Laserfiche WebLink
<br />See AR III-1. <br />14. In a memorandum issued on April 14, 1996, DMG employee <br />Jim Pendleton provided his review and comments on two reports on <br />the alleged subsidence damage to the Tatum property written by <br />experts hired by the Tatums. The first report Mr. Pendleton <br />reviewed was a report by Carl Gerity, P.E., dated April 12, 1995, <br />entitled "Progress Report on Tatum House Subsidence Issues". See <br />AR II-30. The second report Mr. Pendleton reviewed was a report <br />by William J. Attwooll, P.E., dated March 27, 1995, entitled <br />"Report of Site Visit Observations". See AR II-31. <br />In his report, Mr. Pendleton observes that neither of the <br />Tatum experts had asserted in their respective reports that coal <br />mining subsidence was the sole, or even primary cause of the <br />stress on the Tatum home. He notes, on page one of his report, <br />that, in his opinion, <br />the conclusion of Messrs. Gerity and Attwooll is that <br />it hasn't been exhaustively demonstrated that <br />subsidence did not cause the phenomena observed. I <br />have discussed these reports with Mike Rosenthal of the <br />OSM. Based upon our professional experience in <br />subsidence observation and evaluation, both Mr. <br />Rosenthal and I are of the opinion that there is <br />insufficient evidence for us to conclude that <br />subsidence caused the phenomena observed at the Tatum <br />residence. Semantically, these statements are not in <br />contradiction. Inherent within their structure is a <br />disagreement regarding the burden of proof. <br />(Emphasis added.) See AR II-29. <br />8 <br />