|
SignaScan,
Inc. |
|
Home Page |
Case Procedures |
Fraud Detection System |
Curriculum Vitae's |
Testimonials |
Case Types |
Exhibit Samples |
Links |
| TESTIMONIALS | ||
GARRETT & JENSEN
ATTORNEYS
AT LAW
433 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE WEST
SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702-2002
(714) 550-0100
FAX (714) 550-0471
November 19,
1998
John
Cerlanek
SIGNA SCAN
1515 S. Sunkist St., #C
Anaheim, CA 92806
Dear John:
Well, we did
it again, two defense verdicts at trial !
I would like
to thank you for your hard work and preparation, on the case of Kim v.
Rose. As you know, this was a very difficult case in that Plaintiff
was involved in a very serious accident and claiming severe personal
injuries. We also faced the chief question document examiner for the
City of Long Beach Police Department. However, the jury, the judge,
the court clerk, and the bailiff all commented to me what a superb
presentation you gave during trial concerning Plaintiff’s sign-in
sheets. They were all convinced that the Plaintiff did not treat at
the Medical Clinic, based on your presentation and testimony. In fact,
the judge pulled me aside and told me he was recommending to all the
District Attorneys that they should be retaining you as their
questioned document examiner. That is a well-deserved compliment.
Please thank Gil Garrett for his wonderful forensic photography in
this case.
I look forward to working with you again real soon.
Very truly
yours,
Garrett &
Jensen
By:
Mark S. Armijo
| Trial Reports | |
|
12 TO 25 |
EXPERT
TESTIMONY According to defendant: Plaintiff's expert Charles, an anesthesiologist, testified that the care received by plaintiff was reasonable and necessary. Plaintiff's expert Pierce, a handwriting analyst, testified that plaintiff signed all of her physical therapy treatment logs on different occasions. He did not believe that the physical therapy signatures were fraudulent. The defense expert, John Cerlanek, a document examiner, testified that the physical therapy logs signed by plaintiff pm 29 occasions revealed strong evidence of fabrication and fraud. There were 29 physical therapy sessions with 29 signatures from plaintiff. Cerlanek was able to determine from habitual analysis and more importantly through scientific analysis that plaintiff signed in blocks, i.e., four or five signatures at one time, possibly all at once. The jury commented after the trial that the handwriting presentation by defendant was credible and showed strong evidence of fraud on the part of the plaintiff. COMMENTS |
| Driver turns
left into plaintiff's care - Injury to shoulder, arm, hip/knee |
|
| VEHICLE
NEGLIGENCE Motor Vehicle v. Motor Vehicle: Left Turn/Intersection LOS ANGELES COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT VERDICT/JUDGEMENT
DEFENSE TRIAL COUNSEL Defendant: Mark S. Armjo, Garrett & Jensen, Santa Ana FACTS/CONTENTIONS CLAIMED INJURIES CLAIMED DAMAGES SETTLEMENT
DISCUSSIONS TRIAL EXPERTS |
![]()
Law Offices of
Vivian L. Schwartz
ONE PARKSIDE
560 EAST HOSPITALITY LANE
SUITE 350
SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92408
TELEPHONE
(909) 384-4100
FAX (909) 384-4108
February 6, 1997
Mr. John F.
Cerlanek
Sign Scan, Inc.
1515 S. Sunkist St., #C
Anaheim, CA 92806
Re: Rowser v.
Franklin, San Bernardino Municipal Court
Case Number
RCC112269
Dear Mr.
Cerlanek:
To confirm our telephone conversation this date, we received a unanimous defense verdict in the above referenced case. Based on my conversation with the jury foreman, and other jurors after the trial, your testimony and exhibits convinced them that the sign-in sheets, from the Chiropractic clinic, indicated massive fabrication and were signed in considerably fewer sittings than the dates indicated. The jury was impressed both by the habitual and pen and ink evidence that was presented. You did an excellent job in communicating your procedures and conclusions clearly and convincingly. I thank you for being part of our team on this one and look forward to working with you again.
Very Truly Yours,
Marcia M. LaCour
![]()
May 8, 2003
John Cerlanek
Signa Scan, Inc.
1423 E. Lambda Place
Anaheim, CA 92805
Re:
Hill v. Chapman
Dear Mr.
Cerlanek:
This correspondence is to thank you for the excellent report you
prepared in regard to the above referenced matter.
Your report was quite effective in illustrating the deficiencies with
the plaintiff’s position and was instrumental in achieving a
favorable arbitration award for the defense.
I highly recommend your services and commend you for your professionalism.
Very truly yours,
Charles
R. Brehmer