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.
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 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.
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.
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.
John Ray began his career inside the pharmaceutical and medical device industry. For more than a decade since, he has advised plaintiffs' firms on how mass tort litigation actually gets built, which is an unusual vantage point, because he has seen the same cases from the side that gets sued.
That is the background behind what he saw coming in AFFF.
Most AFFF complaints on file name a military installation or a Part 139 airport as the source of exposure and stop there. That pleading reaches the manufacturers who sold Mil Spec foam to the federal government and very few others. The firms filing them were treating exposure the way it works in a drug case, where you order a pharmacy record and the proof arrives in an envelope. Nobody hands you a receipt for the water they drank in 1994.
He has spent the last decade building what those complaints were missing. Discharge records, permit data, facility coordinates, and sampling results were pulled out of federal datasets that were assembled for regulators and never organized around the question a plaintiff's lawyer has to answer. The data was public. Getting it to say which facility put this chemical into this person's water, and when, took a structure nobody had built.
That structure is what Verified Exposure runs on.
Christine Haas spent 17 years in broadcast journalism as an investigative reporter and anchor in San Diego, Houston and Austin. Her investigation into Texas's practice of recycling drivers' license numbers, and the mistaken identities that practice created, changed Texas law. A 2006 report on the Small Business Administration's misuse of Homeland Security funding was entered into Congressional testimony.
Television has a rule that does not bend. Every claim traces to a primary source or it does not air, and a reporter who cannot produce the document does not get the story on the air. That rule is the reason she is on this page.
She now works on how AI systems decide who to recommend, which turns out to be the same problem from a different direction.
She built the AI Authority Engine, an eight-week program teaching professionals and firms to become the answer AI gives, and she publishes The AI Newsroom to roughly 30,000 attorney subscribers. Her audit method runs every query five times instead of once, because a single answer out of a probabilistic system is an anecdote rather than a finding. That instinct came from the newsroom, not from engineering.
Verified Exposure applies the same discipline to evidence. Every figure in a report built here traces to a government dataset, a permit record, a sampling result, or a document in the plaintiff's own file, and the citation travels with it. Nothing is inferred. Nothing is rounded in the direction of the conclusion. When a fact cannot be sourced, it comes out of the report and counsel is told why.
When a date on a pathology report disagrees with a date in a client's intake file, Christine stops the build and asks which one is right. It slows the work down, and it is the reason the record holds.
You don't have to commit a docket to find out whether this works.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The record holds. The physician can answer. The gaps in your file reached you before they reached opposing counsel.
The value of this record is what it withstands. That's a function of what we refuse to put in it.
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.
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.
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.
The physician reads the analysis before signing. A signature on an unread report is a sham finding waiting for a deposition notice.
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.
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.
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 matterSelected coverage of Christine Haas. Each entry links to the original. Everything above the interviews section is a reporter's byline, not a placement.
Cited as a source on crisis management and reputation.
On FIFA's silence after reversing a World Cup red card. Haas argued the organization owed the public a transparent accounting published before the criticism, not after, and that leaving a vacuum let others fill it.
On punctuality as a reputational signal, quoted alongside etiquette experts and agency leaders.
Introduced as a crisis management expert and quoted across two sections, analyzing how Angela Merkel took responsibility for a reversed Easter lockdown and how Elon Musk apologized for unfounded accusations against a Thai cave diver.
Advisor coverage on AI and client video.
Barron's Advisor coverage on AI-assisted video for client communication.
Long-form interview features. Listed separately from the reporter-initiated coverage above.
A long-form interview on the discipline behind a broadcast career.
The fastest way to evaluate this is to hand us a file and see what comes back.
Send one matter