions and a resulting loss of control.

Recommendations

1)      Direct the Federal Aviation Administration to require the Reno Air Race Association, if not done voluntarily and sufficiently by the race organizers, to submit a revised course and spectator layout that segregates spectators and those not directly participating in the race from the energy of converging aircraft.  The scheme adopted by the International Council of Air Shows, which orients spectators away from and parallel to the energy of performing aircraft, has resulted in no spectator injuries or deaths since being adopted.

2)      Direct the Federal Aviation Administration to require the Reno Air Race Association, if not done voluntarily and sufficiently by the race organizers, to develop stricter and more comprehensive standards for determining the structural integrity and controllability of aircraft which operate at higher airspeeds.  As a minimum, modified aircraft seeking to compete in the Unlimited class should receive an engineering assessment of fitness before being permitted to participate.

3)      Direct the Federal Aviation Administration to require the Reno Air Race Association, if not done voluntarily and sufficiently by the race organizers, to develop stricter and more comprehensive standards for pilot fitness, including criteria that would ensure that race pilots are capable of operating the aircraft at extreme levels of momentary, very high acceleration forces and sustained levels of racing acceleration forces.

4)      Direct the Federal Aviation Administration to require the Reno Air Race Association, if not done voluntarily and sufficiently by the race organizers, to prepare a risk model showing the levels of risk associated with different numbers of aircraft participating in race heats.

SLACK & DAVIS, L.L.P.

Michael L. Slack

(512) 795-8686

———

Cause of St. Mary copter crash still unclear
By Eric Heisig, Thibodaux Daily Comet (Louisiana)
Published: Tuesday, February 7, 2012

What exactly caused the helicopter crash in St. Mary Parish last month that killed two men remains unclear, according to a report released Monday by the National Transportation and Safety Board.

Lanny Ledet, 43, of Gheens, and Jason McKean, 40, of Amite, were killed when their helicopter, a 2006 Robinson R-44 owned by Cenac Marine Services of Houma, crashed on Jan. 19 in a remote area near Belle Isle about 13 miles southwest of Morgan City, authorities said.

Ledet was a longtime employee of the Cenac’s Golden Ranch Plantation, while McKean was a pilot for Chet Morrison Contractors in Houma. The pair took off from the Houma-Terrebonne Airport and were headed to a business meeting in Plaquemines Parish, authorities said, though they had taken a detour over St. Mary Parish.

An autopsy performed by the St. Mary Coroner’s Office reported that Ledet and McKean died from blunt-force injuries sustained in the crash.

On Monday, the NTSB released a preliminary report giving more details about the crash, though it did not say what caused it. The report says there was good weather, and “several witnesses reported seeing the helicopter circling at (a) low altitude and said the pilot waved at them.”

Nobody reported seeing the crash, the report says, but witnesses heard the impact, saw smoke and put out the flaming wreckage with extinguishers.

A full report that includes the probable cause will take up to 18 months to complete.

Ladd Sanger, a Dallas-based aviation law specialist and helicopter pilot, said the Robinson R-44 helicopter has a history of catching fire after crashes due to a problem with its internal fuel system.

“There are at least 20 instances where a Robinson is involved in a crash that had a post-crash fire where it shouldn’t have happened,” Sanger said, adding that the problem causing the fires was fixed in helicopters made after December 2010 and that replacement parts were made available to those with older models. “I’m glad to see Robinson was proactive in changing the design of the helicopter, but there are still a lot of old ones out there that have this (faulty) design.”

This is the second Robinson R-44 helicopter to be involved in a fatal crash in the past month. On Saturday, two people died in Australia when their helicopter crashed soon after takeoff.

Sanger said the details of that crash are similar to the one in St. Mary, and it is peculiar that both caught on fire.

“This helicopter and the Australian helicopter were at relatively low altitudes and air speed, and there were tremendous post-crash fires,” Sanger said. “If the occupants survived the crash, they obviously did not survive the post-crash fire.”

Sanger also said R-44 models have been known to have issues maintaining blade speed while maneuvering. A maneuver can cause the blades to slow down, Sanger said, which can make the helicopter quickly drop.

Between 2001 and 2010, out of 1,768 helicopter crashes, 136 of those involved the R-44 model, NSTB statistics say.

A request for comment from Robinson Helicopters was not immediately returned.

Chet Morrison and Cenac share a helicopter hangar at the airport, though it is still unknown why McKean was flying Cenac’s helicopter. Representatives from Chet Morrison have said McKean was not flying on their business.

Arnold Scott, NTSB investigator and the report’s author, did not immediately return a phone call.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Link to story here.

The firm’s donation pushed the campaign over the $750,000 goal, helping it reach new heights in the history of the campaign. Mr. Sanger and Ms. Sweeney, representing Slack & Davis’ Dallas office, are “glad to help this important program and continue the firm’s tradition of serving the community.” Click to read full story about Slack & Davis’ donation.

This event falls into a genre of cases involving harm to spectators at events. While this is the first reported occurrence involving injuries to spectators at an air racing event, there have been prior occurrences and instances where multiple injuries and deaths have resulted at events such as air shows and auto racing. In most of those instances, the resulting allegations have been directed at the event sponsors and organizers for placing spectators in the foreseeable zone of danger.

This particular occurrence involves injuries and deaths to persons on the ground caused by the high speed crash of an aircraft in proximity to spectators. Our aviation expertise will matter and will become a significant factor benefitting our clients in these cases. Because we are pilots, because we have experience flying aircraft of the type flown in air races, and because we have years of experience with aviation activities and events like this, we understand the unique circumstances associated with air racing.

One common area of concern raised by our clients is whether the involvement of lawyers will cause the National Championship Air Races to end as a result of this occurrence. We do not know. There will be many other factors that influence the future of the air races besides the civil justice system. But we understand our clients’ concerns and we take them seriously. Our clients, as well as many others attending the event, are enthusiastic air racing fans. They are concerned about lawyers who are not familiar with the sport or with aviation getting involved, seeking publicity for themselves and pursuing unfounded and misguided allegations. This is a legitimate concern and one that we have had on our minds since this tragedy unfolded. We will seek a leadership role in this matter, as we have done in every major aviation catastrophe in which we have been involved, and will do everything within our power to prevent the inexperience of and opportunism by others from adversely influencing the proper course of this litigation and our clients’ cases.

Our first and only commitment to our clients is to secure optimum compensation for them and their families from the responsible parties as efficiently as we can. We will always maintain that goal as our highest priority. As with every aviation case we handle, we are thoroughly investigating the totality of circumstances. Only after we have investigated and assessed the factual information and legal options will we bring claims. Even then, claims will only be brought against those responsible parties whose negligence was a cause of the occurrence and harm to our clients.

During the course of our representation, we will formulate specific recommendations for improving air racing safety and eliminating manageable risks to spectators and racers.  Over the years, we have succeeded in prompting many changes to the aviation industry by proactively seeking affirmative safety measures in the aftermath of a tragedy. Besides our clients, we have friends and colleagues who are involved in air racing. They are at risk also. We are strongly committed to playing a constructive role in this tragedy to improve the margins of safety for both spectators and racers. As we have demonstrated in our lengthy history of representing families touched by air crash tragedy, aggressive and skilled representation will produce optimum compensation, but it can also produce tangible safety changes which reduce or eliminate the risk of a future tragedy.  – Michael L. Slack

Just months after announcing that Paula Fisette Sweeney has joined Slack & Davis, dramatically enhancing and expanding the firm’s major personal injury and wrongful death litigation practice, Slack & Davis announced today that John Jose, formerly of Jose, Henry, Brantley, MacLean & Alvarado, has joined the burgeoning legal powerhouse.

Jose, who started his firm in 1984, said that he leaves his fellow attorneys in Fort Worth on amicable grounds.

“This decision was really more about the opportunity to work with Mike (Slack) and Mike (Davis) as well as Paula, who is a rock star,” said Jose.

While many of Jose’s successes in key personal injury practice areas go unreported because of confidentiality agreements, others have been reported, illustrating his capability as a plaintiff’s attorney.

One example of this occurred recently when he secured a $24 million settlement against a trucking company, which was found liable in an accident that killed a Tarrant County mother. The settlement was one of the county’s largest in a wrongful death suit involving a single fatality.

“Time and time again, John has proven himself as a steward for those who have been harmed through the fault of others,” said Slack & Davis co-founder and partner Mike Davis. “His experience will be invaluable at our firm.”

Slack & Davis now has 10 attorneys, with offices in Austin, Dallas and Fort Worth. The new Fort Worth office is located at 100 Lexington Avenue, Suite 70, Fort Worth, Texas 76102; 817.288.8988; 817.288.8999 (FAX).

Note: The new Fort Worth office is currently under construction. Call the number above for updates and information.

Case details
Airplane mechanic Larry Hagerman, of Pflugerville, Texas, was killed on April 10, 2008, when the door of a pressurized airplane opened explosively and struck his head. Mr. Hagerman was opening the door from the outside after the plane had landed at Taylor Municipal Airport. The airplane, a Hawker Beechcraft Corporation King Air model B200, was operated by Defendant Pumpco, Inc. and piloted by Defendant Albert Sidaras.

Slack & Davis sued Hawker Beechcraft Corporation for negligence, claiming defective design of the aircraft’s depressurization system and other inadequate systems and procedures. They also sued operator Pumpco, Inc. and pilot Albert Sidaras for negligence in failing to depressurize the aircraft or warn Larry Hagerman that the aircraft was still pressurized.

The plaintiffs settled with Hawker Beechcraft Corporation before trial for $1,800,000.

The verdict
In handing down the $6.82 million verdict to Mr. Hagerman’s two teenagers, the Belton, Texas, jury placed 80% of the responsibility on the aircraft operator. The settling party, Hawker Beechcraft Corporation, was found to have only 20% of the responsibility for negligence and defective design causing Mr. Hagerman’s death.

The case was tried against a settlement offer of $900,000 from the pilot/operator.

“The jury’s finding that Larry Hagerman was not negligent – and that the damages resulting from his death were substantial – validated our belief that this jury would be fair when asked to hear the evidence and measure the loss to his family and to this community,” said Mark Pierce of Slack & Davis, L.L.P., lead trial counsel for the Hagerman family.

Pierce tried the case with Slack & Davis’ name partner Michael Slack, an Austin attorney who is highly regarded nationally and internationally in aviation law. “With this decision, the jury made a clear and courageous statement on behalf of aviation safety,” Slack said.

Attorney Fletcher Rhodes of Temple, Texas, served as local counsel for the plaintiffs. Attorneys Robert Ruckman and James Struble of Jackson Walker L.L.P. (Dallas) represented the defendants along with their local counsel, John Francis.

“Bringing Paula and her firm into Slack & Davis completes the circle,” said co-founder and managing partner Michael L. Slack. “John Howie was a friend and mentor. After his untimely passing, and in accordance with John’s wishes, we immediately brought in Ladd Sanger, who was a prominent aviation attorney at Howie & Sweeney. This helped our firm build a national and international reputation in aviation law. However, our other major, non-aviation litigation areas are just as vital. With Paula’s addition, the transition is complete. She has the skills and talent to handle any of our cases.”

Sweeney thoughtfully weighed her options before joining Slack & Davis.

“We have been friends for more than 30 years,” said Sweeney in explaining her decision. “They are not only tremendous lawyers, but spectacular people as well.”

She added that “the merger of the two firms represents an exciting blend of personalities and ideas. The cultures of the two firms are already so similar. We’re both very passionate and dedicated to representing people who have suffered because of the actions or negligence of others.”

Co-founder and partner Mike Davis agreed, noting that leveraging Paula’s expertise in several dynamic areas, particularly medical malpractice, medical device products liability and pharmaceuticals, will help the firm strengthen its diverse practice.

“We knew all along that Paula could be a tremendous addition to our firm,” said Davis. “Paula is a big-case, big-time trial lawyer. Since these are the types of cases we handle, there will be many clients who will benefit from Paula’s extraordinary skills.”

About Paula Sweeney
Sweeney is board certified in Personal Injury Trial Law. She is a past president of the Dallas Trial Lawyers Association (1991), past president of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association (1998), and past president of the Dallas Chapter of the American Board of Trial Advocates (2001). Sweeney has also been a Governor of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America and is a former member of the Board of Directors of the State Bar of Texas. She has been appointed to significant positions by the Supreme Court of Texas, including the Supreme Court Rules Advisory Committee, on which she served for 14 years; the Supreme Court Task Force on Medical Malpractice Discovery; the Supreme Court Task Force on The Jury Charge; and the Pattern Jury Charge Committee, on which she served for more than 10 years. Sweeney is a fellow in the American College of Trial Lawyers and the International Academy of Trial Lawyers and was recently admitted to the International Society of Barristers.