Case Repository

1. Given the facts, the Board interprets that Engineer J’s transition from the private sector to the public sector was not recent and there does not appear to be a conflict between J’s former work at BWJ and their current work for City C.
2. Although flood damage and independent consultant Firm IBM’s analysis show larger flows, Principal Engineer R and Principal Engineers R’s firm should confirm whether an error exists – essentially, they should re-review Firm IBM’s analysis. If Firm BWJ determines they made a mistake, Principal Engineer R is responsible to acknowledge errors.

1. It was ethical for Engineer T and Engineer B to conclude no error had been made in design, based on review and analysis of the facts from both from a legal/contractual perspective and from an ethical perspective. Engineer T’s design approach represented professional practice consistent with the standard of care.
2. It was ethical for Engineer T not to acknowledge an error after the accident occurred because there was no error. However, based on hindsight, other ways to approach the project may have prevented the accident and worker injury, and this was a missed opportunity to hold paramount the public safety, health, and welfare. Engineer T is encouraged to share this hard “lesson learned” as part of continued professional development.
3. It was ethical for Engineer T to refrain from acknowledging an error during the deposition because there was no error. Engineer T should respond clearly and honestly when questioned about the project, including views on alternative design approaches vis-à-vis the public safety, health, and welfare, but should not characterize the work as a design error.

It was not unethical for Engineer A to fail to follow the most recent design parameters for structural design in severe weather areas published in the most recent technical literature.