Featured Articles

by Major General (Retired) Boe Young
Military Expert Witness Group

Personal injury claims involving military service members frequently include allegations that an accident ended a promising career. When plaintiffs assert that an injury prevented continued service, that often translates into projected losses that include decades of future military pay, missed promotions, and substantial pension benefits. Because military compensation structures are unique — and North Carolina is home to large military communities spanning active-duty, Guard, and Reserve populations — defense attorneys and insurers must carefully assess these claims. Properly evaluating military career trajectories, advancement expectations, and benefit systems is essential to building a realistic and defensible economic model.

Evaluating Service Potential: A Two-Part Analysis

When assessing whether a service member truly lost a military career, we focus on two core questions:

1. Was the individual truly on track for continued service?

Military advancement is performance-based, not automatic. A service member’s personnel file is central to understanding their competitiveness. Promotion boards review performance reports, training history, leadership potential, and completion of required professional military and civilian education. Comparing a plaintiff’s record against these objective benchmarks — including historical board outcomes — helps determine whether their career momentum supported their damages claim.

2. Did the service have a demand for someone of their skills and rank?

Even strong performers may face limited opportunities if the service is downsizing or reshaping its force structure. We examine published force-management data, promotional opportunity metrics, and trends in specialty demand. Understanding how the military allocates human capital across career fields is critical to determining whether a long-term career was realistically available to the plaintiff and for how long.

Once these issues are understood, we separate fact from assumption. For example, plaintiffs often assume an uninterrupted career path extending to 20 years of service. In reality, many military members serve under short-term contracts and may not even be eligible to reenlist without meeting performance criteria. These details significantly affect projected tenure and retirement eligibility.

With the factual foundation clarified, we model potential career outcomes and compensation streams using DoD pay tables, statutory formulas, and established regulations. These projections typically account for base pay, allowances (BAH and BAS), special or incentive pay, health-care value, and, if applicable, retirement benefits.

The Weight of Retirement in Damages Models

In many military-related injury cases, the largest component of alleged economic loss involves retirement benefits — particularly the value of an immediate, lifetime active-duty pension. Because military pensions are indexed for inflation and continue for life, the total value can reach seven figures.

A Brief Overview of Military Retirement Systems

Active-Duty Retirement (20-Year Retirement)

Members who complete 20 years of service qualify for an immediate pension. Under the Blended Retirement System (BRS) which was implemented in 2018, members receive a smaller defined benefit than under the legacy system but gain matching contributions to the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), which works similar to a 401K plan.

Reserve/Guard Retirement

Reserve Retirement is earned through accumulated “points” for drills, active service, training, and other duties. Retired pay usually starts at age 60, although many reserve members can qualify for earlier receipt.

Disability Retirement

Those medically retired with a DoD disability rating of at least 30% receive an immediate monthly retirement benefit and lifetime access to military health care. Disability retirement is separate and distinct from VA disability benefits.

Understanding the nuances of these systems — and whether the plaintiff likely would have qualified for any of them — is crucial. Understanding how they mesh with VA benefits, is crucial to comprehend.

Examples Illustrating the Importance of Record-Based Review

The Navy Commander and the Unlikely Promotion to Captain (O-6)

One case involved a Navy Commander who asserted she would have been promoted to Captain, significantly increasing her projected pension value. However, her file showed three non-selections — a critical issue in the Navy’s strict up-or-out system. Historical board data confirmed that further promotion was improbable. Once these facts were presented, the opposing expert withdrew their opinion entirely.

The Army Major Missing a Key Educational Requirement

Another plaintiff, an Army Major, claimed he was on track for promotion to Lieutenant Colonel. Although promotion rates at that level can be favorable, a deeper review revealed he had never attended the mandatory professional military education required for promotion. Without that credential, his upward trajectory was far from guaranteed. Incorporating this fact substantially reduced the claimed damages.

A Marine NCO With a Strong, Well-Documented Career

In contrast, a Marine Corps Non-Commissioned Officer medically retired after a vehicle accident had an exemplary record — meritorious promotions, superior performance, and combat deployments. Given her career timing and trajectory, she appeared likely to advance. Nevertheless, we modeled multiple scenarios to reflect varying probabilities of promotion, offering the court a balanced, transparent picture.

These examples illustrate a consistent theme: military personnel files and objective promotion data often tell a more reliable story than assumptions made in the initial damages claim.

Distinguishing the Major Benefit Systems

Confusion often arises between three separate programs: VA disability compensation, military disability retirement, and disability severance pay. Each carries different legal implications and must be treated correctly in damages analysis.

VA Disability Compensation

A tax-free benefit is paid monthly by the Department of Veterans Affairs for service-connected conditions. It does not represent lost earnings and is separate from military retirement.

Military Disability Retirement

A DoD-administered retirement system for members who cannot continue service due to qualifying disabilities. It functions like a pension and includes long-term health care benefits.

Disability Severance Pay

A one-time lump sum given to members separated for medical reasons with a DoD disability rating below 30%. It is not a retirement benefit and may or may not be considered a setoff depending on jurisdiction.

Misunderstanding the interactions among these systems can lead to inaccurate valuations — sometimes significantly inflating damages.

Beyond Pay: Additional Components of Military Compensation

Military earnings include more than salary. When assessing lost earnings, ensure the following are accounted for:

• Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) – monthly housing allowance that varies based on location and rank.
• Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS) – monthly allowance for food, which varies based on enlisted/officer and rank.
• Special and incentive pay (e.g., aviation pay, language incentives, reenlistment bonuses) – these can be a major factor in total remuneration and are frequently overlooked.
• Health-care benefits for members and families. Both reserve and active retirements include healthcare benefits and the value of these can be as high as the defined pension benefit.
• Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits — including the value of tuition, stipends, and often transferability to dependents. While the GI Bill is not direct income, losing eligibility due to early separation can represent a meaningful loss of future value.

Conclusion

Service members often present compelling narratives and sympathetic plaintiffs, when they allege an injury derailed their military career. But for defense attorneys— especially in a military-heavy state such as North Carolina — these cases demand more than a surface-level evaluation. Every promotion claim, benefit calculation, and assumption about continued service should be tested against objective data: the personnel file, promotion board statistics, DoD regulations, and force-structure realities. When this analysis is performed early and rigorously, the resulting damages assessments are more precise, more credible, and ultimately more fair for all parties involved.

In traumatic injury litigation, defense attorneys face the critical task of challenging inflated damages claims and countering them with credible, defensible evidence. When plaintiffs present demands involving future medical care, work restrictions, and post-injury income loss, you need experienced experts who can expose exaggerated financial projections, questionable medical recommendations, and unsupported assumptions about long-term employability. Left unchecked, these claims can shape a damages narrative that distorts settlement leverage and influences trial outcomes.

Equipping your defense with an integrated team of medical experts, certified life care planners, vocational experts, and economists helps ensure every claim is scrutinized, every assumption is tested, and your client’s bottom line is protected.

Four Experts, One Cohesive Defense Strategy

A coordinated team of medical, life care planning, vocational, and economic experts provides defense counsel with the clarity and consistency needed to dismantle inflated damages claims. Each discipline plays a distinct role, but together they deliver a unified strategy that withstands scrutiny at every stage of litigation.

Medical Expert Witness

Medical professionals form the foundation for rebutting plaintiff personal injury claims. Their evaluations focus on whether proposed treatments and ongoing care recommendations are medically necessary, clinically supported, and consistent with accepted standards of practice. By highlighting gaps, speculative interventions, or unsupported medical opinions, medical experts help defense teams challenge the credibility of inflated care projections.

Certified Life Care Planner

Life care plans can drive some of the largest figures in a plaintiff’s damages claim. A comprehensive review by a certified life care planner can reveal excessive frequency of treatments and rehabilitation services, inflated costs, or recommendations unsupported by medical recommendations. Through life care plan rebuttal reports and expert testimony, they present reliable, clinically grounded projections of future medical needs and associated costs.

Vocational Expert

Plaintiffs may present vocational assessments that overstate work restrictions or underestimate employment opportunities. Vocational experts, or Certified Rehabilitation Counselors, critically analyze pre- and post-injury earning capacity, transferable skills, and labor market conditions to test the validity of these claims. Their findings can demonstrate that employability is higher and wage loss lower than presented in the plaintiff’s report.

Economist

Economists take the findings from life care planners and vocational experts and translate them into financial terms. They calculate the present value of future medical costs, lost wages, and earning capacity, ensuring that every projection is backed by reliable methodology and accurate economic data. Their role provides the defense with a credible, bottom-line assessment of true damages exposure.

A Collaborative Impact

This integrated team of experts ensures clear case insights and effective collaboration. Clients are not required to engage every discipline, but when retained early in the litigation lifecycle, these experts can begin evaluating records and data immediately. This gives defense counsel a strategic edge in identifying gaps, refining rebuttals, and preparing for mediation or trial.

Benefits of Early Engagement

Traumatic injury defense gains a significant advantage when expert analysis begins before discovery or trial. Engaging a coordinated team of experts early in the litigation process allows every claim to be examined with precision, every assumption to be tested, and every rebuttal to be built on clear, consistent evidence.

Strengthen Your Case from the Start

Retaining all four expert types during early case development allows for immediate review of medical records, identification of missing documentation, and strategic planning. Early engagement also prevents opposing counsel from securing these key experts first, locking in your advantage.

Streamlined Communication and Coordination

When all experts are retained through the same consulting firm, communication becomes more efficient and consistent. Case managers coordinate across disciplines to ensure collaboration and timely deliverables.

Cost and Time Efficiency

Retaining experts with dual credentials, such as a medical doctor who is also a certified life care planner, or a certified life care planner who doubles as a vocational expert, can reduce the need for multiple engagements, saving both time and resources.

Securing Integrated Expert Witness Support

Litigation outcomes hinge on the credibility, preparedness, and coordination of your experts. Selecting professionals who understand the jurisdiction, the medicine, and the economics at issue can meaningfully influence how damages are framed and evaluated.

IMS Legal Strategies maintains a nationwide expert network with coverage across all 50 states, allowing defense teams to identify experts who meet local court standards and venue-specific expectations. Their medical expert witness panel has supported tens of thousands of matters, giving counsel access to clinicians who are experienced in both record review and testimony.

In 2024, IMS launched a national Life Care Planning & Rebuttals service line that brings life care planners and vocational experts together within one coordinated team. This structure supports:

• Care projections grounded in clinical evidence and medical recommendations
• Vocational assessments that evaluate employability, transferable skills, and earning capacity
• Expert testimony that is prepared to withstand challenges under Daubert, Robinson, and similar standards

IMS is also expanding its analytics capabilities to better address complex damages claims, particularly those involving layered medical, vocational, and economic issues.

As Kacy Turner, MS, CRC, CVE, CLCP, Lead Life Care Planner and Vocational Expert at IMS, explains, an integrated approach allows each discipline to build on the others’ work:

“Our life care planning and vocational team reviews medical records so I can understand, as the testifying expert, what the injuries are and what type of rehabilitation the individual has undergone. I then rely on the medical experts to provide restrictions and limitations. When it comes time to work with the economist, I share my findings with them, and the economist calculates the damages. For example, if the individual is going to have a yearly wage loss due to injury, the economist will calculate the work-life expectancy.”

Applying Integrated Expertise to Defense Strategy

Defense strategy in serious injury cases benefits from more than isolated expert opinions. A coordinated expert team can evaluate, challenge, and present evidence across each dimension of a plaintiff’s damages claim, including:

• Independent medical assessment and recommendations
• Life care plan evaluations and rebuttal reports
• Defensible vocational assessments and rebuttals
• Accurate cost estimates and cost estimate reviews
• Economic damage quantification and present value analysis
• Expert witness testimony that is aligned across disciplines

From early case development through trial, an integrated expert team can provide the clarity, consistency, and collaboration needed to scrutinize inflated injury claims and protect the client’s interests.

About the Contributor
This article was contributed by IMS Legal Strategies.

For more information about integrated medical, life care planning, vocational, and economic expert services, contact:

Susan deHoll, Senior Account Executive 
North Carolina | South Carolina | Georgia

877.919.6846 • 803.748.6767 • sdeholl@imslegal.com

by Sarah White, Senior Litigation Paralegal, Ragsdale Liggett, PLLC

Paralegals sit at the intersection of legal strategy and business management. The accuracy and clarity of their timekeeping directly influence a firm’s financial health. Yet, exceptional work can lose value when billing entries are vague, miscoded, or combine administrative and substantive tasks. The result often is cuts, appeals, and lost revenue.

This article highlights essential principles for effective timekeeping—what constitutes substantive paralegal work, how to draft defensible time entries, how to manage authorization requirements, and why contemporaneous entry remains one of the most effective habits a paralegal can develop.

What Makes Paralegal Work “Substantive” (and Billable)

Start with the baseline: paralegals are qualified professionals performing delegated substantive legal work for which a lawyer is responsible. Substantive work requires recognition, analysis, and communication of relevant facts and legal concepts. That’s the litmus test for billability.

Examples of billable paralegal tasks include: legal research and analysis; drafting and responding to discovery; preparing and revising pleadings and memoranda; reviewing case management and scheduling orders; communications with clients, experts, court staff, and opposing counsel when tied to a concrete legal purpose; summarizing depositions or document productions; assisting with witness prep; and building trial notebooks and exhibit/witness lists (with careful wording—more on that below).

By contrast, purely clerical or secretarial activities are not billable. Think copying, scanning, routine scheduling and docketing, serving documents, and basic filing. Many carriers will accept zero‑time entries for these—so they see the effort without being charged—while some firms push more of this work to legal assistants.

Sometimes, there are large, complex matters requiring paralegals to take on high‑volume document organization that looks administrative but actually demands legal judgment (e.g., indexing pleadings and exhibits in large, multi‑party litigation cases). In those situations, seek prior authorization and be explicit about the legal need: identification, evaluation, and organization to support trial or deposition readiness.

The Words That Save (or Sink) Your Time Entries

Insurers and clients scrutinize narratives closely. Vague or block‑billed entries will get cut; clear, specific, purpose‑driven narratives will (usually) survive. A helpful formula for communication time entries is: What you did + with whom + why. Example: “Telephone all with trial court administrator regarding courtroom technology logistics for upcoming trial.” The formula for drafting is: Whose document + what it is + to whom/for what purpose (e.g., “Defendant’s memorandum in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment”).

Avoid vague or red-flag terms such as “preparation”. Instead use “identification,” “evaluation,” or “selection” of exhibits to support a motion or for use at trial. That framing better reflects the analytical nature of the work.

Avoid large, undifferentiated time blocks; if you spent hours on medical records or document productions, break the entry up by provider or production set and include page counts, if necessary; identify parties or providers in multi‑party cases; and separate trial prep into distinct tasks (witness lists, exhibit admission charts, jury instructions, motions in limine, notebook assembly).

Codes, Cheat Sheets, and a Smarter Workflow

Uniform Task-Based Management System (UTBMS) codes exist to make time categorizable for both client budgeting and firm analytics—use them consistently. Many paralegals maintain a one‑page cheat sheet of L/A/E codes, tenth-hour conversions, and carrier-specific rules. Keep these at your fingertips.

A simple but powerful habit, if you do not have case management software, is to create an Excel time‑capture sheet with dropdowns for dates, matter numbers, and codes; enter brief narratives throughout the day; then post into your billing platform before you sign off. This reduces omissions, improves capture, and helps you spot missing entries when you scan your email or notes that evening.

E‑Discovery and Medical Chronologies

In e‑discovery, most work is billable: uploading client data to a review platform, coding for relevance/privilege, and redacting for production—as long as the narrative ties each step to the legal purpose (e.g., “for review and coding prior to production” or “including redaction of confidential information in preparation for production”). For medical chronologies, cite the provider name and page counts. If you batch multiple small sets in one time entry, name each provider and state the total pages reviewed in the block.

Managing Carrier Authorization

Authorization requirements vary and carriers modify them frequently. Common triggers include motion projects exceeding a time threshold (e.g., more than two hours including hearing), multiple‑attorney attendance at depositions, and large‑scale indexing/linking projects in complex matters.

Beyond time entry, Excel can help you track carrier‑rules. You can create templates using the assignment date or prior report dates to auto‑calculate reporting and authorization deadlines and add checkboxes for authorization requested/approved with approver name and date. When you later bill the task, mirror that authorization detail in the narrative (“Authorization approved by Jane Doe, Claim Specialist, 9/10/2025”). Missing that line is a top reason for cuts.

Avoiding Reductions and Strengthening Appeals

Common reasons for time reductions include missing authorization in the narrative for tasks that required it; excessive time without explanation of complexity; lack of documentation for expenses; duplication (two people billing for the same task) without explaining distinct roles; or attorney‑rate tasks lacking justification for why attorney involvement was necessary instead of a paralegal.

When appealing, detail is your best friend. If the work truly demanded attorney or paralegal involvement or exceeded norms for legitimate reasons, say so plainly and concisely and tie it to legal necessity, complexity, or court directives.

Utilization, Realization, and the Case for Contemporaneous Time

Two key metrics reflect billing performance:

• Utilization Rate: Billable hours divided by total working hours.
• Realization Rate: The percentage of billed time that converts into collected revenue.

The single most powerful way to improve both is contemporaneous time entry. Waiting until month‑end invites the black hole. Delayed recording leads to lost increments that accumulate significantly over time.

For example, if five paralegals each lose two billable hours per month, that’s 110 hours per year across the team. At a $120/hour billing rate, the firm would lose roughly $13,000. Conversely, if each paralegal improves daily capture by 0.5 hours (about a 10% boost over a 5.45‑hour billable target), the firm would yield approximately $72,000 in additional annual revenue—just by tightening time discipline and narratives.

Practical Habits for Immediate Implementation

1. Capture time continuously. Use timers or incremental entries throughout the day and reconcile against emails and calendars daily.

2. Maintain narrative precision. Apply the “What + With Whom + Why” structure and include identifying details.

3. Refine language. Replace “preparation” with analytical terms such as “evaluation” or “selection.”

4. Segment complex tasks. Record distinct components separately for clarity.

5. Track authorizations. Record and mirror approval details in narratives.

6. Use zero-time entries. Documents administrative support in a transparent manner reflecting work being performed but not paid.

7. Support appeals with detail. Cite complexity, volume, authorization, or court requirements.

In summary, effective billing and timekeeping require more than accuracy—they reflect professionalism, communication, and the value the legal team brings to every case. Precision in narrative, consistency in coding, and discipline in real-time entry transform daily tasks into measurable contributions to the firm’s success.

Download:  Time & Billing Cheat Sheet

This article is adapted from the 2024 Fall Seminar Paralegal Practice Group Breakout Session.

Joint Employment and Workers’ Compensation in North Carolina

by Richard Haywood, McAngus Goudelock & Courie, LLC
An NCADA Workers' Compensation Practice Group Article

The issue of joint employment and the lent employee doctrine under North Carolina Workers’ Compensation law is now before the North Carolina Supreme Court. The Court’s decision could have significant implications for both public employers and private contractors who regularly engage the services of off-duty law enforcement personnel.

In Lassiter v. Robeson County Sheriff’s Department, an increasingly common employment scenario is presented. It is a familiar scene: a law enforcement officer directing traffic after a local concert or sporting event, or an off-duty officer providing security outside a downtown bar. In some of these scenarios, off-duty law enforcement officers are working for private businesses. The legal question arises: who is liable when an off-duty officer is injured while performing these duties?

In Lassiter, a large-scale roadwork project required law enforcement officers to direct traffic and ensure safety. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (“NCDOT”) contracted with Truesdell Corporation to perform bridge preservation work on Interstate 95, covering portions of both Cumberland and Robeson Counties. As part of the project, Truesdell was required to retain law enforcement personnel with activated blue lights to manage traffic in accordance with a formal traffic control plan. The plaintiff, a deputy with the Robeson County Sheriff’s Office (“RCSO”), was given the opportunity to work on the project through his department.

While performing traffic control duties, the plaintiff was struck by a vehicle and sustained severe injuries to his head, arms, hands, and legs. He filed a Form 18 with the North Carolina Industrial Commission, alleging that both RCSO and Truesdell were his employers at the time of the injury. Both entities denied the existence of an employment relationship.

The case was initially heard by Deputy Commissioner Peaslee, who issued an Opinion and Award finding that the plaintiff was an employee of RCSO at the time of injury, and that no employment relationship existed between the plaintiff and Truesdell. Truesdell was dismissed from the case.

On appeal, the Full Commission affirmed the Deputy Commissioner’s findings. RCSO then appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals addressed two principal issues: (1) whether the plaintiff was an employee or an independent contractor, and (2) whether a joint employment or lent employee relationship existed between the plaintiff and Truesdell.

The threshold question in such cases is whether a valid employer-employee relationship existed at the time of the injury. The court applied the factors established in Hayes v. Board of Trustees, 224 N.C. 11, 29 S.E.2d 137 (1944), which were later assessed, in a similar context, by the North Carolina Supreme Court in State v. Gaines, 332 N.C. 461, 421 S.E.2d 569 (1992). In Gaines, the Court held that police officers retain their law enforcement status at all times—regardless of whether they are “on duty” or “off duty”—when performing duties to enforce the law or protect the public. Id. at 466, 421 S.E.2d at 571.

Applying the Hayes factors, the Court of Appeals found that the plaintiff was hired specifically because of his status as a sworn officer and used his training and experience in law enforcement to manage traffic. The court determined that the plaintiff was not an independent contractor but was acting as an employee of RCSO at the time of the injury.

The Court then turned to the question of whether a joint employment or lent employee relationship existed between the plaintiff and Truesdell. In Whicker v. Compass Group USA, Inc., 246 N.C. App. 791, 784 S.E.2d 564 (2016), the Court of Appeals set forth a three-part test for determining joint employment:

1. An express or implied employment contract must exist between the plaintiff and the alleged employer;

2. The employers must be engaged in the same or similar business; and

3. Both employers must exercise control over the manner and method of the plaintiff’s work.

Id. at 797, 784 S.E.2d at 569.

In Lassiter, the Court of Appeals found that an implied employment contract existed between the plaintiff and Truesdell. Although RCSO retained direct supervisory control, Truesdell had the authority to request, schedule, and directly pay law enforcement officers—satisfying the first prong of the Whicker test.

Regarding the third prong—control—the court found that both RCSO and Truesdell exercised simultaneous supervision. While on-site supervision came from RCSO superior officers, Truesdell retained functional control through its authority to determine the number of officers needed, to develop traffic control plans, and to relay those plans to supervisors. This control was sufficient to meet the third prong of Whicker.

However, the court departed from existing precedent on the second prong. The Full Commission had determined that the plaintiff was engaged in law enforcement duties, not construction work, and therefore RCSO and Truesdell were not “engaged in the same or similar business.” Lassiter, 896 S.E.2d at 294. The Court of Appeals rejected this narrow reading, modifying the second prong to require only that “the service being performed by the plaintiff for each employer must be the same or closely related.” Lassiter, 896 S.E.2d at 303 04. The court reasoned that although the plaintiff’s work was law enforcement in nature, it was undertaken in direct support of Truesdell’s construction project, making the services between RCSO and Truesdell “closely related.” Lassiter, 896 S.E.2d at 304.

As a result, the Court of Appeals concluded that a joint employment relationship did exist and reversed the Full Commission’s Opinion and Award.

The North Carolina Supreme Court will now weigh in on these significant issues. The ruling could reshape how joint employment is defined in the state—particularly as it applies to off-duty law enforcement officers performing functions for private entities.

If the Supreme Court affirms the Court of Appeals’ modified test, it would significantly expand the scope of joint employment. The precedent in Whicker requires: (1) an express or implied contract; (2) that the employers be engaged in the same or similar work; and (3) shared control over the employee’s duties. A broader reading of the “similar work” requirement would expose private companies to increased liability for injuries suffered by off-duty law enforcement officers operating in quasi-public roles.

by Michael Hill, Ph.D., P.E. | Biomechanics

Biomechanical engineers investigate a wide variety of cases involving injuries and injury claims, including workplace accidents, falling objects, product failures, slip, trip, and falls, in addition to motor vehicle accidents. Whereas civil engineers, industrial and safety experts, premises liability experts, and accident reconstructionists perform inspections to check for compliance with various codes and may investigate the physics of an incident and what may have gone wrong to cause it, biomechanical engineers analyze how the motions and forces involved in an incident resulted in damage to specific body parts.

Biomechanical Engineering Defined

Biomechanical engineering is a part of a larger field of study known as biomedical engineering, which combines the study of living organisms and medicine with the branch of science concerned with devising and creating machines. Biomechanics deals specifically with mechanics, which involves the motions and forces of the machinery. Biomechanical engineers study the mechanical workings of the human body, just as mechanical engineers study the mechanical workings of materials used in designing automobiles, airplanes, assembly lines, etc.

Biomechanics in Industrial Settings

There are a variety of situations at the workplace that result in injuries, which may be reported. These may involve potential trip hazards, interacting with different types of machinery, performing routine tasks, or accidents involving motorized vehicles such as automobiles, forklifts, yard mules, etc. Below are descriptions of a few case studies based on real-world accidents in which a biomechanical engineer was able to assist.

Forklift and Trailer Pinch Point

An employee at a warehouse was nearing the end of his early-morning shift. After a trailer had been unloaded at the dock, the employee was tasked with closing the trailer door. The employee was not able to reach a strap to close the door, so he used a forklift to assist. He reversed the forklift down a ramp to the trailer door, reached up and out of the forklift to grab the strap, moved the forklift forward up the ramp, and then stepped off the forklift to close the door. As he was lowering the trailer door to close it, the forklift moved back down the ramp and pinned the employee against the door. A security camera recorded the incident.

A forensic biomechanical engineer was retained to investigate the case. As part of the investigation, the engineer inspected and 3D-scanned the forklift, the strap, and the site where the incident occurred. By applying the peer-reviewed literature on human size and reach, the biomechanical engineer worked with animators to reconstruct the incident, showing how the employee moved based on his size, the geometry of the site, and on the surveillance footage. The conclusion was that the employee exited the forklift while it was still in motion, resulting in the accident.

Falling Object on a Hard Hat

At an industrial site, an employee was working on a level below another employee, when the former dropped his hard hat onto the hard hat of the latter standing below. A forensic biomechanical engineer was retained and performed testing and literature research to determine the forces and head accelerations that were involved. The engineer concluded that the components of the hard hat, including the suspension and hard outer shell, served their purpose in reducing the head accelerations compared to a no-hard-hat scenario. The biomechanical engineer opined that the resulting accelerations would not be consistent with the reported brain injuries.

Operating a Lift on an Asphalt Surface

A city parks service employee was driving a telescopic forklift along a city-maintained asphalt road between sites. The employee reported that he sustained spinal injuries due to the vibrations induced while driving over rough portions of the road. The forklift and a driver were instrumented with accelerometers and high-speed video cameras, and the forklift was driven along the reported route. Also, the driver’s head and upper torso were recorded by standard and high-speed video equipment from a vehicle following behind. The accelerations were determined to be well within those experienced during typical driving situations. The head and upper body movement were very minimal and definitely within the movements expected during routine activities of daily living. The biomechanical engineer concluded that biomechanical mechanisms for spinal injuries were not present during the reported incident.

Trip and Fall in a Parking Lot

In the parking lot of a chain grocery store in a busy city center, a customer tripped and fell as she exited the grocery store and walked across the parking lot. The customer claimed that the grocery store had poorly maintained the parking lot and that it presented an unreasonably dangerous condition. Low-resolution surveillance video of the accident depicted the trip and fall, but it was not clear precisely in which area the fall occurred. The site was inspected, and a higher-resolution video camera was elevated on a boom to be adjacent to the subject surveillance camera. The high-resolution footage of people walking to and from the parking lot and grocery store was compared to the low-resolution video from the subject surveillance camera to determine the precise location of the fall. It was determined that a car was turning into the parking lot, so the plaintiff increased her speed and fell into an area in which there were no parking stops or potential tripping hazards. A biomechanical engineer concluded that there were no exceptionally dangerous tripping hazards in the area.

Summary

Biomechanical engineers play a crucial role in a range of impactful tasks, including conducting sophisticated forensic analyses for personal injury litigation and pioneering the design of biomedical devices and methodologies that address injuries and diseases. By meticulously examining accident scenarios, forensic biomechanical engineers can identify critical hazards and evaluate whether the reported injuries are consistent with, or logically arise from, the mechanics of the incident. Their work not only enhances our understanding of accidents but also significantly contributes to the advancement of safety standards and injury prevention strategies.

__________________________

Michael Hill, Ph.D., P.E., is a Biomechanical Engineer at Quality Forensic Engineering, LLC. His background is in orthopedic and cardiovascular biomechanics, vehicle accident reconstruction, injury consistency analysis, mechanical design, instrumentation, and experimental analysis. Dr. Hill has lectured at universities and his research findings have been published in 17 academic articles. Dr. Hill has presented at over 40 international and national scientific conferences and his work has been extensively cited by others. His primary focus is on motor vehicle accidents and premises liability incidents, for both plaintiff and defense cases.

by Leah S. Hartman, Ph.D., CPO, CXLT, and Stephanie Whetsel Borzendowski, Ph.D., CPSI, CXLT

Introduction

Human Factors is the scientific study of human interaction with their environment, based on the scientific understanding of human capabilities and limitations (e.g., cognition, perception, biomechanics, etc.). A human factors expert should provide an objective analysis of relevant facts and offer insight into human behavior under specific circumstances. While the explanation of these principles may appear familiar to even a layperson due to their personal experiences in similar contexts, they can fail to fully appreciate the complexity of how the environment affects human behavior. Human factors practitioners can examine aspects of the environment and the human independently, and they are uniquely qualified to analyze the interaction between the two.

While practitioners in other disciplines (e.g., engineers, architects, medical practitioners, etc.) can address one of the elements in the human-environment relationship, they typically do not possess expertise (i.e., educational background or training) in the interaction between the two. Therefore, human factors experts can provide attorneys, judges, and/or juries with a framework for understanding an event or incident by relying upon their education, training, and familiarity with the significant body of literature, standards, and regulations within this field.

Civil litigation is ripe with opportunities for the utilization of human factors analyses to further comprehend simple or complex cases. Exemplar areas in which human factors professionals often provide valuable insight include (but are not limited to): falls, collisions, workplace injuries, warnings, drownings, etc. A human factors analysis may be of use in personal injury litigation when there are questions regarding the relative contributions of environmental factors and human characteristics, and the interaction between the two. The following are examples of contexts in which this type of analysis can enrich the comprehension of case facts.

Premises liability

A trip is characterized by a foot unintentionally coming into contact with the ground and/or an obstacle which arrests the forward movement of the foot. In this biomechanical incident, there is typically a rotation of the body in the direction of travel. If the acceleration of the body cannot be arrested, a fall will likely result. Environmental factors typically considered in the analysis of a trip and fall can include geometric proportions of changes in level along walking surfaces and/or the placement of obstacles (permanent or temporary).

A fall that is attributed to a slip occurs when a foot unintentionally slides across a surface, which can result in a loss of balance. Bilateral slips are when both feet are affected. Typically, this results in a feet-forward slip and fall with the trunk of the body falling backwards and landing posteriorly. Unilateral slips occur when the leading foot slides forward as the back foot remains planted. This results in the legs splitting, but the trunk of the body typically will stay upright or in a more forward position than that of a bilateral feet-forward slip and fall. Environmental factors to be considered are the coefficient of friction of the floor surface, contaminants on the surface, presence of warnings and/or mats, etc.

Another example of a fall on properties can include missteps (e.g., at a single riser change in elevation, stairs, etc.). Commonly considered environmental factors include the presence of handrails, warnings, conspicuous markings on nosings, etc.

While each type of fall has unique considerations from the perspective of environmental features, the human aspects of these incidents share commonalities. These include gait pattern, clothing (e.g., footwear), physical health, expectations, etc. Examination of the human-environment interaction in the context of slips, trips, and falls will include whether features of the walking surface and/or obstacle(s) are readily perceivable and avoidable to a reasonably attentive pedestrian within the context of the general incident area.

A common element in assessing the perceivability of a walkway hazard is available lighting at the time of the incident. The presence of artificial illumination along walking surfaces is particularly important to consider when little to no ambient illumination is present. While people often mistakenly believe they can safely navigate darkened environments, visual processing of objects and fine details are degraded under these conditions. Therefore, illuminance measurements under conditions comparable to an incident can be a key element in the analysis of a fall.

Transportation

While analyses of traffic crashes often include engineers specializing in accident reconstruction, human factors professionals can offer additional, unique insights into the perception and response of typical drivers. Specifically, a human factors expert can apply their expertise regarding human capabilities and limitations (i.e., perception and cognition) to assess the “reasonableness” of a driver’s response to a hazard.

In assessing a driver’s response to a hazard, it is important to distinguish between the visibility and conspicuity of objects. Visibility describes a driver’s ability to detect an object when they are aware of its location. Conspicuity refers to properties of an object in the context of its environmental surroundings, such that the object can capture the attention of a driver whose attention may be directed elsewhere. Addressing the adequacy of an object’s conspicuity is often a factor in collisions involving pedestrians, bicyclists, commercial vehicles, and objects in/along the roadway.

Environmental factors to consider in assessing the conspicuity of a hazard, and whether it is perceivable, can include ambient lighting, properties of the hazard (e.g., color, presence of retroreflective elements, luminance), surrounding landscape, etc. Drivers’ expectations under the conditions and circumstances of a collision are often an essential consideration in analyzing their interpretation of available visual information. Additional driver characteristics to consider include attention/distraction, impairment, visual health, etc. Conducting a human factors analysis to determine the conspicuity and perceivability of a hazard can allow attorneys, judges, and/or juries to better understand the likelihood that a collision could have been avoided.

A common question to evaluate the likelihood of a collision occurring is whether a driver should have perceived and responded to some hazard with enough time to avoid impact. The perception response time (PRT) interval typically starts when a potential risk is first detectable, (i.e., something appearing to move towards or into the driver’s path) and ends when the driver initiates a response. In order to analyze data related to a driver’s response to a hazard, it is important to consider the context in which the incident occurred. Therefore, reliance on a single PRT value without consideration for any factors that may affect a driver’s perception and performance is inappropriate and oversimplifies the complexity of driving. A human factors expert relies upon applicable literature and research to provide a framework to understand a driver’s response (or lack thereof).

Conclusion

While other experts can offer insight into specific issues related to the environment or human for matters in civil litigation, a human factors professional can address the complexity of the interaction between the two as well as their individual contributions.

At Perceptio Forensics, we provide human factors consulting services in a variety of practice areas, aiming to provide our clients with objective, evidence-based insight into their cases. Interested in learning more about human factors and its applications? Feel free to reach out to either Dr. Hartman or Dr. Whetsel Borzendowski.

Drawing from a rich and candid conversation among three distinguished North Carolina judges—the Honorable Robert Christopher Dillon (Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals), the Honorable Matthew Houston (Special Superior Court Judge for Complex Business Court Cases), and the Honorable Aaron Berlin (Superior Court Judge)—this article distills practical wisdom for attorneys seeking to elevate their courtroom presence and advocacy.

1. Preparation Is Power

• Judges can instantly tell who’s prepared and who isn’t.
• Thorough preparation builds credibility and confidence.
• Readiness includes knowing your case inside and out, anticipating questions, and organizing materials for easy reference.

2. Know Your Audience:  The Judge

• Judges may not know your case as well as you do—start with a clear, concise summary of the issue before the court.
• Avoid diving straight into legal minutiae; provide context first.
• Tailor your presentation to the judge’s role (e.g., trial vs. appellate) and preferences.

3. Briefs Matter—Make Them Count

• Be concise and focused. Avoid unnecessary facts or overly long narratives.
• Highlight the key issue early in the brief, and lead with your strongest argument for why the court should rule in your favor.
• Use the brief to build your story but keep oral arguments sharp and issue-driven.

4. Credibility Over Combat

• Concede strong points from the opposing side when appropriate—it builds trust.
• Avoid unnecessary adversarial behavior or name-calling.
• Have professionalism and reasonableness in tone and demeanor, judges appreciate and expect this behavior.

5. Courtroom Comfort Comes with Experience

• Seek out opportunities to be in court—jury trials, hearings, calendar calls.
• Don’t underestimate the value of “reps” in building courtroom confidence.
• Surround yourself with mentors and colleagues who challenge and support you.

6. Use Technology Wisely

• Webex and remote testimony can be cost-effective but require preparation.
• Always test tech setups before court appearances.
• Maintain courtroom decorum—even virtually. Remind clients to present themselves professionally.

7. Understand Local Rules & Procedures

• Know that each county and court may have different filing, briefing, and scheduling rules.
• Build relationships with TCAs (Trial Court Administrators)—they’re invaluable resources.
• Familiarize yourself with the Business Court rules if applicable.

8. Preserve Issues for Appeal Thoughtfully

• Know your standard of review and tailor your arguments accordingly.
• Frame appellate issues clearly and avoid overloading briefs with irrelevant facts.
• Make it easy for appellate judges to rule in your favor—clarity and structure are key.

9. Be the Lawyer Others Want to Work With

• Litigation is inherently adversarial—don’t make it personal.
• Professionalism and courtesy go a long way in building reputation and resolving cases efficiently.
• Judges notice and appreciate attorneys who foster a respectful courtroom environment.

10. Take Advantage of Training Opportunities

• Participate in pro bono programs that offer oral argument experience.
• Watch oral arguments online to learn from others.
• Seek feedback and mentorship to continuously improve.

*This article is based on a panel discussion moderated by Jasmine Pitt of Akerman, featuring Chief Judge Dillon, Judge Berlin, and Judge Houston, held during the 48th Annual Meeting on Saturday, June 14, 2025, in Wilmington, NC.

Print Article

by Betsy Keesler, BSN, RN, CLCP

A soundly constructed life care plan is an evidence-based document that comprehensively identifies an individual's current and future care needs as related to a catastrophic injury or chronic health condition. Such needs may include a person's individual requirements for healthcare, educational/vocational services, home modifications, living arrangements, attendant care, equipment, medications, supplies and community services. Many, if not all, of these items require recommendations from a healthcare professional acting within their professional scope of practice. When a life care plan lacks appropriate medical foundation and is determined to be incongruent with accepted life care planning published standards and consensus statements, it will likely be challenged and ultimately may not be accepted into the evidentiary record for the evaluee (subject person).

There are several appropriate avenues a Certified Life Care Planner (CLCP) can utilize to establish solid medical foundation for the life care plan. The most obvious track is direct consultation and collaboration with the evaluee’s treating and/or evaluating medical, psychological, or allied health professionals. Of note, it is essential such consultations be endorsed by the opining healthcare provider through signature, prior to the date of release of the life care plan report. Another appropriate avenue would include directly referencing and utilizing published clinical practice guidelines, empirical research and/or other reliable and credible peer-reviewed publications to identify the standards of care for items applicable to the evaluee’s needs. Equally important, the life care plan should draw clear links between specific statements made within the analyzed medical records and the items or services included within the life care plan. Finally, cited testimony from evaluating and/or treating providers connected with the evaluee’s health care can also serve as appropriate medical foundation.

It is important to understand the subspecialty practice of Life Care Planning has many published consensus and majority statements, relative to the developmental process of establishing solid medical foundation. In 2018, the International Association of Rehabilitation Professionals (IARP), in conjunction with the International Academy of Life Care Planners (IALCP), published a special issue of the peer-reviewed Journal of Life Care Planning which identified current consensus and majority statements for life care planning professionals. These consensus and majority statements were published following completion of a Delphi study of multiple, professional summits across a 17-year period. Of note, the purpose of the Delphi research method is to identify best practice consensus among subject matter experts.

Relative to establishing medical foundation for the life care plan, specific consensus statements address this matter head on.

Life care planning consensus statement 80: “Life Care Planners may independently make recommendations for care items/services that are within their scope of practice.”

Life care planning consensus statement 81: “Life Care Planners seek recommendations from other qualified professionals and/or relevant sources for inclusion of care items/services outside the individual life care planner’s professional scope of practice.”

From the cumulative pool of expert opinions arose the Life Care Planning Standards of Practice, as published by IARP and IALCP, currently in the Fourth Edition, 2022. Standards of practice also address the critical component of evidence-based medical opinion from a healthcare provider that practices/provides the same recommendations they have opined about in the life care plan. In other words, their opinion falls within their healthcare professional scope of practice. The Fourth Edition Standards of Practice provide this guide regarding appropriate medical foundation:

“To address the future care needs, the life care planner collaborates with other professionals in order to develop a transdisciplinary life care plan inclusive of recommendations outside of the individual life care planner’s professional scope of practice. No single rehabilitation or health care professional is trained to have comprehensive expertise in all areas where recommendations may be needed. Even within a profession, there are specialty and sub-specialty divisions, which may limit the life care planner’s ability to independently make all needed recommendations.”

Why do professional guidelines and standards even matter? This question was expertly answered through a 2012 IARP publication entitled “Expert Disclosure: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26, 34, & 37.” Dr. Timothy Field and Mr. Kent Jayne emphasized the following to the Rehabilitation and Life Care Planning Professionals as follows:

“The necessary qualifications for the FRC (forensic rehabilitation consultant) have been well established and documented and any forensic rehabilitation consultant should be familiar and comply with the usual and customary guidelines set forth by professional associations for the profession. Association standards, such as statements on scope of practice, professional ethics, and a standard of practice are all important documents and provide significant information of both the necessary credentials and the guidelines for practice.”

In short, the consensus statements and standards of practice are what give vigor and credibility to the life care planning practice.

The following realistic case scenarios illustrate both appropriate and inappropriate practices for the establishment of life care planning medical foundation.

Case #1: An adult evaluee was involved in a head-on motor vehicle collision and sustained a traumatic brain injury (TBI) as well as cervical vertebrae fracture. Fortunately, the evaluee was not paralyzed but was with permanent cognitive functioning deficits and ongoing neck pain and headaches. The evaluee underwent outpatient therapy with a speech language pathologist, an occupational therapist, and a Physiatrist (Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Physician) who oversaw all medical care relative to the injury, as well as pain management modalities. A life care plan was developed by Certified Life Care Planner who also held a Doctor of Chiropractic (DC) licensure. The life care plan included many items, some of which were ongoing spinal injections for cervical pain management and narcotic medication for headaches, all for the duration of a lifetime. During deposition testimony, the doctor expounded upon his education and clinical practice as foundation to justify his ability to opine every future care recommendation within the life care plan.

To analyze this scenario, it is important to understand that not all doctors can provide all interventions that any ill or injured person may need. Some people do not understand this. The Chiropractic field of healthcare, while incredibly helpful for many people, does not perform spinal injections for pain management, nor do they prescribe narcotic medications. Thus, the life care planner was working outside his scope of practice in recommending spinal injections and narcotic medications. Unfortunately, he did not consult with the treating Physiatrist, or the allied health professionals providing current treatment. There was no evidence that an appropriate evaluating healthcare practitioner, such as a Neurologist or Interventional Pain Management Specialist, was retained to provide future treatment recommendations. There was no evidence of connection drawn between the current treatment found outlined in the medical records and what the life care planner recommended. There were no supporting clinical practice guidelines relative to the recommendations made. Ultimately, the life care plan lacked the required credible and reliable data, as well as the overall foundational information necessary, to formulate an evidence-based plan that was consistent with life care planning standards and expert consensus.

Case #2: An evaluee, with a 30-year history of smoking a pack of cigarettes a day, was rear-ended in a motor vehicle collision. Several days afterwards she began complaining of neck pain with radiating pain down her left arm. The first physician she sought treatment from advised rest, Tylenol and physical therapy. Medical reporting outlined she completed only 8 sessions of physical therapy and stated there was no improvement in her symptoms. She sought a second opinion from a Spinal Orthopedist who opined she had failed conservative therapy and therefore was eligible for a four-level spinal fusion surgery. Then, she sought another Orthopedist opinion (third one) who ordered additional MRI studies and a nerve conduction study. He diagnosed her with ulnar nerve compression and mild herniation at the C6-7 level. He then recommended only conservative therapy and did not agree with spinal fusion. Finally, the fourth Orthopedic opinion she sought indicated that she needed Ulnar Nerve decompression surgery, which she completed. Then, the fourth Orthopedist treated her with a cervical spinal steroid injection, which she reported gave total relief of all her pain. Additionally, this same Orthopedist reported clinical research strongly suggested the evaluee’s extensive smoking history predisposed her to significant surgical complications, including a lack of union at the surgical site, if she were to undergo spinal fusion.

However, the life care plan was developed by a Registered Nurse (RN) and CLCP. She provided a future cost analysis for only the four-level spinal fusion surgery treatment opinion. The life care planner did not acknowledge any other medical opinions or successful treatment the plaintiff had received as was documented within the medical records, nor did she acknowledge the clinical practice research citing smoking as detrimental to the success of spinal fusion. The life care planner acted outside her scope of practice by determining that the surgical opinion was the only opinion appropriate for the evaluee. An RN is not an operative practitioner and therefore not in a position to make any surgical decisions. Clearly, she did not consider all the evidence available to make a solid and credible life care plan for the evaluee.

Case #3: An adult evaluee sustained an upper extremity amputation secondary to malfunctioning equipment while working as a machinist. The life care plan was developed by an experienced and licensed certified rehabilitation counselor (CRC) who was also a certified life care planner (CLCP). The evaluee’s treating health care providers included a Physiatrist, a physical therapist, a psychologist, and a prosthetist. The life care plan included recommendations for the specific type, frequency and duration of future psychological counseling, medical care, medications, diagnostic tests, and prosthetic equipment for the evaluation.

The CRC/CLCP did not make any recommendations outside of his scope of practice. The life care planner noted the medical records reviewed and included a treatment summary within the life care plan as well as recommendations for future care that were secured in collaboration with the treating providers and signed by them, prior to the release of the life care plan report. The recommendations included in the plan were all evident through the medical records, supporting clinical practice guidelines and endorsements.

Sometimes securing the appropriate credible medical recommendation takes extra leg work, but in the end, it is the foundation for which that life care plan will hold up under close scrutiny.

References:

Field, T. & Jayne, K. 2012. Expert Disclosure: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26, 34, 27. Athens, Georgia: Elliott & Fitzpatrick, Inc.

International Association of Rehabilitation Professional & International Academy of Life Care Planners (2022), Fourth Edition. Standards of Practice for Life Care Planners.

Johnson, C; Pomeranz, J. & Stetten, N. 2018. “Life Care Planning Consensus and Majority Statements 2000-2008: Are They Still Relevant and Reliable? A Delphi Study.” Journal of Life Care Planning, 16 (4), 5-13.

Johnson, C; Pomeranz, J. & Stetten, N. 2018. “Consensus and Majority Statements Derived from Life Care Planning Summits Held in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2015 and 2017 and updated via Delphi Study in 2018.” Journal of Life Care Planning, 16 (4), 15-18.

Preston, Karen, et al. “Standards of Practice for Life Care Planners, Fourth Edition.” Journal of Life Care Planning, 20 (3), 5-24.

Weed R. & Berens D.E., (editors). 2018. Life Care Planning and Case Management Handbook. (4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Print Article

Embracing Opportunities Amid Legal Challenges: Highlights from the Annual Meeting Program

This year's Annual Meeting provided members with enriching networking opportunities and impactful continuing legal education sessions. Guests included representatives from our state’s judiciary, law schools, and other bar organizations, adding depth and diversity to informal discussions.

Highlights from the programming included sessions such as 'Recent Decisions of Relevance,' a key practice resource for members, and a panel discussion on 'Navigating the Legal Impacts of the New DEI Executive Orders.' Attendees gained perspectives from a 'View from the Bench' session featuring judges from the Court of Appeals, Business Court, and Superior Court,  a keynote address on maintaining professional well-being by Molly Grantham on 'Practice Makes...Progress,' and an ethics discussion centered on lessons from the Murdaugh Case, featuring Judge Clifton Newman. Additionally, breakout sessions led by the Practice Groups provided interactive discussions tailored to specific practice areas of interest.

During the Annual Meeting, the annual membership and business meeting was held, alongside the recognition of professionalism award winners. Bob Sumner, Partner Emeritus of Cranfill Sumner, was honored with the J. Robert Elster Award for Professional Excellence, and Jon Berkelhammer of Ellis & Winters received the Award for Excellence in Trial Advocacy.

At the Business Meeting, outgoing President J.D. Keister reflected on the year’s initiatives and outlined critical areas of focus for the NCADA, including trial skills training programs leveraging experienced trial attorneys, strategies to address nuclear verdicts through a specialized sub-committee, and the adoption of an updated diversity, equity, and inclusion policy. Keister thanked his colleagues for their support during his presidency and commended the Board for their thoughtful handling of these initiatives. (Watch and listen to JD's remarks here.)

The meeting concluded with the election and confirmation of the 2025-2026 Officers and Directors. George Simpson, IV was confirmed as President; Erin McNeil Young was elected President-Elect; Daniel M. Nunn as Executive Vice President; Scottie Forbes Lee as Treasurer; and Nicole B. Slaughter continues her term as Secretary.

The NCADA also welcomed several new members to the Board of Directors for a term through June 2028: Allison Becker, Bruce Daughtry, John Kubis, Jr., John Nunnally, and Jilliann Tate. Continuing Board members were recognized for their ongoing service and contributions: Kara Bordman, Ryan Bostic, Christy Dunn, Joshua Durham, JD McAlister, Kristine Prati, Stuart Stroud, and Robert Young remain integral to the organization's leadership. Ex-officio members including Gary Parsons, Bob Kaylor, Ashley Brathwaite, Ryan Eubanks, and Nathan Hewitt were also acknowledged for their work across key initiatives.

Heartfelt thanks was extended to retiring Board members after their service terms: Denaa Griffin, Scottie Forbes Lee (transitioning into the Treasurer role), Charles McGee, Jasmine Pitt, and Austin Walsh. Chris Kiger completed his term as an officer and is a past president of the NCADA. Each member was thanked for their dedication and contributions to the organization.

Wrapping up the event, incoming President George Simpson shared reflections on his professional journey, stemming from his early career at Cranfill Sumner, where he was encouraged to engage with NCADA by Richard Boyette. Simpson committed to honoring the organization’s legacy and emphasized priorities such as networking, CLE opportunities, amicus work, and legislative efforts. As he steps into leadership, Simpson pledged to build on NCADA's foundation and advance the organization’s mission for the civil trial bar in North Carolina. (Watch and listen to George's remarks here.)

J.D. Keister, President (2024-2025)
McAngus Goudelock & Courie LLC

I hope to see you at our upcoming Annual Meeting in just a few weeks. We’re looking forward to hosting the meeting in Wilmington again. With unmatched professional development programming tailored to build skills and meet your practice needs, you will not want to miss attending. Join us June 12-15 to learn and network with peers and colleagues from across North Carolina.

The Annual Meeting is also when the NCADA transitions to new leadership. As I shared in my note when taking office last June, I attended my first Annual Meeting over 20 years ago and was encouraged by firm mentors to get involved in the NCADA. In an era where retention and young lawyer development is such a challenge for our member firms, NCADA is an excellent opportunity for firms to invest in younger lawyers in a similar fashion. I encourage younger members to attend, participate, and get involved! There is not a better way to learn or get connected within the civil defense bar. Go to member socials and events. Write articles. Be on a committee.

Major challenges impacting our firms and practices include generative AI into the practice of law, exploding verdicts, and the training and retention of talent. NCADA is working on programming and resources to support members and firms in these areas to include training newer and mid-level attorneys in essential and advanced litigation skills, information resources on AI and programming at our CLE offerings, and appointing a committee to explore strategies and training for defense attorneys on nuclear verdicts. You are invited to share your knowledge and expertise to volunteer to be involved. Contact me if interested.

Your Association is recognized statewide and nationally with working relationships with the NC Chamber, DRI, the DRI Center for Public Policy and Lawyers for Civil Justice working collaboratively on a tweak to Rule 702 at the General Assembly to align with the federal rule. Our Amicus presence continues to grow, and we are fortunate to have an Amicus Committee led by Duane Jones, Steven Bader, and Jeff Kuykendal vetting cases of relevance.

The state of the Association remains steady and stable. Our membership numbers are consistent, yet we encourage you to invite colleagues and peers to join us. We are fortunate to have strong support from our Litigation Support Partners, and we encourage you to take advantage of their expertise and services.

Many in Western North Carolina are still dealing with the impact from Hurricane Helene last September. We applaud the many contributions of our members and firms in supporting recovery efforts. That same day we held our annual Fall Seminar in Cary and despite the storm had good attendance and an excellent CLE program. This year, we have scheduled the Fall Seminar a few weeks later in October and will consider moving to late October to early November, which was the timing in our early years.

Finally, speaking of our early years, NCADA’s 50th Anniversary is in 2 years and will be celebrating this milestone in 2027. Today’s NCADA is THE organization for those of us on the defense side of the “V.” It is an organization where people can connect, where members can learn, and where knowledge can be passed from trial and industry legends to the next generation. What does the next 50 years look like to you? Let us know.