---
title: "Architecture Expert Witness Barred from Testifying About Slope and Cross-Slope Because His Opinions Were Not Timely Disclosed"
meta:
  "og:description": "Architecture expert witness withdrew his opinion on the slope of the ramp after acknowledging the use of an inaccurate methodology"
  "og:title": "Architecture Expert Witness Barred from Testifying About Slope and Cross-Slope Because His Opinions Were Not Timely Disclosed"
  author: "Expert Witness Profiler"
  description: "Architecture expert witness withdrew his opinion on the slope of the ramp after acknowledging the use of an inaccurate methodology"
---

# Architecture Expert Witness Barred from Testifying About Slope and Cross-Slope Because His Opinions Were Not Timely Disclosed

Posted on January 17, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler

On March 19, 2018, Ralph Monte (“Monte”) visited the Defendant Sherwin-Williams Development Corporation’s store at 4473 South Semoran Boulevard in Orlando, Florida. While attempting to negotiate the ramp from the parking lot to the sidewalk, a wheelchair-bound Monte fell and sustained injuries. He claimed that the fall occurred because Defendant negligently maintained the premises and/or failed to warn him of a dangerous condition. Subsequently, Ralph Monte and his wife, Amarillis Monte filed this premises liability lawsuit under Florida law.

The Plaintiffs retained [Robert Henry Burke](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Robert-Burke/1562224), a forensic architect, as an expert witness to assess whether the conditions of the Defendant’s premises contributed to Monte’s accident. Burke visited the accident site twice, reviewed photographs taken by Monte and the Plaintiffs’ counsel, analyzed images pulled from the Internet in May 2019, and spoke with Monte on May 19, 2021. Burke produced his final expert report on May 30, 2024, a few days before the June 4, 2024 deadline to disclose expert reports.

In response, Defendant filed a motion to exclude Burke’s testimony regarding the slope and cross-slope of the ramp and whether or not the slope or cross-slope contributed to Monte’s accident. The Defendant argued that:

- Burke’s opinions were not timely disclosed
- He is unqualified to render these opinions
- His opinions are not reliable or helpful

## **Architecture Expert Witness**

[Robert H. Burke Jr.](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Robert-Burke/1562224), AIA, served as NCARB president in 1992 and holds the distinction of being the only Florida architect to serve as both chairman of the Florida Board of Architecture and Interior Design and president of NCARB. A graduate of the University of Florida, Burke has received the Distinguished Alumnus and Distinguished Service Awards from the School of Architecture. In 1974, he co-founded his architectural firm, now known as BHM Architecture, which grew into one of central Florida’s most respected architectural practices. In 2013, he established RHBj Consulting to provide litigation support services for design and construction matters across Florida.

[Want to know more about the challenges Robert Henry Burke Jr. has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report](https://app.expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1562224)

## **Discussion by the Court**

After assessing the premises’ conditions with regard to the relevant building codes, Burke opined that:

- The ramp was improperly placed in an access aisle.
- A one-inch change in level at the top of the ramp and sidewalk violated relevant code provisions.
- The slope of the ramp was measured to be between 12.1% and 12.8%, while the relevant code allows a maximum slope of 8.33%.

After the ramp was removed following Monte’s accident, Burke calculated the slope by holding a twelve-inch digital level to the “clean concrete surface along the adjacent concrete curb” that was created by the ramp’s removal. In his view, these opinions “portray hazardous conditions and caused or contributed to Monte’s wheelchair fall accident.” He added that the premises were subject to other code violations.

When Defendant deposed Burke on August 2, 2024, he admitted that the methodology used to determine the slope of the ramp was inaccurate and could not be relied upon. Rather, a new calculation that he prepared the day before his deposition was “more accurate.” Accordingly, Burke stated that he was formally withdrawing his opinion regarding the slope of the ramp. Similarly, while Burke testified at his deposition that he had, since preparing his expert report, determined that the ramp was subject to a cross-slope that also contributed to Monte’s injury, he conceded that his report did not contain any opinion regarding cross-slope. Defendant reports that as of September 30, 2024, Burke had “not issued an updated report to reflect these new opinions and the opinions that were withdrawn.” 

### **Analysis**

When the Defendants moved to exclude some of Burke’s testimony, the Plaintiffs filed an untimely response. The Defendant moved to strike the Plaintiffs’ untimely response, and the Court granted the motion. Essentially, the Defendant’s motion to exclude is unopposed. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of demonstrating the admissibility of Burke’s opinions.

#### **Opinions Were Not Timely** **Disclosed**

The Court noted that the Plaintiffs failed to provide a supplemental expert report updating Burke’s opinions as to the slope and cross-slope. In other words, Plaintiffs failed to file a supplemental report detailing the new methodology employed by Burke to calculate the slope of the ramp and discussing how he determined that the ramp was subject to cross-slope.  The case management and scheduling order required Plaintiffs’ expert report to be disclosed by June 4, 2024. Indeed, even if Plaintiffs had filed a supplemental expert report immediately after Burke’s deposition—which they did not—the Court would have had the discretion to exclude that supplemental report because the date to file expert disclosures had passed. 

#### **Reliability of Opinions**

Even if the Court were to consider the untimely response, it found that Burke’s opinions were not reliable as per the _[Daubert](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/daubert_standard)_standard. Initially, Burke calculated the slope of the ramp using a methodology that he later admitted was unreliable. Despite recognizing the error in his initial approach, Burke did not provide an updated report to correct or clarify his revised opinion. As a result, the Court concluded that the Plaintiffs failed to establish the reliability of Burke’s opinions regarding the slope.

The Court also noted that Burke did not explain how he determined that the ramp was subject to a cross-slope contributing to Monte’s injury, rendering his opinion on the cross-slope unreliable as well.

## **Held**

The Court granted the Defendant’s motion to exclude certain testimony provided by the Plaintiff’s architecture expert witness, Robert Henry Burke.

## **Key Takeaways:**

The Court granted Defendant’s motion to exclude Burke’s testimony due to the Plaintiff’s failure to timely disclose revised opinions. Additionally, the Court found that Burke’s opinions were unreliable. His opinion regarding the ramp’s slope relied on an inaccurate methodology, and no supplemental report was provided after he withdrew his initial opinion. Furthermore, Burke did not adequately explain the cross-slope issue or its contribution to the accident, leading the Court to exclude his testimony for lack of reliability and untimely disclosure.

Please refer to the blog previously published about this case:

[Neurosurgery Expert Witness’ Causation Testimony Regarding Elbow Infection Excluded](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/neurosurgery-expert-witness-causation-testimony-regarding-elbow-infection-excluded)

## **Case Details:**

---

## **You Might Also Like**

![Intellectual Property Expert&#39;s Opinion on Misappropriation Excluded](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-13T205412.117.jpg) [**Intellectual Property Expert’s Opinion on Misappropriation Excluded**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/architecture-expert-witness-barred-from-testifying-about-slope-and-cross-slope-because-his-opinions-were-not-timely-disclosed/intellectual-property-experts-opinion-on-misappropriation-excluded)![Automotive Industry Expert&#39;s Testimony on Pricing Practices Excluded](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-13T191143.335.jpg) [**Automotive Industry Expert’s Testimony on Pricing Practices Excluded**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/architecture-expert-witness-barred-from-testifying-about-slope-and-cross-slope-because-his-opinions-were-not-timely-disclosed/automotive-industry-experts-testimony-on-pricing-practices-excluded)![Consumer Credit Expert Allowed to Opine on Mixed Files](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-13T160600.039.jpg) [**Consumer Credit Expert Allowed to Opine on Mixed Files**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/architecture-expert-witness-barred-from-testifying-about-slope-and-cross-slope-because-his-opinions-were-not-timely-disclosed/consumer-credit-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-mixed-files)![Appraisal Expert&#39;s Testimony on Deceptiveness Excluded](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-11T194055.299.jpg) [**Appraisal Expert’s Testimony on Deceptiveness Excluded**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/architecture-expert-witness-barred-from-testifying-about-slope-and-cross-slope-because-his-opinions-were-not-timely-disclosed/appraisal-experts-testimony-on-deceptiveness-excluded)![Psychology Expert Allowed to Opine on EMDR Therapy](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-11T153456.164.jpg) [**Psychology Expert Allowed to Opine on EMDR Therapy**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/architecture-expert-witness-barred-from-testifying-about-slope-and-cross-slope-because-his-opinions-were-not-timely-disclosed/psychology-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-emdr-therapy)