Specific-causation exposure documentation

File the cases you're holding.

You signed them. The clock started. You can't file, because you can't price causation, and you won't put your docket behind a report that falls apart in a deposition. We build the record that doesn't.

Exposure record  /  extractVerification layer: active
Plaintiff resided at [address], served by [public water system]PWSID verified
System sources from HUC12 [code] at [coordinates]Geocode in region
Residency [start] to [end], preceding diagnosis of [condition]Timing precedes dx
Discharge from [facility], NPDES [permit]Permit active, EPA
Discharge from [facility]No permit on file, held
Every field validated before it is written.Nothing unverified reaches the page.
What's actually stopping you

A filed case starts a clock. An unfiled case starts a different one.

Every case you signed carries a statute of limitations running against it. Every case you file carries a causation report deadline running behind it. You're caught between the two, and the reason is almost never the merits. It's that causation documentation has no fixed price, so you can't know the case economics before you commit.

The facial challenge

The report doesn't meet the legal requirement of a report, regardless of whether the opinion is sound. Missing references. Absent Bates numbers. A permit number that isn't in EPA's system.

The opinion never gets reached. This is the challenge available to the defense today, without an expert of their own.

The sham finding

Your physician is deposed. He's asked how the facilities were selected, what the hydrology shows, and whether he understood the analysis before he signed. He compiled none of it. He understood less.

A sham finding doesn't take down one report. It reaches every report that physician signed.

Recent contamination data proves the water is contaminated now. Injury requires proving exposure before the diagnosis. Those are different cases, and only one of them is yours.
The distinction most exposure tools miss
Who you'd be working with

We've been where your docket is.

Two disciplines, neither of them software. One built the exposure analysis by hand, at volume, in this litigation. The other spent seventeen years in a job where a single unverified fact ends a career.

The exposure analysis

John Ray

[Title]  ·  Exposure and causation methodology

[John's bio, in his words, pending his review and written confirmation of each credential.]

The Long Island aquifer behaves like nothing else in the country. Nothing learned there transfers anywhere else. That's why the analysis is built system by system, and why it can't be scaled by assumption.

  • [Verified credential]
  • [Verified credential]
  • [Verified credential]
The verification discipline

Christine Haas

Founder, Christine Haas Media  ·  Verification and documentation standard

Christine Haas spent 17 years in broadcast journalism as an investigative reporter and anchor in San Diego, Houston and Austin. Her reporting changed Texas law and was entered into Congressional testimony.

That work built the discipline that governs this record: every claim traced to a primary source, or it does not run. She applies the same standard here that she applies to her own firm's claims.

  • 7-time Emmy Award-winning investigative journalist
  • National and regional Edward R. Murrow Awards
  • More than two dozen Associated Press awards
  • Cited by Forbes and Fox News as a reputation and crisis expert
The plan

Three steps, and the first one costs you nothing.

You don't have to commit a docket to find out whether this works.

Step one

Send one matter

A single plaintiff file. You get back the exposure record, the verification log, and a list of everything in your own file that didn't survive checking. No cost, no commitment.

Step two

Agree the price before the batch

Fixed cost per report, agreed in writing before any work starts. You know the case economics before you decide to file. No hourly expert exposure. No open-ended hydrology invoice.

Step three

File

Records delivered on your timeline, each one with its verification log. Your physician reads the methodology basis before he signs, so when he's deposed, he can answer.

What you receive

Per plaintiff. Built to be filed, and built to be defended.

01
The exposure record
Residency history, water system identification, watershed sourcing, and the discharging facilities whose releases reached the intake points, in the language the filing requires.
02
The verification log
Every field checked before it was written. Permit numbers confirmed against EPA. Water systems confirmed against SDWIS. Coordinates confirmed in region. Residency confirmed to precede diagnosis. What passed, what was held, and why.
03
The methodology basis
The analysis underneath the record. Not filed with it. Read by your signing physician before signature, so that when he's asked how the facilities were chosen, he can answer.
04
The deposition file
The questions opposing counsel will ask your physician, and where in the record each answer lives. Prepared before the notice arrives, not after.
What's at stake

The difference is one deposition.

Without this

The report is what costs you, not the science.

A defense lawyer doesn't have to touch the hydrology. He challenges the form, or he deposes the doctor. Either one is cheaper than fighting your case.

  • Cases held past the statute because the economics never penciled
  • A facial challenge on a report nobody proofread on deadline
  • A sham finding that reaches every report that physician signed
  • Sub-par settlement offers, because they know you can't try it
With this

You file, at a price you knew going in.

The record holds. The physician can answer. The gaps in your file reached you before they reached opposing counsel.

  • Fixed cost per report, agreed before the batch
  • Every fact traced to a primary source, or held
  • A physician who read the analysis before he signed it
  • A docket you can actually take to trial, and they know it
The standard

What we will not do.

The value of this record is what it withstands. That's a function of what we refuse to put in it.

01

No unverified fact reaches the page. If a permit identifier doesn't appear in EPA's system, it's flagged and held. It doesn't get written and cleaned up later.

02

The system doesn't form opinions. It records determinations made by a human expert and applies them consistently. Asked who determined that a facility reached an intake, the answer is a name and a date, not a model.

03

Ambiguity is disclosed, not resolved quietly. Where an address could be served by more than one system, we flag it for review. We don't choose.

04

The physician reads the analysis before signing. A signature on an unread report is a sham finding waiting for a deposition notice.

05

The gaps are documented. You receive what failed verification alongside what passed. The problems in your file should reach you before they reach opposing counsel.

06

The record is not styled. An expert report is a legal instrument, not a marketing asset. It's delivered plain, in the form the court expects. This website is the only designed thing you'll get from us.

Next

Send one matter.

You get the exposure record, the verification log, and a list of everything in your own file that didn't survive checking. Then decide whether to send the rest.

Send one matter
Verified Exposure  ·  Austin, Texas
hello@verifiedexposure.com
Media

Quoted, on the record.

Selected coverage of Christine Haas. Each entry links to the original. Everything above the interviews section is a reporter's byline, not a placement.

Send one matter.

The fastest way to evaluate this is to hand us a file and see what comes back.

Send one matter