Opinion ID: 2154496
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Fabricated Scientific Instruments

Text: Dr. Vossoughi testified that UDC destroyed nineteen unique scientific instruments that he had designed and built in order to conduct his research at Catholic or UDC. Dr. Vossoughi claimed that these specialized instruments were not commercially available and had no market value. Although some of these devices were old, Dr. Vossoughi said he continued to use and improve them throughout his career. Dr. Vossoughi could not specify when he initially fabricated each instrument, except to state that only two of the items  a drop test system and a film puncture test apparatus, which he valued at $5,000 apiece  were created at UDC. Dr. Vossoughi sought damages totaling $287,000 for the nineteen lost instruments. He arrived at that figure by assigning a replacement value to each device based on the estimated cost of its materials and, mainly, the amount of time he believed he would have to spend to recreate it. Some of the lost instruments included: a robot gripper valued by Dr. Vossoughi at $15,000 that measured how stresses are distributed on [a] robot finger, which he used to write a chapter in a book called Robot Grippers; a mechanical torquing device worth $2,500 that measured the mechanical properties of blood vessels; soft tissue photographic items worth $12,000, which were designed for soft tissue testing and recording; an inflation extension apparatus valued at $20,000 that enabled Dr. Vossoughi to study blood vessels under hypertension; [5] a residual stress testing mechanism worth $15,000, which Dr. Vossoughi had used to demonstrate that arteries are not residual-stress-free; [6] torsion, axial compression and other instruments worth a total of $22,500, which Dr. Vossoughi had developed to improve clamps utilized by trauma surgeons on broken limbs; a self-design[ed] and constructed modified microscope valued at $5,000; a device to measure the thickness of soft tissue and other very soft material without squeezing it, valued at $2,000; a uniaxial test system worth $15,000; a very complicated apparatus to measure the shear properties of biological tissues, which took Dr. Vossoughi several years to perfect, and which he valued at around $100,000; and a knee testing machine worth $15,000, which Dr. Vossoughi had created to conduct tests with an orthopedic surgeon (I came up with complete system. . . . [W]e quantified how . . . dynamic forces when you run, for example, or jump up and down are transferred from the impact on foot . . . to your upper extremity or through the knee.). Dr. Conway testified that he was familiar with probably 80 percent of the fabricated instruments that Dr. Vossoughi had identified as lost. Because such equipment was so research-specific, Dr. Conway testified, it was not available on the open market and could not be bought secondhand at a devalued price or a depreciated price. Consequently, Dr. Conway opined, it was appropriate and conservative to value Dr. Vossoughi's fabricated instruments at their present day replacement cost, measured by the cost in materials and machinist time (at the rate of $250 to $400 an hour charged by the average machine shop) to re-fabricate them. By that measure, in Dr. Conway's opinion, Dr. Vossoughi's estimated valuations were low but reasonable. Dr. Saha, who was generally familiar with the equipment in Dr. Vossoughi's laboratory, seconded Dr. Conway's opinions. Based on his own experience fabricating scientific equipment, Dr. Saha stated that the damages requested by Dr. Vossoughi for such equipment were quite reasonable and rather on the lower side because producing each instrument would involve[ ] a large amount of a person's time, outside agency's time, like a machine shop and so on. Dr. Saha added that the instruments remained useful and did not become outdated, and that even taking wear and tear into account, their values exceeded what Dr. Vossoughi had estimated.