Two Classes of Pediatric Cancer Patients Certified With the Help of Dr. Jim McClave and Infotech Consulting

Two Classes of Pediatric Cancer Patients Certified With the Help of Dr. Jim McClave and Infotech Consulting

When the Infotech Consulting team was asked to provide services for a pediatric cancer case against the University of New Mexico, it presented new challenges that ultimately increased our opportunities for collaboration and innovation – two of the things our team loves most about the work they do.

For nearly two decades, litigation surrounding this tragic case has been ongoing. Plaintiffs consisting of patients, parents and surviving siblings of pediatric cancer patients who presented for treatment at UNMH alleged the hospital’s negligence in failing to maintain adequate protocols and allowing improper treatment protocols to be administered to pediatric cancer patients for 20 years. They claimed this negligence led to children losing their best chance for survival or a better outcome. 

Dr. Jim McClave and Infotech Consulting were hired by plaintiffs to collaborate with two well-known experts, Dr. W. Kip Viscusi and Dr. M. Brian McDonald, to calculate damages caused by UNMH’s failure to use the proper protocol; an amount intended to provide some compensation for the loss suffered by these families.

Unlike many malpractice suits that focus on compensating the victim for losses and injuries incurred or reasonably likely to occur in the future, the Infotech Consulting team used the data to evaluate the lost chance of a better outcome due to the negligent cancer treatment children received.

Over five years (2014-2019), Dr. McClave wrote three expert reports and sat for two depositions. Ultimately, in concert with Dr. Viscusi’s lost chance of survival calculations and Dr. McDonald’s measures of the value of statistical life, Dr. McClave presented three methodologies to calculate class damages.  

In August 2020, the surviving family members of the deceased plaintiffs reached a settlement agreement with the hospital for $38 million. Just four months later, the Court certified two classes: a medical monitoring class and a damages class. The case is still pending.

Working on a case of this nature and magnitude was far from easy for our team, who took the gravity of the outcomes to heart and mind. But the opportunity for collaboration and innovation with our fellow experts in the field helped to bring this case one step closer to resolution for all of those impacted. 

Maria Cummings, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Shaun Michael Chavez, et al v. Board of Regents of The University of New Mexico, et al (2001 N.M 2nd Dist. Ct.)

Two Classes of Pediatric Cancer Patients Certified With the Help of Dr. Jim McClave and Infotech Consulting

Infotech Consulting Helps Turn Off the Faucet in $4 million Iron Pipe Fittings Antitrust Case

Infotech Consulting had the opportunity to work with indirect purchaser plaintiffs in an industry that most people never even think about when turning on their faucets.  Ductile iron pipe fittings (DIPF) are used to join ductile iron pipe, valves and hydrants within a water system as well as change or direct the flow of water and are an integral part of municipal and regional water and sewer systems.  The end-user plaintiffs, including municipal water works departments, accused Defendants McWane, Inc, Sigma Corporation and Star Pipe Products of violating antitrust laws by restricting trade, charging supracompetitive prices for ductile iron pipe fittings, and unlawful monopolization between 2008 and 2014.  These companies controlled over 90% of the DIPF market during this period.  Infotech Consulting analyzed over 4.7 million DIPF distributor transactions to calculate the pass through rate to indirect purchasers that then was used to estimate the damages incurred by the end-users as a result of the conspiratorial behavior.  Dr. Jim McClave’s damage model helped the plaintiff’s secure settlements totalling over $4 million.  


In Re Ductile Iron Pipe Fittings (“DIPF”) Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, Civ. No. 12-169 (US District Court for New Jersey)

Originally published in 2018

Two Classes of Pediatric Cancer Patients Certified With the Help of Dr. Jim McClave and Infotech Consulting

Over 1 Billion Transactions with over $80 billion in revenue analyzed by Infotech Consulting in Cathode Ray Tube Price-Fixing Case

Not many of us still own a cathode ray tube (CRT) television, but many of us remember the big and bulky sources of entertainment from yesteryear. Makers of cathode ray tubes were accused of fixing the price of various sizes of cathode ray tubes from roughly 1995 to 2007, a time where these televisions and monitors were feeling the market pressure from flat panel televisions and monitors. Jim McClave and the Infotech Consulting team were engaged to perform damage analyses for 13 plaintiffs that opted out of the class action. The data spanned 18 years and involved analyzing defendant transaction data consisting of over 1 billion transactions with over $80 billion in revenue. Through the eight-year litigation period, settlements on behalf of class members and opt outs totaled over $800 million. Infotech Consulting’s thorough analysis of the data and expert synthesis of the material aided numerous plaintiffs in reaching advantageous settlements with over 10 defendants.


In re: Cathode Ray Tube Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 07-5944 SC and Case. No. 14-cv-02510  (US District Court for N.D. of California) 

Originally published in 2018



Infotech Consulting Provides Expert Testimony and Analysis in Long-Awaited Opioid Trial

Infotech Consulting Provides Expert Testimony and Analysis in Long-Awaited Opioid Trial

May 2022 Update: Four years of work on the monumental opioids case ended on May 4, 2022 as Walgreens settled in the middle of trial for $683 million, bringing the State of Florida’s total recovery to nearly three billion dollars. This was one of our teams’ most difficult cases, both from an analytical and emotional perspective. You can read more about our experience in the trial on Dr. Jim McClave’’s blog article.

For more than two decades, the opioid epidemic has wreaked havoc on our country, killing hundreds of thousands of Americans, destroying lives, splitting families, and costing taxpayers billions upon billions of dollars. Among the thousands of legal actions being fought against opioid manufacturers and distributors, the State of Florida is finally having its day in court with the trial of its claims originally brought in 2018 commencing the week of April 5. Through it all, Infotech Consulting has been part of a team of experts retained by the State to examine the economic impact of the opioid epidemic in Florida and ensure that the Defendants (in this case, 12 major manufacturers and distributors) do not profit from the opioid crisis. 

As trial begins against the sole remaining defendant, Walgreens, Infotech Consulting will be the first team to present damages estimates to a jury. Dr. Jim McClave, CEO and Expert Statistician/Econometrician, and Dr. Rob Kneuper, Expert Economist, are expected to testify as expert witnesses on behalf of the State of Florida. Infotech Consulting is proud to be part of a large and dedicated trial team, working to hold accountable those who contributed to the opioid crisis. 

According to its Amended Complaint against the opioid manufacturers and distributors, the State of Florida alleged, “Defendants cooperated to sell and ship ever-increasing quantities of opioids into Florida. To create newfound demand for opioids, Defendants used unfair and misleading marketing- including the use of front groups, paid “opinion leaders,” and Continuing Medical Education courses (“CMEs”) – to convince both doctors and patients that opioids could safely be prescribed for common ailments that cause chronic pain. To meet the artificially inflated demand, Defendants sold, shipped, and dispensed opioids in quantities that could not possibly have been medically justified and in the face of clear evidence that opioids were being diverted for illegitimate uses. Defendants’ plan succeeded, and they recorded multibillion-dollar profits as a result.” 

Infotech Consulting experts Dr. Jim McClave and Dr. Rob Kneuper were hired in this case to analyze two distinct economic impacts of the Opioid Epidemic: damages to the State of Florida and profits made by the defendants as a result of the opioid crisis. Dr. McClave’s analysis, which worked to quantify the historical damages to Florida as a result of the defendants’ alleged misconduct, covered a variety of costs inflated as a result of the opioid crisis, including healthcare costs, criminal justice costs, child welfare costs, drug treatment costs, and lost tax revenue. Dr. Kneuper analyzed Defendants’ profits resulting from their sale and distribution of opioids. The Infotech Consulting team spent the last several years preparing these detailed analyses.

The State of Florida has reached settlements with 11 of the 12 Defendants to date. Recently, Florida reached agreements totaling $870 million with defendants CVS, Allergan, and Teva. The State previously had secured $1.6 billion from other defendants as part of a previous nation-wide settlement.

Landmark Settlements in Global Capacitors Price-Fixing Case Secured

Landmark Settlements in Global Capacitors Price-Fixing Case Secured

Just before the holidays, Infotech Consulting and its clients celebrated the successful conclusion to the sprawling In Re Capacitors Litigation, with the parties announcing a final settlement had been reached with Nippon Chemi-Con (“NCC”). This was the last of more than 20 defendants accused of participating in a global conspiracy to fix the prices of capacitors. Plaintiffs alleged that price-fixing in this multibillion-dollar market began as far back as 2002 and continued for over a decade. The conspiracy spanned hundreds of thousands of capacitor products of various size, capacitance, and materials. Even before the NCC settlements, other defendants had agreed to settlements totaling $439.6 million. With the NCC settlements, all defendants have agreed to refund over $600 million in overcharges.

So, what exactly is a capacitor? Well, you’ve likely relied on them every day without ever noticing it (including right now as you read this on your computer or phone). A capacitor is a device that stores electrical energy in an electric field. They range in size from miniscule (fitting into a phone) to extremely large (think jet engines). They are essential components of electrical systems like TVs, smart phones, cameras, appliances, cars, medical devices, lighting, computers, and so much more. And yes – there are numerous capacitors in one product. Trillions of them are manufactured each year.

The rigorous statistical basis for the damages and impact analysis resulting in the extraordinary settlements came from Dr. Jim McClave, Dr. Jamie McClave Baldwin, Dr. Allison Zhou and the work of the entire Infotech Consulting team, backed by extensive research, data analysis, consulting, and expert testimony spanning a period of over seven years. These efforts culminated in multiple expert reports, two depositions, and expert testimony in both a concurrent expert witness proceeding (“hot tub”) and, finally, at trial. “Hot tubbing” is a process that some courts are adopting in which judges hear sworn testimony from opposing experts simultaneously (think live debate), rather than the traditional direct and cross examination of each expert separately.

The trial was originally scheduled for March 2020, but was suspended due to the emerging pandemic. Fast forward 20 months later, and the parties were back in the courtroom for trial. Dr. Jamie McClave Baldwin worked tirelessly alongside our clients during the (over two week) trial, providing expertise, research and support at every turn and twist of the trial proceedings.

In announcing the landmark settlements reached, representatives from Joseph Saveri Law Firm stated, “We strongly believe these ground-breaking settlements will deter this type of collusive behavior in the future, to the benefit of us all.”

Infotech Consulting celebrates this win, not only for our clients but for the numerous consumers affected by the global conspiracy of manufacturers to fix, raise, and maintain prices of capacitors at an elevated level.

“This win represents what our team does best – use our expertise, knowledge, and passion to fight for what is right,” shared Dr. Jamie McClave Baldwin, Expert and President of Infotech Consulting. “We are proud to have been involved in this case from the beginning of discovery, through class certification and both trials – over seven years of work. Other firms came and went, but our team never backed down from the challenge. It was this dedication and effort that helped produce outstanding results for our extraordinarily talented clients and the class of direct purchasers.”

Re Capacitor Antitrust Litigation (2017) Case No. 3:17-md-02801, U.S. Dist. Ct. N. Dist. California.

Infotech Consulting’s Expert Analysis helps Geico Insurance battle Auto Glass Shops

Florida has a unique auto insurance law that allows those insured to have the windshield of their vehicle repaired or replaced without triggering their deductible.  In other words, insured drivers can get their windshield replaced with no out of pocket cost. There are only four other states with this unique provision: Arizona, Kentucky, Massachusetts and South Carolina. This has created a unique market whereby those insured are not involved financially in the transaction, leaving just the insurance company and the auto glass shop.  Auto glass shops have the insured assign their benefits to the glass shop upon completion of the installation or repair, which allows the auto glass shop to pursue any litigation against the insurance company without involving the insured.

Why is that important?  Why would the auto glass shop need to litigate against the insurance company over a windshield replacement?  Because auto glass shops in Florida are claiming insurance companies are not paying the full amount on the invoice.  Suit after suit by auto glass shops allege that insurance companies, like GEICO, are underpaying on the invoices for windshield replacements by relying on a reduced retail rate.  This issue has increased dramatically with about 400 Assignment of Benefit (AOB) lawsuits filed against multiple auto insurers statewide in 2006 to a peak of about 24,000 in 2017.  There was a reduction in the number of cases filed in 2018 and 2019 – with around 17,000 filed each year – but that is still quadruple the number filed a few years back.  

In 2018, Infotech was hired by GEICO to analyze GEICO’s windshield replacement prices throughout the state of Florida to determine if GEICO was paying auto glass shops the prevailing competitive price. In GEICO’s auto insurance agreements, there is a limit of liability provision stating, “Although you have the right to choose any repair facility or location, the limit of liability for repair or replacement of such property is the prevailing competitive price, which is the price we can secure from a competent and conveniently located repair facility.” Over the last five years, Dr. Jim McClave has testified in numerous cases that the GEICO transaction data show GEICO was regularly able to secure its price from glass shops throughout Florida.  

The crux of these cases come down to whether GEICO pays a prevailing competitive rate for windshield replacement or whether the invoice amount from the glass shops represent the prevailing competitive price.  Infotech analyzed over 140,000 GEICO windshield replacement transactions between 2013-2018 involving over 1,200 auto glass shops in Florida. After analyzing the data, Dr. McClave and the Infotech Consulting team determined the claims data reveal GEICO’s payments for windshield replacements are consistent with prevailing competitive prices.  In every year of analysis, a majority of glass shops are commonly charging a rate at or near the agreed-upon GEICO price.

Dr. McClave has offered his expert opinion in nearly 100 cases on this issue.  In each instance thus far, Dr. McClave and his team have analyzed the invoiced prices submitted by the glass companies for the claims at issue and found that they were out of line with the prevailing competitive price charged in the market.  He has testified in multiple depositions and several trials, with the most recent trials last spring.  In fact, the GEICO trials in April 2021 represented Infotech’s return from a year-long hiatus of trial appearances due to Covid-19.  In the trial on April 13th and 14th of 2021, Superior Auto Glass argued that GEICO did not fully pay Superior’s invoiced amount for a windshield replaced on an insured car in 2015.  The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Defense, finding that GEICO paid a prevailing competitive price and that the auto shop had knowledge of the GEICO rate before accepting the work and invoicing GEICO far in excess of that rate. 

As Infotech Consulting President Dr. Jamie McClave Baldwin recently said, “When the jury came back with a finding in favor of our client, it confirmed the effectiveness and irreplaceable value of in-person court appearances. How gratifying it was to see our client get a favorable result in a case that has been litigated since 2016 and has gone up and down the appeals circuit.”

Until there is Florida legislative action or higher court authority on this matter, the Infotech Consulting team will continue to provide statistical analysis to this evolving market of litigation.

1 Florida Statute §627.7288 (2021)