Mesothelioma Help

2009-03-09T09:26:00.001-04:00

Numerous people were exposed to asbestos while working for AT&T, Lucent Technologies and the other companies in the Bell operating system. I am representing a cable splicer who developed mesothelioma while working for New Jersey Bell telephone in NJ. The follwing is the deposition of the Corproate respresentaive which details the kinds of exposures that may occur.

1 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION: MIDDLESEX COUNTY 2 DOCKET NO. L-5469-07 (AS)
3 4 PHILIP & KAREN DEGNAN, VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITION UNDER 5 Plaintiff, ORAL EXAMINATION OF 6 vs. CHARLES P. LICHTENWALNER 7 ALCATEL LUCENT, et al, 8 Defendant(s). 9 10 11 TRANSCRIPT of the deposition of the witness called for Oral Examination in the 12 above-captioned matter, said deposition being taken pursuant to Superior Court Rules of 13 Practice and Procedure by and before RACHEL SANTIAGO, a Notary Public and Shorthand 14 Reporter of the State of New Jersey, at the offices of THACHER, PROFFITT & WOOD, 25 15 DeForest Avenue, Summit, New Jersey on Friday, July 25, 2008, commencing at approximately 16 10:00 in the forenoon. 17 18 19 20 21 22 BRODY DEPOSITION SERVICES Certified Shorthand Reporters and Videographers 23 90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 220 Woodbridge, New Jersey 07095 24 (732) 283-5737 25 2 1 A P P E A R A N C E S: 2 3 COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C. 4 127 Maple Avenue 5 Red Bank, New Jersey 07701 6 (732) 747-9003 7 BY: CHRISTOPHER PLACITELLA, ESQ. 8 Attorneys for Plaintiff 9 10 LAW OFFICE JOHN McGOWAN, LLC 11 54 Main Street 12 Chatham, New Jersey 07928 13 (973) 507-9511 14 BY: JOHN McGOWAN, ESQ. 15 Attorneys for Defendant, Deponent Lucent 16 17 THACHER, PROFFITT & WOOD 18 25 DeForest Avenue 19 Summit, New Jersey 07901 20 (908) 598-5700 21 BY: ROBERT L. HORNBY, ESQ. 22 Attorneys for Defendant, Deponent Lucent 23 24 25 3 1 A P P E A R A N C E S (Cont'd): 2 3 McELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP, 4 1300 Mount Kemble Avenue 5 Morristown, New Jersey 07962 6 (973) 993-8100 7 BY: MICHELLE HYDRUSKO, ESQ. 8 Attorneys for Defendant, Railroad Construction 9 Company, Inc. 10 11 LAVIN, O'NEIL, RICCI, CEDRONE & DISIPIO 12 190 North Independence Mall West 13 Suite 500 14 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106 15 (215) 627-0303 16 BY: BASIL A. DiSIPIO, ESQ. 17 Attorney for Defendant, 3M Company 18 19 RIKER, DANZIG, SCHERER, HYLAND, PERRETTI, LLP 20 Headquarters Plaza 21 One Speedwell Avenue 22 Morristown, New Jersey 07962 23 (973) 538-0800 24 BY: KELLY CRAWFORD, ESQ. 25 Attorneys for Defendant, AT&T 4 1 A P P E A R A N C E S (Cont'd): 2 3 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 4 216 Haddon Avenue 5 Westmont, New Jersey 08108 6 (856) 858-7200 7 BY: RYAN M. KOOI, ESQ. 8 Attorneys for Defendant, John Crane 9 10 KENT & McBRIDE, P.C. 11 555 Route 1 South, 12 Woodbridge Towers, 4th Floor 13 Iselin, New Jersey 08830 14 (732) 326-1711 15 BY: STEPHEN DENARO, ESQ. 16 Attorneys for Defendant, T. J. McGlone 17 18 CONNELL FOLEY, LLP 19 85 Livingston Avenue 20 Roseland, New Jersey 07068 21 (973) 535-0500 22 BY: MEGAN ROBERTS, ESQ. 23 Attorneys for Defendant, Frank A. McBride 24 25 5 1 A P P E A R A N C E S (Cont'd): 2 3 HARDIN, KUNDLA, McKEON & POLETTO, P.A. 4 673 Morris Avenue 5 Springfield, New Jersey 07081 6 (973) 912-5222 7 BY: NICEA D'ANNUNZIO, ESQ. 8 Attorneys for Defendant, Henkels & McCoy 9 10 A L S O P R E S E N T: 11 Justin Placitella 12 Michael Noonan 13 Thomas Farmer, Videographer 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 1 I N D E X 2
3 WITNESS PAGE
4 CHARLES P. LICHTENWALNER 5 Direct by Mr. Placitella 7, 195 6 Cross by Mr. Kooi 191 7 8 E X H I B I T S 9 EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE
10 P-1 Membership Booklet 1958-1959 62 11
12 P-2 Membership Booklet 1966-1967 63 13 (Exhibits annexed to transcript.) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7 1 C H A R L E S P A U L L I C H T E N W A L N E R, 2 121 Petticoat Lane, Lebanon, 3 New Jersey, called as a witness, having 4 been first duly sworn according to law 5 by a Notary Public of the State of 6 New Jersey, testifies under oath as follows: 7 VIDEOGRAPHER: Good morning. This 8 is Tape Number One to the videotape 9 deposition of Charles Paul Lichtenwalner in 10 the matter of Degnan versus Lucent before 11 the Superior Court of New Jersey Law 12 Division Middlesex County Docket Number 13 L-5469-07. 14 This deposition is being held at 24 15 (sic) DeForest Avenue, Summit, New Jersey 16 on July 25 at video time 10:06 a.m. My 17 name is Thomas Farmer. I am the 18 videographer. The court reporter is 19 Rachel Santiago. Counsel will please 20 introduce themselves and affiliations and 21 the witness will be sworn in by the court 22 reporter. 23 24 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PLACITELLA: 25 Q. Good morning, Mr. Lichtenwalner, did 8 1 I pronounce that correct? 2 A. You did. 3 Q. How are you? My name is Chris 4 Placitella, as I introduced myself to you 5 before, I am here for purposes of taking your 6 deposition. You've had your deposition taken 7 before? 8 A. I have. 9 Q. So I'm not going to go over all the 10 rules, et cetera, essentially you know what's 11 going on. 12 A. I believe I do. 13 Q. Okay. Now, are you still, you live 14 at 121 Petticoat Lane, Lebanon, New Jersey? 15 A. I do. 16 Q. How long have you lived there? 17 A. Thirty years. 18 Q. And you've previously testified 19 about the use of asbestos in Bell Systems while 20 employed by Bell Laboratories? 21 A. While employed? I don't think I 22 testified while I was employed by Bell 23 Laboratories. 24 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection to form. 25 Q. I understand. You've previously 9 1 testified about asbestos used in the Bell 2 Systems during the time that you worked at Bell 3 Laboratories; correct? 4 A. That's correct. 5 Q. And you testified about what was 6 known by Bell Labs in the past relating to 7 asbestos? 8 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection. 9 A. I have. 10 Q. You have information to the 11 containing asbestos-containing products used in 12 telephone equipment prior to 1993; is that 13 correct? 14 A. That is correct. 15 Q. And you know about the information 16 relating to asbestos in cable used in the Bell 17 Operating Companies? 18 A. Correct. 19 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 20 A. I am not -- very little asbestos 21 used in cables in the Bell System to my 22 knowledge. 23 Q. Are you being paid for your time 24 here? 25 A. I believe I will be. 10 1 Q. Okay. And what rate are you 2 charging? 3 A. I will be submitting a bill for 4 $175 an hour. 5 Q. Okay. And who are you going to 6 submit that bill to? 7 A. I will submit the bill to Thacher, 8 Proffitt & Wood. 9 Q. Okay. And who is going to pay that 10 bill? 11 A. I am not sure. 12 Q. Do you understand the reason why 13 you are here today? 14 A. I believe I am here because I got a 15 subpoena about a month ago. 16 Q. And have you had any, are you 17 represented by counsel here today? 18 A. I am represented by counsel today. 19 Q. And are you paying for counsel? 20 A. I am not paying for counsel. 21 Q. And have you signed a retainer to 22 be represented by counsel? 23 A. I have not signed a retainer. 24 Q. Did you request to be represented 25 by counsel? 11 1 A. I did not request. 2 Q. So was counsel offered to you by 3 Lucent? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. In the past you have testified on 6 behalf of Lucent as a corporate witness, 7 correct? 8 A. That is correct. 9 Q. On how many occasions? 10 A. I am not sure. 11 Q. Just your best estimate? 12 A. Two or three times. 13 Q. Okay. Were you paid in those 14 cases? 15 A. I don't remember. 16 Q. Now, did you spend any time 17 preparing for today's deposition? 18 A. I did spend time, yes. 19 Q. And when did you spend time 20 preparing for today's deposition? 21 A. Approximately one week ago. 22 Q. Where did that prep time take 23 place? 24 A. That took place in this room. 25 Q. And who was present? 12 1 A. John McGowan and Robert Hornby. 2 Q. In the context of that preparation, 3 did you review any documents. 4 MR. MCGOWAN: I am going object. I 5 think we can get into a little privilege. 6 Q. You can answer it. 7 A. I can answer it? 8 Q. Uh-hum. 9 A. I saw very few documents and only 10 briefly at that time. 11 Q. What were the subject matter of the 12 documents? 13 A. The subject matter was, as I 14 recall, it was memoranda and letters from the 15 Bell System during the time I was working 16 there. 17 Q. Do you have -- 18 MR. PLACITELLA: Mr. McGowan, do 19 you have the documents you reviewed with 20 the witness? 21 MR. MCGOWAN: I do not have them. 22 And I'm going to assert claim of privilege 23 on those. 24 MR. PLACITELLA: You are. 25 MR. MCGOWAN: Yes. 13 1 MR. PLACITELLA: Why, because they 2 are authored by lawyers? 3 MR. MCGOWAN: I don't know what 4 documents he's specifically referring to 5 so if there's any memorandum or notes that 6 I've prepared. . . 7 MR. PLACITELLA: I don't want to, 8 anything that you prepared. 9 BY MR. PLACITELLA: 10 Q. I want to know the documents that 11 you prepared, were they Bell System documents 12 as opposed to lawyers documents? 13 A. That is correct. 14 Q. And who were they authored by? 15 A. They were very few documents that 16 we reviewed at that time. The ones that I 17 remember at this time, one was authored by some 18 corporate level of AT&T and the other one was 19 documents that I prepared, a document that I 20 prepared. 21 Q. A document that you prepared while 22 you worked for what company? 23 A. While I worked for Bell 24 Laboratories. 25 Q. Okay. 14 1 MR. PLACITELLA: I'd ask during the 2 break if I can get those documents and 3 take a look at them. 4 Q. Now, I understand that you 5 graduated from high school in 1965? 6 A. That is correct. 7 Q. And from the University of 8 Pennsylvania in 1969 with a degree in Physics? 9 A. That is correct. 10 Q. And you received a Master's in 11 Environmental Science from Rutgers in 1992? 12 A. That is correct. 13 Q. Have you taken professional 14 development courses throughout your career? 15 A. Yes, I have. 16 Q. And you have an engineering license 17 for the State of New Jersey? 18 A. That is correct. 19 Q. After you got out of school you 20 spent a brief time as a day laborer, correct? 21 A. That is correct. 22 Q. And then you went to work for Bell 23 Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey? 24 A. That is correct. 25 Q. Okay. And that was, approximately, 15 1 1969? 2 A. December 12, 1969. 3 Q. The day that will live in infamy? 4 A. I'm sorry, I misspoke. I believe 5 it was December 15. 6 Q. Okay. When you started at Bell 7 Laboratories you were investigating the 8 properties of crystals and chemicals? 9 A. Correct. 10 Q. And at some point in time you went 11 to work for Bell Laboratories Industrial 12 Hygiene Department; is that correct? 13 A. That is correct. 14 Q. And you worked in the Industrial 15 Hygiene Department for about 25 years until 16 about 1999? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Originally, am I correct, you were 19 hired as an Instrumentation Specialist for the 20 Hygiene Department at Bell Labs? 21 A. Correct. 22 Q. And as Instrumentation Specialist 23 you developed equipment and collected samples, 24 analyzed industrial hygiene samples, that kind 25 of thing? 16 1 A. Correct. 2 Q. All right. During the course of 3 your employment from '75 to '99 you had various 4 titles? 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. But your job functions remained 7 basically the same; is that right? 8 A. That is correct. 9 Q. Okay. From 1990 to '95 you were a 10 process safety manager? 11 A. Correct. 12 Q. What is that? 13 A. My job was to look at the 14 experiments that researchers were performing 15 and assure that they were performed safely. 16 Q. Okay. And you took samples as part 17 of the Industrial Hygiene Department for Bell 18 Labs; is that fair? 19 A. I did. 20 Q. And some of those samples included 21 samples of asbestos in the workplace? 22 A. Yes, that's correct. 23 Q. What kind of sampling were you 24 doing for asbestos in the workplace and for 25 whom? 17 1 A. I collected air samples both area 2 and personnel samples. This was all part of 3 the work that I was performing for the 4 Industrial Hygiene Group. I collected some 5 bulk samples, analyzed them for asbestos. And 6 then, I'm sorry, specifically, just asbestos 7 or? 8 Q. Yes. 9 A. Okay. Specifically just asbestos. 10 Q. I know you do a lot of stuff, but, 11 you know, everyone's got to beat the beach 12 traffic. 13 A. Air and bulk samples. 14 Q. Now, you worked for Bell Labs, 15 specifically, until sometime in the 1980's? 16 A. Bell Laboratories changed its name 17 a few times -- 18 Q. Okay. 19 A. So that's a difficult question to 20 answer. 21 Q. Okay. Did there come a -- when you 22 first started working, you worked for Bell 23 Laboratories? 24 A. That is correct. 25 Q. Then where did you get your check 18 1 from? 2 A. I believe it was from Bell 3 Laboratories. 4 Q. Did there come a time when Bell 5 Laboratories was not issuing your paycheck 6 anymore? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And when was that? 9 A. I don't know the exact date, but at 10 some date they dropped the term Bell 11 Laboratories and become AT&T. 12 Q. So at some point in time you 13 started to be paid, your checks were issued by 14 AT&T? 15 A. That is correct. 16 Q. That was the parent company of the 17 Bell Operating System? 18 A. That is correct. 19 MR. MCGOWAN: Object to form. 20 Q. Did anything change in terms of 21 your job function and responsibility from the 22 day, the last day you received a check from 23 Bell Laboratories to the first day you received 24 a check from AT&T? 25 A. My job function did not change. 19 1 Q. Okay. Did there come a time when 2 your check was no longer written by AT&T but 3 then was written by Lucent? 4 A. That is correct. 5 Q. Did that happen around 1996? 6 A. I believe that's true. 7 Q. All right. Did your job functions 8 change at all when you started to be paid by 9 Lucent versus when you were being paid by AT&T? 10 A. It did not change. 11 Q. Did the people you report to change 12 in any way? 13 A. They did not change. 14 Q. Did somebody ever tell you about 15 the changes that were coming, why they were 16 being made, or did you just wake up one morning 17 and they say, your checks are now coming from 18 Lucent? 19 A. We received a lot of information 20 from the company about the changes that were 21 taking place, sir. 22 Q. What did you understand the reason 23 for the change between Bell Laboratories and 24 being paid by AT&T? 25 A. My understanding is that AT&T 20 1 decided that they wanted to have one company 2 with more uniform policies and practices and my 3 understanding was they dropped the name Bell 4 Laboratories, Bell Telephone Laboratories, and 5 decided to put everyone under one name. 6 Q. Okay. And then what about the 7 change over between AT&T and Lucent, what is 8 your understanding for why that changeover took 9 place? 10 A. My understanding is that AT&T spun 11 off Lucent Technologies, and, therefore, it 12 became an independent, a company independent of 13 AT&T. 14 Q. But before that time AT&T owned 15 Lucent; is that your understanding? 16 A. Before that time, there was no 17 Lucent name. 18 Q. Okay. So your job functions were 19 then just transferred by AT&T to Lucent? 20 A. That is my understanding. 21 Q. And then at some point in time you 22 left the Industrial Hygiene Department and went 23 to work for the Optical Networking Department? 24 A. That is correct. 25 Q. And you were ultimately laid off 21 1 out of that Department, correct? 2 A. That is correct. 3 Q. And after that you did some work 4 for Harvard University? 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. Did you continue to live in New 7 Jersey while you were doing work for Harvard? 8 A. I did. 9 Q. All right. What, basically, were 10 your functions as it related to Harvard? 11 A. I was an industrial hygienist at 12 Harvard University performing general 13 industrial hygiene duties. 14 Q. And those duties would take place 15 in the general area of your home? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Would you go all over the country 18 to do that? What was your general geographic 19 sphere of work? 20 A. My general geographic sphere of 21 work while working for Harvard was Cambridge, 22 Massachusetts and Boston, Massachusetts. 23 Q. Are you still working for them now? 24 A. I am not. 25 Q. Okay. Are you currently working 22 1 now? 2 A. I am currently working as an 3 independent contractor. 4 Q. Okay. Doing what? 5 A. Industrial hygiene. 6 Q. And how long have you been doing 7 that? 8 A. I've been doing that since 1975. 9 Q. How long have you been working as 10 an independent contractor? 11 A. I've been working as an independent 12 contractor from July of 2007 to date. 13 Q. Okay. So you officially left 14 employment of Harvard in July of 2007? 15 A. Officially, I left in June 30 of 16 2007. 17 Q. And the reason you left is because? 18 A. I left because I was tired of doing 19 a weekly commute of 300 miles. 20 Q. Understandable. Did you have to 21 give back your Harvard tie? 22 A. I never received a Harvard tie. 23 Q. Okay. Good so I like you. My 24 understanding is that Bell Laboratories for 25 whom you worked, was a wholly-owned subsidiary 23 1 of AT&T? 2 A. That was my understanding also. 3 Q. And the funding for Bell 4 Laboratories came 50 percent from Western 5 Electric and 50 percent from AT&T; is that 6 correct? 7 MR. MCGOWAN: Object to form. 8 A. That was my understanding. 9 Q. And when you went, first job you 10 had you went to work at Murray Hill, New 11 Jersey, correct? 12 A. That is correct. 13 Q. And at that time there was, 14 approximately, 24,000 employees at that job 15 site? 16 A. That is incorrect. 17 Q. How many were there? 18 A. Approximately, 4,000 at that job 19 site. 20 Q. What about Bell Labs generally? 21 A. I was told Bell Labs generally had 22 24,000 employees. 23 Q. Okay. What was the function, when 24 you first started to work there, what was the 25 function of Bell Laboratories as it related to 24 1 the AT&T Operating Companies? 2 A. Bell Laboratories provided research 3 services to AT&T and the Operating Telephone 4 Companies. 5 Q. Did those research services include 6 services to Western Electric? 7 A. They did. 8 Q. To AT&T itself? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. To the Operating Telephone 11 Companies? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Would that include New Jersey Bell? 14 A. It would. 15 Q. Okay. Did Bell Laboratories have a 16 representative in each of the Bell Operating 17 Companies? 18 A. It did. 19 Q. Okay. Who was the representative 20 for Bell Laboratories for New Jersey Bell, do 21 you remember? 22 A. I do not remember. 23 Q. Was there a representative of Bell 24 Laboratories for New Jersey Bell? 25 A. I believe there was. 25 1 Q. Bell Laboratories provided the 2 scientific and research end for the Bell 3 Operating Companies; is that a fair statement? 4 A. That is a fair statement. 5 Q. As part of that function, Bell Labs 6 conducted health and safety research for 7 Operating Companies; is that right? 8 A. It did. 9 Q. I want to just focus prior to 1984, 10 in 1984 there was some kind of divestiture? 11 A. That is correct. 12 Q. Okay. What happened? What was 13 your understanding of the divestiture in 1984? 14 A. My understanding was that AT&T 15 split up into regional Bell Operating Companies 16 and AT&T, which became, was a mixture of Long 17 Lines, Bell Laboratories, and Western Electric. 18 Q. Let's just focus pre-1984, before 19 the divestiture in 1984, all of the Bell 20 Operating Companies relied upon Bell 21 Laboratories for industrial hygiene advice; is 22 that correct? 23 MR. MCGOWAN: I'm just going to 24 object to the form in terms of the start 25 date. Pre-'84 I don't know how far back 26 1 we're going. 2 MR. PLACITELLA: Uh-hum, right. 3 A. They relied on Bell Laboratories 4 and perhaps other resources. 5 Q. Okay. But Bell Laboratories, but 6 one of the companies they relied upon -- well, 7 let me ask the question this way, prior to 8 1984, did New Jersey Bell rely upon Bell 9 Laboratories for industrial hygiene advice? 10 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Did Western Electric before 1984 13 rely upon Bell Laboratories for industrial 14 hygiene services and advice? 15 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 16 A. My statement would be that Western 17 Electric has its own Industrial Hygiene Group. 18 They also used Bell Laboratories. When you say 19 relied, they didn't rely solely, it wasn't even 20 majority Bell Laboratories. 21 Q. Okay. But in terms of, say, New 22 Jersey Bell, they relied solely upon Bell 23 Laboratories, to your knowledge, from 24 industrial hygiene, correct? 25 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form. 27 1 A. No. That is not true. 2 Q. Who else did they relied upon? 3 A. They would have used Western 4 Electric Industrial Hygiene Services as well. 5 Q. Okay. So, to your knowledge 6 understanding, prior to 1984 the two entities 7 that provided industrial hygiene advice and 8 services to New Jersey Bell would have been 9 Western Electric and Bell Laboratories; is that 10 a fair statement? 11 A. To my knowledge. 12 Q. Okay. That's all I want is your 13 knowledge. Now, after 1984, who provided the 14 industrial hygiene advice and services to New 15 Jersey Bell? When I say who, I mean what 16 entity? 17 A. After 1984 I couldn't say because I 18 was not -- I was working for a different 19 company at that time. But Bell Laboratories 20 continued to provide services, Western Electric 21 as a manufacturing for many products provided 22 services, and I believe New Jersey Bell became 23 part of Bell Atlantic. And I believe Bell 24 Atlantic hired an industrial hygienist. 25 Q. Okay. After 1984, when you were 28 1 working for AT&T, did you continue to provide 2 industrial hygiene services for either New 3 Jersey Bell or Bell Atlantic? 4 A. Yes, I did. 5 Q. Both? 6 A. Both. 7 Q. Okay. 8 A. I'm sorry. Let me rephrase that. 9 Q. Go ahead. 10 A. I don't believe there was a New 11 Jersey Bell after 1984 -- 12 Q. Okay. 13 A. Maybe at the Corporate, I believe 14 it became Bell Atlantic at that time. 15 Q. All right. So did you, in your 16 capacity as an industrial hygienist for AT&T, 17 provide industrial hygiene services and advice 18 to Bell Atlantic? 19 A. I did as a contract basis. 20 Q. What does that mean? 21 A. It means that we were no longer 22 able to go out and provide those services 23 without a contract. A specific contract was 24 needed for us to work for Bell Atlantic. 25 Q. Did anybody else have a contract 29 1 for those services other than AT&T, to your 2 knowledge, for Bell Atlantic? 3 A. Not to my knowledge. 4 Q. Okay. Now, I want to just focus on 5 Western Electric. They had a research facility 6 that you were familiar with? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Okay. They have something called 9 the Engineering Research Center? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Where was that located? 12 A. Hopewell, New Jersey. 13 Q. Okay. And was that involved in the 14 manufacturing of products for Western Electric? 15 A. It was my understanding that 16 Hopewell was involved with optimizing the 17 manufacturing of products. 18 Q. Is it your understanding that 19 Western Electric made products for the 20 Operating Companies? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. What is your understanding of the 23 function of Western Electric as it relates to 24 New Jersey Bell? 25 A. It is my understanding that Western 30 1 Electric provided products to Operating 2 Telephone Companies including New Jersey Bell. 3 Q. Did all New Jersey Bell products 4 come through Western Electric? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Okay. What products came through 7 Western Electric? Well, let me put it this 8 way, what products didn't come through Western 9 Electric to New Jersey Bell, if you know? 10 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection as to the 11 time period, form. 12 A. I know that switches did not come 13 from Western Electric. I know that a lot of 14 products came through Western Electric to New 15 Jersey Bell, and I know that a lot of products 16 came to New Jersey Bell that didn't come from 17 Western Electric. 18 Q. And when you say "from," do you 19 mean manufactured, or do you mean the 20 manufactured or through? Let me clarify it, 21 okay. 22 A. All right. 23 Q. Western Electric manufactured 24 certain products for New Jersey Bell, correct? 25 A. That is correct. 31 1 Q. Did they distribute product to New 2 Jersey Bell that they did not manufacture? 3 A. Yes, they did. 4 Q. What kind of products did they 5 distribute to New Jersey that they did not 6 manufacture, if you know? 7 A. The ones that I was familiar with 8 would be products that we used outside of plant 9 work. 10 Q. What does that mean? 11 A. Outside plant is, basically, 12 equipment that is outside of Central Offices, 13 and, basically, goes to residences and 14 businesses. 15 Q. So let's, say, there's an employee 16 who works out in the field for a Bell Operating 17 Company, do all the products used by that 18 employee come through Western Electric? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Okay. How is that divided up or is 21 it divided up? 22 A. I really couldn't say. It was up 23 to the individual companies and their 24 purchasing. 25 Q. Okay. I'll go a little further. 32 1 You never, personally, worked directly for 2 Western Electric, correct? 3 A. That is correct. 4 Q. But you had extensive interaction 5 with Western Electric employees; is that fair? 6 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 7 A. I would say that's fair. 8 Q. Now, AT&T did not make products 9 using the operating system, correct? 10 A. I am not aware of AT&T as a 11 corporate entity making products. 12 Q. Right, but -- 13 A. AT&T as the owner of the Western 14 Electric made products. 15 Q. So because they owned Western 16 Electric and Western Electric made the 17 products? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. Do you believe that before 1984 20 even though your paycheck was coming from Bell 21 Labs you were, in effect, working for AT&T? 22 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form. 23 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 24 A. Yes. I believe I was working for 25 AT&T as a company of Bell Laboratories. 33 1 Q. That's where all the direction 2 ultimately came from, right. 3 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form. 4 A. No, I would say -- 5 Q. Were they at the top of the 6 pyramid? 7 A. From the standpoint of Bell 8 Laboratories, not, it was very much independent 9 of AT&T. 10 Q. All right. After 1996 when Lucent 11 took over, it was your impression you were no 12 longer working for AT&T at that point? 13 A. That was my impression. 14 Q. Now, I want to focus back on Bell 15 Laboratories, the Industrial Hygiene 16 Department. That Department existed at least 17 from the 1960's; is that true. 18 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 19 A. Yes, it did. 20 Q. And you began working for the 21 Industrial Hygiene Department for Bell 22 Laboratories in June or July of 1975? 23 A. That is correct. 24 Q. At the time you started in that 25 capacity, the Bell Operating System had what, 34 1 about a million employees? 2 A. That's what I was told. 3 Q. Before you worked at Bell Labs in 4 the Industrial Hygiene Department, there were 5 other people who worked as hygienist before 6 you? 7 A. That is correct. 8 Q. And what were their names? 9 A. Well -- 10 Q. That you recall. 11 A. The names that I recall are William 12 Schreibeis, George Wilkening. Those were my 13 supervisor and his boss. There were numerous 14 other people and at the moment I can't recall. 15 Q. Now, Mr. Schreibeis, he lived in 16 Berkeley Heights? 17 A. He did. 18 Q. Is he still living? 19 A. I do not know. 20 Q. And what was his job in relation to 21 yours? 22 A. He was my supervisor. 23 Q. For how long did he remain your 24 supervisor? 25 A. I really could not say, but I don't 35 1 exactly know the dates when -- 2 Q. Okay. 3 A. -- I reported to someone else. 4 Q. Was he still your supervisor after 5 1984 when the divestiture took place? 6 A. I believe so. 7 Q. What was his job function vis-a-vis 8 you as your supervisor? 9 A. Sorry, I don't understand. 10 Q. It's a bad question. 11 A. He was my supervisor. 12 Q. You reported to him? 13 A. I reported to him. 14 Q. Did he give you direction as to 15 what jobs you were to do? 16 A. He did. 17 Q. Who was the head of the Industrial 18 Hygiene Department for Bell Laboratories when 19 you started to work there in 1975? 20 A. In 1975 the head of the department 21 was George Wilkening. 22 Q. Okay. 23 A. And I believe it was called 24 Environmental Health & Safety. 25 Q. And at some point in time did Mr. 36 1 Schreibeis take over that position? 2 A. He did not. 3 Q. Okay. Who replaced Mr. Wilkening? 4 A. To the best of my knowledge, that 5 would have been Mike Glowats (phonetic). 6 Q. You were hired as part of the Bell 7 System Services Group to examine industrial 8 hygiene issues in the AT&T Operating Companies; 9 is that a fair statement? 10 A. That's a fair statement. 11 Q. And that included New Jersey Bell? 12 A. It did. 13 Q. It included Bell Atlantic? 14 A. No, at the time it did not include 15 Bell Atlantic. 16 Q. At some point in time it included 17 Bell Atlantic? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Okay. 20 A. In 1984 Bell Atlantic was formed 21 and at that point the Bell System Services 22 Group no longer had that function. 23 Q. What happened to the Bell System 24 services? What took over that function? 25 A. The Bell System Services Group, the 37 1 people in the group continued to exist, and we 2 performed contract work for operating, for the 3 R Box, for each of the Bell Operating 4 Companies. 5 Q. Same exact people, same exact job 6 function? 7 A. That is correct. 8 Q. Now, I want to just focus on the 9 first five years that you worked as a 10 hygienist. You looked at exposure to toxins in 11 the workplace for Bell Operating Companies? 12 A. Correct. 13 Q. And that included asbestos exposure 14 from people working with asbestos-containing 15 products? 16 A. Correct. 17 Q. I'm just going to go over some of 18 your background on the issue of asbestos. When 19 you were in college you were a physics major, 20 correct? 21 A. Correct. 22 Q. So you didn't take any courses in 23 college on asbestos per se, correct? 24 A. That is correct. 25 Q. But before joining the Industrial 38 1 Hygiene Department at Bell Labs, is it my 2 understanding, correct, that you went to work, 3 I mean, you went to school at the University of 4 Cincinnati? 5 A. The time frame -- I went to school 6 at the University of Cincinnati after June or 7 July of 1975. 8 Q. Okay. I apologize. And you took 9 specific courses at the University of 10 Cincinnati related to asbestos? 11 A. I did. 12 Q. Did you have, how many courses did 13 you take related to asbestos? 14 A. I took a two-week course at the 15 University of Cincinnati in General Principles 16 of Industrial Hygiene. That probably included 17 several modules on asbestos. In addition, I 18 took other courses not at the University of 19 Cincinnati. 20 Q. Was there some text or resource 21 that you relied upon to consult on the subject 22 of asbestos when you wanted questions 23 answered? 24 MR. MCGOWAN: At the University of 25 Cincinnati? 39 1 MR. PLACITELLA: Yes. 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. What was that, do you recall? 4 A. Fundamentals of Industrial Hygiene. 5 Q. And do you remember the author of 6 that? 7 A. It was multiple authors, and it was 8 prepared by the American Conference. I'm 9 sorry, I believe -- well, I'm not sure if it 10 was prepared by the American Conference of 11 Industrial Hygienist or the American Industrial 12 Hygiene Association. I am sure it's multiple 13 authors. 14 Q. When you went, when you were 15 working as an industrial hygienist at Bell 16 Laboratories, was there a resource that you 17 would consult when you had questions concerning 18 the issue of asbestos? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. What were the resources that you 21 would consult? 22 A. The resources that I would consult 23 would be the OSHA regulations, the OSHA 24 Documentations of the Regulations, the National 25 Institute of Occupational Safety and Health 40 1 Asbestos. They had books published on a number 2 of different materials. The general text on 3 industrial hygiene, primarily the Fundamentals 4 on Industrial Hygiene, and the materials from 5 the courses that I took. 6 Q. Was there a go to person at Bell 7 Labs that you went to that discussed the issues 8 of asbestos exposure? 9 A. It would have been my supervisor, 10 Bill Schreibeis. 11 Q. Now, when you were taking classes 12 at the University of Cincinnati, what was, 13 specifically, told you about the potential 14 dangers of exposure to asbestos? 15 A. I don't recall any specifics other 16 than the general knowledge of the industry 17 hygiene field of asbestos exposure at that 18 time. 19 Q. Were you informed what diseases 20 were associated with asbestos exposure? 21 A. Yes, I was. 22 Q. And which diseases? 23 A. Basically, lung cancer, 24 mesothelioma, emphysema like symptoms, fibrosis 25 in the lungs. Those are the ones that I 41 1 remember. 2 Q. Did you have an understanding as a 3 result of your training and education that it 4 took less exposure to asbestos to cause 5 mesothelioma than, say, lung cancer or 6 asbestosis? 7 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 8 A. No, I wouldn't know. 9 Q. You didn't, know, okay. Now, other 10 than what you've discussed so far, did you have 11 any formal training with respect to Bell 12 Laboratories concerning the potential dangers 13 associated with asbestos exposure? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. What was that? 16 A. Courses at McCrone Institute. 17 Q. What did you learn there? 18 A. I learned how to analyze air and 19 bulk samples of asbestos. 20 Q. Did those courses also involve the 21 general overview of what the dangers were 22 associated with the exposure to asbestos? 23 A. I am almost certain it would have, 24 but I can't recall the specifics. 25 Q. Now, in your courses and in your 42 1 work, are there basic principles of worker 2 protection to prevent exposure to industrial 3 dust that are recognized by industrial 4 hygienist? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And as an industrial hygienist for 7 Bell Laboratories, did you recognize the 8 principle that a company should know about the 9 potential dangers associated with the use of 10 its product? 11 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Okay. As an industrial hygienist 14 for Bell, did you recognize the principle that 15 a company should warn consumers about dangers 16 associated with the use of its products? 17 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. As an industrial hygienist for 20 Bell, did you recognize the principle that a 21 company does not own knowledge about the 22 dangers of its product? In other words, what I 23 mean by that is, that a company should share 24 the knowledge about product dangers with 25 workers or consumers? 43 1 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. As an industrial hygienist for 4 Bell, did you recognize the principle that a 5 worker has the right to know what a distributor 6 knows about the hazards with the use of its 7 product? 8 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. As an industrial hygienist for Bell 11 Laboratories, did you recognize the principle 12 that a company should never mislead workers 13 about the safety of its products? 14 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. As an industrial hygienist working 17 for Bell, did you recognize the principle that 18 a company should always tell the truth about 19 any dangers associated with the use of its 20 products? 21 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. As an industry hygienist for Bell 24 Laboratories, did you recognize the principle 25 that safety is the primary concern when selling 44 1 products to consumers? 2 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 3 A. The primary concern, yes. 4 Q. Okay. You agree with the principle 5 as an industrial hygienist for Bell that a 6 company should never withhold information about 7 dangers associated with the use of its 8 products? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. You agree with the principle as a 11 hygienist for Bell that a company should never 12 put profits before worker safety? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. You agree with the principle as the 15 hygienist for Bell that the greater the danger 16 associated with the use of a product, the 17 stronger the warning is necessary? 18 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. You agree with the principle as an 21 industrial hygienist for Bell that a warning 22 should inform workers how to use a product 23 safely? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Now, as an industrial hygienist 45 1 working for Bell, did you recognize that there 2 were certain principles to prevent exposure to 3 industrial dust? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And what were those principles? 6 A. Quite a number. 7 Q. Did you recognize the principle of 8 engineering controls? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And did engineering controls 11 include ventilation? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And am I correct that the principle 14 of engineering controls to prevent exposure to 15 industrial dust predated your becoming a 16 hygienist by decades? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And did you recognize the principle 19 of segregation of work force as a way of 20 preventing exposure to industrial dust? 21 A. I am not sure what you mean by 22 segregation of the work force. 23 Q. In other words, if you don't have 24 to be in the area were there's industrial dust, 25 you segregate those operations from those who 46 1 necessarily have to be there? 2 A. I recognize that principle. 3 Q. As a principal of industrial 4 hygiene for Bell, did you recognize the use of 5 respirators as a way to prevent exposure to 6 industrial dust? 7 MR. DISIPIO: Objection to form. 8 A. Yes, one. 9 Q. First we start, I'm going to go 10 with the priorities with you. 11 A. Okay. 12 Q. And that principle also predated 13 your beginning in the Industrial Hygiene 14 Department at Bell by decades, true? 15 A. True. 16 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 17 Q. And did you recognize as an 18 industrial hygienist for Bell, did you 19 recognize the principle that workers should be 20 warned to prevent exposure to industrial dust? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And that principle also predated 23 your joining Bell as an industrial hygienist by 24 decades, true? 25 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 47 1 A. True. 2 Q. And did you recognize the principle 3 of supplying changing rooms as a way to prevent 4 take-home exposure to toxins that were 5 generated in the workplace? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And that principle also predated 8 your joining Bell as an industrial hygienist by 9 any decade, true? 10 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 11 A. True. 12 Q. Now, in terms of priorities, as an 13 industrial hygienist the first thing you do is 14 you look to see if you can engineer out the 15 danger, correct? 16 A. Incorrect. 17 Q. What's the first thing you do? You 18 assess the danger? 19 A. That is correct. 20 Q. So I miss that one. 21 A. I would go even further than that. 22 I would anticipate the possibility of a 23 danger. 24 Q. Okay. So the first thing you would 25 do as a principle of industrial hygiene is 48 1 anticipate the possibility of a danger. What 2 does that mean? 3 A. Basically, you're looking at the 4 type of work that might be done in the future 5 to determining how it can be done safer. 6 Q. Does the anticipation of the danger 7 include research into the available resources 8 that would provide background information on 9 that danger? 10 A. It would include that, yes. 11 Q. Would it include library research, 12 reading text, those kinds of things? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. So the first thing I'm going to do 15 in order to protect the worker as an industrial 16 hygienist is we're going to anticipate the 17 dangers, correct? 18 A. Anticipate the potential dangers. 19 Q. Potential dangers. That includes 20 doing whatever research is necessary to bring 21 you up to speed? 22 A. Correct. 23 Q. What's the next thing in order of 24 priority? 25 A. The next thing would be to 49 1 evaluate. 2 Q. All right. An evaluation includes, 3 when you say evaluation, what do you mean by 4 that? 5 A. I'm sorry. When I say evaluate, I 6 mean one would determine whether or not an 7 exposure actually existed. 8 Q. And how would you do that? 9 A. In the case of asbestos, one would 10 do air monitoring. 11 Q. And the principle for air 12 monitoring for asbestos went back to the 13 1940's; is that fair? 14 A. I believe it did. 15 Q. But at some point in time the way 16 you technically did it changed; is that fair? 17 A. That is correct. 18 Q. All right. So it was known in the 19 1940's that in order to assess whether a hazard 20 exist with people working with 21 asbestos-containing products that air 22 monitoring should be done; is that fair? 23 A. That's true. 24 Q. Okay. Now, and you're aware that 25 was actually required as a regulation in the 50 1 State of New Jersey in the 1950's? 2 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 3 A. I am not aware of that. 4 Q. Okay. What's the next thing after 5 you evaluate whether a -- scratch that. When 6 you make an evaluation, do you evaluate whether 7 there's an actual danger or a potential danger? 8 A. Yes, both. 9 Q. And if you determine there's a 10 potential danger, is your next line of defense 11 different than an actual danger? 12 A. Actual danger, yes. 13 Q. Okay. If you've determined there's 14 an actual danger by doing monitoring or 15 investigation, what is the next thing, what is 16 the next principle of industrial hygiene that 17 you would have employed to prevent exposure to 18 industrial dust? 19 A. Talking hypothetically here but the 20 next thing if it was an actual thing, you'd 21 probably stop the work, cease the work 22 activities. 23 Q. Altogether? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Okay. 51 1 A. Which would be different than if 2 there's a potential. 3 Q. Tell me, just so I understand it in 4 formulating my questions, in your mind what is 5 the difference between an actual danger and a 6 potential danger? 7 A. An actual danger is one that you've 8 recognized that you perhaps have exceeded an 9 occupational exposure limit. 10 Q. Okay. 11 A. The potential is that you have the 12 potential for exceeding an occupational 13 exposure limit. 14 Q. So if you know that you've exceeded 15 the exposure limit, you should stop that 16 operation altogether, correct? 17 A. That's correct. 18 Q. And the only way that you would 19 know if you exceeded the limit is by doing 20 actual testing? 21 A. Correct. 22 Q. So it was a recognized principle of 23 industrial hygiene going back to the 1940's for 24 asbestos that you needed to do testing to make 25 that determination? 52 1 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 2 Q. Correct? 3 A. I don't know the date that came 4 out. In the 1940's, 1950's that was beyond my 5 knowledge. 6 Q. Okay. If there was potential 7 danger, you determine there was a potential 8 danger, what principle of industrial hygiene 9 would be employed addressing potential danger? 10 A. We would try using what methods of 11 control you could come up with. 12 Q. And in terms of priority, what 13 would the methods of control be? 14 A. In my -- the first priority would 15 be substitute a less hazardous product. 16 Q. Okay. 17 A. I can go down the list if you like. 18 Q. Sure, please. Go ahead. 19 A. The first priority would be 20 substitute a less hazardous product. The 21 second one would be a process change. The 22 third one would be looking at some form of 23 exhaust ventilation. The fourth one would be 24 dilution ventilation and then the last one 25 would be individual personal protection. 53 1 Q. Where does warnings come in the 2 priorities? 3 A. I don't consider that part of the 4 control measures. 5 Q. Okay. But in terms of the control 6 measures that you've just discussed, those were 7 principles recognized by industrial hygiene 8 long before you started working for Bell 9 Laboratories, correct? 10 A. That is correct. 11 Q. Okay. Do you recognize warning a 12 worker as one of the available resources in 13 your armory to protect that worker from 14 exposure to hazardous dust? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Okay. What in your mind, let me 17 just go back through and maybe I can get some 18 sense. Focusing on the subject of asbestos, 19 did all of the controls that you just went 20 through for me, apply to asbestos in your mind? 21 A. They did. 22 Q. Okay. And those controls for 23 asbestos would have also predated your joining 24 the Industrial Hygiene Department at Bell by 25 decades, true? 54 1 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 2 A. True. 3 Q. And you would agree with me that it 4 had been recognized for decades before you 5 started with Bell that workers were entitled to 6 a sane appreciation of risk they would 7 encounter in the workplace when working with 8 asbestos-containing products, true? 9 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 10 A. Could you please rephrase that 11 question? 12 Q. Would you agree that workers were 13 entitled as a principle of industrial hygiene 14 to a sane appreciation of the risk? 15 A. I'm not sure of the word sane. 16 Sane, what do you mean by that? 17 Q. You've never seen that in an 18 industrial hygiene publication? 19 A. Sane, s-a-n-e? 20 Q. Correct. 21 A. I must have seen it, but I'm not 22 familiar with the use of the word sane. 23 Q. No problem. You would agree that 24 any warning should be clear as to the level of 25 risk when related to the worker? 55 1 A. I would agree. 2 Q. And that in addition anytime you 3 would need to warn somebody, training would 4 also be part of an industrial hygiene program 5 to protect against exposure to asbestos? 6 A. I consider warning to be a facet of 7 training. 8 Q. Okay. Now, do industrial hygiene 9 principles recognize that a worker has a right 10 to know of hazardous operations being carried 11 out in his or her vicinity? 12 A. I agree. 13 Q. And that would also go back decades 14 before you became an industrial hygienist? 15 A. It would. 16 Q. Do industrial hygiene principles 17 recognize the worker had a right to know 18 whether products he is being asked to use had 19 toxic ingredients? 20 A. I agree with that. 21 Q. And that would also go back decades 22 before you became an industrial hygienist? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Do industrial hygiene principles 25 recognize workers' right to know if the dust 56 1 generated by the cutting or fabrication 2 materials he's using is toxic? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Okay. Did industrial hygiene 5 principles recognized that any exposure to 6 human carcinogen should be eliminated whenever 7 possible? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And that also predated your 10 becoming an industrial hygienist by decades, 11 true? 12 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And for asbestos at least into the 15 1950's, true? 16 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 17 A. Would you please rephrase that? 18 Q. Yeah. In other words it was a 19 recognized principle that for asbestos, that 20 was a carcinogen going back at least to the 21 1950's. 22 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 23 A. I believe so. 24 MR. PLACITELLA: He's got like two 25 minutes on the tape, do you want to take a 57 1 break? 2 MR. MCGOWAN: That's fine if that's 3 a good time for you. 4 MR. PLACITELLA: How about five 5 minutes? 6 VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the 7 record. This is Tape Number One, time is 8 eleven o'clock. 9 (Whereupon a brief recess is 10 taken.) 11 VIDEOGRAPHER: This is Tape 2 of 12 the videotape deposition of Charles Paul 13 Lichtenwalner in the mater of Degnan vs 14 Lucent. We are on the record and the 15 video time is 11:08. 16 BY MR. PLACITELLA: 17 Q. From the information you had as an 18 industrial hygienist for Bell, did AT&T have 19 the money and resources to conduct the proper 20 testing to determine if asbestos hazardous 21 existed in the workplace? 22 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Did AT&T have the money and the 25 resources to ensure the workers were properly 58 1 warned of asbestos hazardous in the workplace? 2 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Did Western Electric have the money 5 and resources to conduct the proper testing to 6 determine if asbestos hazardous existed in the 7 workplace? 8 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Did Western Electric have the money 11 and resources to ensure workers were properly 12 warned of hazards in the workplace? 13 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Did Western Electric have the money 16 and the resources to ensure that workers were 17 properly warned of hazardous associated with 18 the products they sold to Bell Operating 19 Companies? 20 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Including New Jersey Bell? 23 A. Including New Jersey Bell. 24 Q. Did Bell Laboratories have the 25 money and the resources to conduct proper 59 1 testing to determine if asbestos hazards 2 existed in the workplace? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Did Bell Laboratories have the 5 money and the resources to ensure workers were 6 properly warned of hazards in the workplace? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Now, am I correct that when you 9 started at, as an industrial hygienist, Bell 10 Labs had already recognized asbestos as a 11 potential human carcinogen? 12 A. I'm not sure what you mean by Bell 13 Labs already recognized individuals at Bell 14 Labs? 15 Q. People working in the Industrial 16 Hygiene Department. 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And did individuals working in the 19 Industrial Hygiene Department at Bell 20 Laboratories recognized that asbestos exposure 21 can cause mesothelioma when you first started 22 working there? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. At the time you started working at 25 Bell Laboratories, did Bell Laboratories 60 1 recognize asbestos as a carcinogen to be 2 concerned about in the workplace of the 3 Operating Companies? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Was it your understanding that this 6 knowledge predated your joining Bell Labs as an 7 industrial hygienist? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Your boss, Mr. Schreibeis -- 10 A. Schreibeis. 11 Q. He had extensive knowledge about 12 the dangers of asbestos -- 13 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 14 Q. -- did he not? 15 A. Do you mean extensive was he an 16 expert? 17 Q. Yes. 18 A. In asbestos, no. 19 Q. Okay. 20 A. But he was an expert in industrial 21 hygiene. 22 Q. He was before he became to Bell 23 Laboratories, he was actually the industrial 24 hygienist for the Industrial Hygiene 25 Foundation, did you know that? 61 1 A. I believe, I knew he was a member 2 of the Industrial Hygiene Foundation. 3 Q. Did you know he worked as an 4 industrial hygienist for the Industrial Hygiene 5 Foundation? 6 A. I did not know that. 7 Q. And whatever information he had as 8 an industrial hygienist for the Industrial 9 Hygiene Foundation he would have brought with 10 him to Bell Laboratories. Would you agree with 11 that? 12 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 13 MR. HORNBY: Objection. 14 A. I don't believe he would have 15 forgotten information that he knew in the past. 16 Q. So he was aware of all the -- he 17 worked at the Industrial Hygiene Foundation 18 back in the 1950's, right? 19 A. I do not know. 20 Q. You were a member of the American 21 Industrial Hygiene Association, correct? 22 A. And still am. 23 Q. Still am. And so is Mr. 24 Schreibeis, correct? 25 A. Correct. 62 1 Q. Now, when you're a member of the 2 American Industrial Hygiene Association, what 3 were the benefits of membership? 4 A. The ability to attend professional 5 conferences at reduced rates and monthly 6 journal, I believe it was a monthly journal, 7 actually bimonthly journal, professional 8 meetings local and national, the ability to 9 meet people with, you know, networking. All of 10 that. 11 Q. From time to time, did the American 12 Industrial Hygiene Association's journal 13 contain articles on asbestos exposure and the 14 potential dangers of asbestos? 15 A. It did. 16 MR. PLACITELLA: Could you mark 17 this on P-1. 18 (Whereupon document is marked as 19 P-1 for identification.) 20 Q. Take a look at P-1, Mr. Lichtenwalner. 21 In front of you, you have something called 22 Membership Booklet American Industrial 23 Association 1958, 1959. Do you see that? 24 A. I see it. 25 Q. And it's not the full booklet 63 1 'cause it is hundreds of pages. Could you flip 2 to the last page? You see the last page? 3 A. I do. 4 Q. The fourth name from the top on the 5 left side on page 69, what is that name? 6 A. Fourth name from the top? 7 Q. From the bottom, I'm sorry. 8 A. You're talking about Mr. Schreibeis, 9 Mr. William J.? 10 Q. Right. Was that the same person 11 that was your boss? 12 A. I believe that was my boss. 13 Q. And it says there that he worked 14 for whom? 15 A. Industrial Hygiene Foundation. 16 Q. Now, that's all I have on that. 17 MR. PLACITELLA: Mark this one 18 next. 19 (Whereupon document is marked as 20 P-2 for identification.) 21 Q. I have in front of you the 1966, 22 1967 Membership book for the American 23 Association Industrial Hygiene Association, 24 correct? 25 A. Correct. 64 1 Q. Can you flip to the last page? You 2 see the third name from the top on the right- 3 hand side of page 88? 4 A. Mr. William J. Schreibeis, I do. 5 Q. And is that the same William J. 6 Schreibeis who worked for the Industrial 7 Hygiene Foundation. 8 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 9 Q. -- by virtue of the prior membership 10 list? 11 A. I believe it is. 12 Q. And it says, who does he work for 13 there? 14 A. Bell Telephone Labs. 15 Q. Now, would you agree with me that 16 without proper abatement an area contaminated 17 with asbestos remains contaminated with 18 asbestos? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Why not? 21 A. I'm sorry, yes, it remains 22 contaminated with asbestos. It may or may not 23 be airborne that it could expose people. 24 Q. What do you mean by that? 25 A. What I am talking about, an area 65 1 that's contaminated I guess is continued to be, 2 asbestos will continue to be present there, 3 yes. 4 Q. And that will remain indefinitely 5 unless there was proper abatement process? 6 A. Even with abatement process, it may 7 remain there. 8 Q. And what would be a proper 9 abatement process? 10 A. Various types of abatement were 11 used, is used. One is the removal of 12 asbestos. One is encapsulation of the 13 asbestos. 14 Q. Once the asbestos becomes airborne 15 in the work environment, does it continue to 16 contaminate that environment without proper 17 abatement? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And does that remain indefinitely? 20 A. I couldn't say. 21 Q. When you started working as an 22 industrial hygienist in 1975 for Bell 23 Laboratories, was asbestos exposure for Bell 24 Operating Companies a major problem you had to 25 deal with? 66 1 A. It was not. 2 Q. Was it a major problem that you had 3 to address? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Did you recognize as an industrial 6 hygienist for Bell Laboratories that asbestos 7 exposure and smoking increases the risk of 8 cancer? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. As an industrial hygienist for Bell 11 Laboratories, did you discriminate between the 12 types of asbestos in determining if there was a 13 hazard present in the work place to a worker? 14 A. We did not. 15 Q. Does the presence of a visible dust 16 in connection with the use of a known asbestos- 17 containing product, is that an indication of a 18 hazard? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Okay. Is the presence of visible 21 dust in connection with the use of a known 22 asbestos-containing product an indication of a 23 potential hazard? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And when there's an indication of a 67 1 potential hazard because of the presence of 2 dust where asbestos-containing products were 3 used, what is necessary from industrial hygiene 4 perspective to address that situation? 5 A. Evaluate whether or not that 6 potential hazard could become a real hazard. 7 Q. And how do you do that? 8 A. Collect bulk samples to determine 9 that asbestos is present. Collect air 10 monitoring to determine what gets into the air. 11 Q. Now, you would agree then that the 12 presence of visible dust in connection with the 13 use of a known asbestos-containing products 14 would warrant further investigation or testing? 15 A. I would agree with that. 16 Q. At what point are you -- scratch 17 that. Are you familiar with the concept of a 18 threshold limit value? 19 A. I am. 20 Q. Are you familiar with the concept 21 of a threshold limit value in terms of millions 22 of particles per cubic foot? 23 A. I am. 24 Q. Okay. At one point in time the 25 threshold limit value for asbestos-containing 68 1 dust was five million particles per cubic foot; 2 is that fair? 3 A. I don't know the exact number, but 4 I know that there was a particle standard, yes. 5 Q. At what point in time is asbestos- 6 containing dust become visible to the naked eye 7 -- scratch that. Are you able to tell, is 8 there a cutoff in terms of any measuring where 9 asbestos-containing dust -- scratch that. 10 Would you agree with me that there 11 is some asbestos-containing dust that is 12 invisible? 13 A. Invisible to the naked eye? 14 Q. Correct. 15 A. I would agree with that. 16 Q. And at some point if there's enough 17 dust, the aggregate of the asbestos-containing 18 dust can become visible to the naked eye, would 19 you agree with that? 20 A. I would agree with that. 21 Q. Do you know at what point in the 22 continuum where dust containing asbestos 23 becomes visible versus invisible to the naked 24 eye? 25 A. I do not. 69 1 Q. So if you know that there is an 2 asbestos-containing product being used in the 3 workplace, how do you know whether there's 4 enough asbestos in the workplace in order to 5 determine whether there's a risk for real 6 exposure? 7 A. I know that by air monitoring. 8 Q. Without air monitoring, is there 9 anyway to tell? 10 A. Not to my knowledge. 11 Q. So would it then be that a proper 12 principle of industry hygiene would be that if 13 you know that someone is working with or around 14 an asbestos-containing product, in order to 15 find out whether that person is at risk, air 16 monitoring would have to be done? 17 A. Sorry -- yes, I would agree that 18 air monitoring is used to determining asbestos 19 exposure risk. 20 Q. And without that monitoring there 21 is no way to tell? 22 A. Not to my knowledge. 23 Q. So if you suspect that somebody is 24 working with asbestos in the workplace as a 25 principle of industrial hygiene you should 70 1 monitor, do a monitoring to see if asbestos 2 fibers can be released, would agree with that? 3 A. I would agree with that. 4 Q. Okay. Now, at some point in time, 5 did Bell Laboratories create a videotape 6 relating to asbestos hazards to be used in 7 training? 8 A. Possibly. 9 Q. Do you remember seeing such a 10 videotape? 11 A. At the moment I don't remember. 12 Q. To your knowledge, when is the 13 first time that Bell Laboratories conducted any 14 testing for the presence of asbestos-containing 15 dust in the work environment for any Bell 16 Operating Company? 17 A. To my knowledge, it would have been 18 after June or July of 1975 but there may have 19 been prior ones done by Mr. Schreibeis. 20 Q. Why June or July 1975 stand out? 21 A. That's the time when I was hired to 22 work in the Bell Systems Group. 23 Q. All right. So one of the reasons 24 you were hired was to actually help do the air 25 monitoring? 71 1 A. That is correct. 2 Q. Okay. And prior to that time, was 3 there any program in place in the Bell 4 Operating Companies for air monitoring for 5 asbestos-containing dust? 6 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 7 A. Not to my knowledge. 8 Q. Given the fact that you articulated 9 that monitoring was something that should be 10 done going back to the 1940's, do you know why 11 it was never done before 1975 -- 12 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 13 Q. -- by Bell? 14 A. Okay. Bell Laboratories -- 15 Q. Correct? 16 A. -- Western Electric, New Jersey 17 Bell, I'm sorry, which company are you 18 referring to? 19 Q. Any of them. 20 A. I believe that Western Electric 21 would have conducted air monitoring for 22 asbestos. I am not aware of it, but I believe 23 they would have done so. 24 Q. And they would have done that in 25 the context of their manufacturing facilities? 72 1 A. I believe that. 2 Q. Okay. 3 A. This is something that I know for a 4 fact. 5 Q. All right. Do you have any 6 information as to whether Western Electric 7 conducted air monitoring where workers actually 8 used their product out in the field? 9 A. Not to my knowledge. 10 Q. Okay. Do you know why from your 11 experience no air monitoring was done by Bell 12 Laboratories for asbestos-containing dust 13 before 1975 when you got there? 14 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 15 MR. HORNBY: Objection to form. 16 A. First part is you stated no 17 monitoring was done. I cannot verify or 18 confirm or deny no monitoring was done. 19 Q. Okay. Now, is it my understanding, 20 correct, that the industrial hygiene records 21 for the Bell Labs Group would go back for say 22 1962? 23 A. I believe they would. 24 Q. Okay. And what was retained in 25 those records? 73 1 A. Reports of industrial hygiene 2 monitoring, letters. 3 Q. If monitoring was actually done by 4 Bell Laboratories prior to 1975, would you 5 expect it to be in those records? 6 A. I would. 7 Q. Now, at some point in time you 8 actually yourself, personally, went back and 9 reviewed some of those records, true? 10 A. No, I did not. 11 Q. Well, those records were originally 12 stored I microfiche? 13 A. They were not stored on microfiche 14 until after I joined the organization. 15 Q. And then what happened? At whose 16 direction were they put on microfiche? 17 A. I suspect it came from George 18 Wilkening. 19 Q. And at the some point the 20 microfiche was then converted to CD-ROM? 21 A. That is correct. 22 Q. And was that CD-ROM work 23 searchable? 24 A. It was. 25 Q. And where was that data then 74 1 stored? 2 A. One set of the CD-ROMS was stored 3 on my desk. I don't know where the others, 4 data is stored. 5 Q. And when you left. What happened 6 to that data? 7 A. I don't know. 8 Q. Who did you turn it over too? 9 A. Before I left, the CD-ROMS I don't 10 know, specifically, what happened to the 11 CD-ROMS. 12 Q. Was there a man by the name of Sean 13 VanDuran who took control of any of that 14 information? 15 A. Quite possible. 16 Q. Okay. And who is he? He's a 17 hygienist in your group? 18 A. Sean VanDuran was a hygienist in 19 our group. 20 Q. In addition to the industrial 21 hygiene testing, if any was done, what other 22 kinds of records would be contained on those 23 CD-ROMS related to the Bell Laboratories 24 Industrial Hygiene Department? 25 A. Those records were called 75 1 chronological files and it was basically 2 people's files on day-to-day basis what they 3 retained. 4 Q. So for instance, they'd have a file 5 for, they'd have a file for Schreibeis? 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q. Okay. Did you ever conduct air 8 testing for asbestos in telephone company 9 offices for New Jersey Bell? 10 A. I did. 11 Q. Where did you do that? 12 A. I could not tell you, specifically, 13 the buildings. I did not -- 14 Q. Do you remember what town it was? 15 A. We certainly did them in New 16 Brunswick. We did them for asbestos probably 17 in Newark, and there would have been other 18 locations. 19 Q. And one of the things that you were 20 doing was testing to see if there was asbestos 21 in the general ambient air? 22 A. That's correct. 23 Q. And did you actually discover trace 24 amounts of asbestos present in the ambient air 25 in the New Jersey Bell Telephone buildings? 76 1 A. We discovered trace amounts of 2 fibrous, yes. 3 Q. And when that discovery was made, 4 what, if any, action was taken? 5 A. The amount number of fibers per 6 cubic centimeter of air were compared to the 7 occupational exposure limits. To my knowledge, 8 they were all below, well below the 9 occupational limits at the time. So the action 10 that was taken was basically reporting those 11 results to the various people. 12 Q. Do you know whether the workers or 13 people who worked in that environment were told 14 about the results of your surveys? 15 A. I know that the supervisors of 16 those workers were told of those results. 17 Q. Well, what about the actual people 18 who were walking through the building? 19 A. I could not say. 20 Q. If someone was working with or 21 around an asbestos-containing product, and 22 asbestos is released, the ambient level of 23 asbestos would be increased in the background, 24 would you agree with that? 25 A. I would agree with that. 77 1 Q. The fibers that you found in the 2 offices of New Jersey Bell, were they above 3 background levels? 4 A. Generally, not. 5 Q. Were there some? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Now, would you agree that the 8 deterioration and aging of an asbestos- 9 containing product can cause release of 10 asbestos fiber? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Were you responsible for evaluating 13 the occupational health exposure of Operating 14 Company employees? 15 A. I was. 16 Q. And did that include New Jersey 17 Bell? 18 A. It does. 19 Q. Subsequently Bell Atlantic? 20 A. Correct. 21 Q. And was that job to investigate and 22 evaluate whether there were occupational 23 exposures to asbestos? 24 A. It included that, correct. 25 Q. Did New Jersey Bell rely upon your 78 1 laboratory for communication of hazards found 2 in the workplace? 3 A. I would say not. 4 Q. Who was supposed to communicate the 5 hazards found in the workplace? 6 A. I believe that would have been the 7 function of New Jersey Bell safety staff. 8 Q. Who was it that communicated to New 9 Jersey Bell the findings of hazards in the 10 workplace? 11 A. I did. 12 Q. Did Bell Laboratories have any 13 program in place to make sure that the 14 findings, its findings concerning hazard in the 15 workplace were communicated to the employees of 16 the Operating Companies? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And what was that? 19 A. The reports that we generated were 20 sent to the Occupational Health Working Group 21 and from the Occupational Health Working Group 22 they were distributed to safety and medical 23 staff of the Operating Telephone Companies. 24 Q. But how did you ensure that the 25 administrative staff and the safety people in 79 1 the Operating Companies actually communicated 2 that information to the actual worker? 3 A. I did not ensure that. 4 Q. AT&T as the parent running the 5 show, did they have a program in place to make 6 sure that the information that you discovered 7 ultimately found its way into the actual 8 workers? 9 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form. 10 A. I don't know. 11 Q. Now, I think you told me before 12 that Western Electric had its own industrial 13 hygienist? 14 A. They did. 15 Q. Did you know a man by the name of 16 George Ware? 17 A. I did. 18 Q. Frank Worden? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Gene Dennison? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Were they all industrial hygienist 23 for Western Electric that you had interaction 24 with? 25 A. Yes, they were. 80 1 Q. Did you consult with Western 2 Electric hygienist on a regular basis? 3 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 4 A. I'd, say, not on a regular basis, 5 but intermittently. 6 Q. Did you actually visit Western 7 Electric plants? 8 A. I did. 9 Q. Did you do that many times? 10 A. Define many. 11 Q. Did you discuss the subject of 12 asbestos with Western Electric hygienists? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And what was the sum and substance 15 of those discussions? Can you recall? 16 A. They would have been general 17 industrial hygiene professional discussions. 18 Q. Okay. You just referred to 19 something called the Occupational Health 20 Working Group? 21 A. I did. 22 Q. That was a management level group 23 that discussed occupational health concerns? 24 A. It did. 25 Q. And did those occupational health 81 1 concerns include asbestos? 2 A. They did. 3 Q. Did the Occupational Health Working 4 Group, did that consistent of the medical 5 director for Western Electric? 6 A. It did. 7 Q. Do you remember who that was? 8 A. If you give me a name I might be 9 able to confirm it but at the moment, I don't 10 remember. 11 Q. Did the Occupational Health Working 12 Group include industrial hygienist from Western 13 Electric? 14 A. It did. 15 Q. Did the Occupational Health Working 16 Group include the medical director for Bell 17 Labs? 18 A. I am not sure. 19 Q. Did it include the industrial 20 hygiene director for Bell Laboratories? 21 A. It did. 22 Q. Am I correct that as part of your 23 job function, you frequently consulted with the 24 Occupational Health Working Group? 25 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 82 1 A. I would not say frequent. 2 Q. How about all the time? 3 A. No, not all time. 4 Q. Is it true in some sense that you 5 worked for the Occupational Health Working 6 Group? 7 A. Yes, that is true. 8 Q. And that you were charged with 9 looking at health hazards and then reporting to 10 them? 11 A. That is correct. 12 Q. So anything that you learned as an 13 industrial hygienist was no secret? 14 A. That is correct. 15 Q. And all the things that you knew 16 about the dangers of asbestos, the member of 17 the Occupational Health Working Group would 18 have know as well? 19 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 20 A. They would. 21 Q. And all the principles that we went 22 through earlier about how to protect workers, 23 all those principles were also known to the 24 members of Occupational Health Working Group, 25 true? 83 1 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 2 A. True. 3 Q. Now, asbestos was one of the 4 subjects that the Occupational Health Working 5 Group was concerned with? 6 A. True. 7 Q. Am I correct the Occupational 8 Health Working Group actually oversaw the 9 operations of the industrial hygienist working 10 at Bell Labs? 11 A. It did. 12 Q. So AT&T, for example, knew 13 everything you were doing, in effect? 14 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection. 15 A. Define AT&T. 16 Q. Their medical director. 17 A. True. 18 Q. And the head industrial hygienist 19 at Western Electric knew everything that you 20 were doing? 21 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. You gave them the information that 24 you uncovered, correct? 25 A. That is correct. 84 1 Q. It was then up to them to determine 2 what to do with it, right? 3 A. It was not my job, right. 4 Q. So if a program had to be developed 5 to make sure that the actual worker in the 6 field got the information, that would have been 7 the function of the Occupational Health Working 8 Group? 9 A. I would not phrase it that way. 10 Q. Okay. How would you phrase it? 11 A. The way I would phrase it is the 12 Occupational Health Working Group would provide 13 the information to the Operating Telephone 14 Companies. It would then be their 15 responsibility to provide that information. 16 Q. But the Operating Telephone 17 Companies were also part of the Occupational 18 Health Working Group, were they not? 19 A. Not really, no. 20 Q. They didn't have members? 21 A. There was generally one member of 22 one of the operation, the Operating Telephone 23 Companies as part of the Occupational Health 24 Working Group, but they did not all have 25 representatives in that group. 85 1 Q. Okay. The Bell System, just so I 2 make sure that I am clear, the Bell System 3 Services Group was charged with looking at the 4 industrial hygiene exposures to Operating 5 Company employees? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. Okay. And you would, specifically, 8 go out in the field and watch Operating Company 9 employees do work? 10 A. Correct. 11 Q. That included work with asbestos- 12 containing products, true? 13 A. There were no asbestos-containing 14 products, to my knowledge, that they used. 15 Q. Well, you were aware that employees 16 of the Operating Companies worked with or 17 around asbestos products as part of their job? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. Okay. Did you ever observe them 20 doing that? 21 A. I did. 22 Q. And do you know what a cable 23 splicer is? 24 A. I do. 25 Q. What's a cable splicer? 86 1 A. A cable splicer, to my knowledge, 2 is a person who is charged with taking and 3 making connections to cables. Basically, 4 that's their primary role, opening cables and 5 then making connections and closing them. 6 Q. Okay. Did you as part of your 7 responsibilities observe the activities, the 8 work activities of cable splicers? 9 A. I did. 10 Q. On how many occasions? 11 A. I would estimate several hundred. 12 Q. Okay. And did you do that for 13 cable splicers at the New Jersey Bell? 14 A. I did. 15 Q. What locations do you recall or the 16 kinds of locations? 17 A. The kinds of locations, basically, 18 for cable splicers we defined it, I believe the 19 did as well, aerial buried and underground. So 20 we looked at all of those types of work. 21 Q. Did you understand the kinds of 22 products the cable splicers were using in order 23 to perform their work? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. How detail was your understanding? 87 1 A. I am not sure how to answer that 2 question. 3 Q. Were you aware of all products they 4 used or generally what they used? 5 A. I was aware, I was trying to make 6 myself aware of most of the products that they 7 used. 8 Q. As you sit here today, can you say 9 that you were aware of all or just some of the 10 products they used? 11 A. I can almost guarantee you I was 12 not aware of all because there were many of 13 them. 14 Q. Are you aware that employees of the 15 Bell Operating Companies would use asbestos- 16 containing gloves? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Okay. Are you aware that employees 19 of the Bell Operating Companies would work with 20 asbestos insulated cable? 21 A. I am not aware of any asbestos 22 insulated cable. 23 Q. Did you observe exposure to 24 asbestos when asbestos-containing products were 25 damaged or caused the release of fibers into 88 1 the air? 2 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 3 A. Yeah. That was my job to look at 4 that. 5 Q. What was a Bell System catalog of 6 supplies? Are you familiar with that? 7 A. Bell System catalog of supplies? 8 I'm not familiar exactly with that. There were 9 a number of catalogs and supplies. 10 Q. Do you know where, let's say 11 somebody had gloves and they needed them for 12 work on the job, where would, how would they 13 get those gloves, how would they order them, 14 how would they get to them? 15 A. My understanding is that they would 16 order them through their supervisor. 17 Q. And do you know for instance, who 18 would be the supplier of those gloves to the 19 Bell Operating Companies? 20 A. In many cases it would be Western 21 Electric, but they could also go out and 22 purchase them on their own. 23 Q. Did they have to get special 24 permission to do that? 25 A. Not to my knowledge. 89 1 Q. Okay. Are you aware that employees 2 would use asbestos-containing gloves when they 3 were performing soldering operations? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Have you ever seen that done? 6 A. Have I ever seen soldering 7 operation or asbestos containing -- 8 Q. Well, have you ever seen a 9 soldering operation? 10 A. I have. 11 Q. Okay. And did the employees wear 12 gloves in the soldering operation? 13 A. There's two types of soldering 14 operations. 15 Q. Well, do they have soldering 16 operations up on the poles? 17 A. I did not observes soldering 18 operations up on the pole. 19 Q. Did you observe soldering 20 operations in manholes? 21 A. Yes, I did. 22 Q. Who was performing those 23 operations? 24 A. They were performed by cable 25 splicers. 90 1 Q. Do you know when soldering 2 operations were being performed in manholes if 3 whether the people doing that operation would 4 be wearing protective clothing? 5 A. They would. 6 Q. What kind of protective clothing? 7 A. They would be wearing gloves. 8 Q. What kind of gloves? 9 A. The ones that I observed were 10 leather. 11 Q. Leather? 12 A. Leather. 13 Q. At what point in time? Was that 14 from 1975 forward? 15 A. Right, that's correct. 16 Q. Do you have any idea what kind of 17 gloves were being used prior to 1975 when you 18 got there for soldering operations in manholes? 19 A. I do not know. 20 Q. Who would know that? 21 A. Probably, I really couldn't say. 22 Q. If there was sworn testimony 23 indicating that asbestos-containing gloves were 24 used in manholes during soldering operations, 25 would you have any information to rebut that. 91 1 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 2 A. I have no information to rebut it. 3 Q. If there was testimony that 4 asbestos-containing gloves were used on poles 5 during soldering operations, would you have any 6 information to rebut that? 7 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 8 A. It's not something that I've ever 9 seen. 10 Q. Okay. Now, were asbestos- 11 containing gloves a source for asbestos 12 exposure for Bell Telephone employees? 13 A. Not exposures above the 14 occupational exposure limit. 15 Q. The way you're qualifying it, were 16 there sources of exposure limit whether or not 17 it was above? 18 A. They were a source of potential of 19 asbestos exposure. 20 Q. Did you ever actually do readings 21 for how much asbestos, if any, was released 22 during the use of an asbestos-containing glove? 23 A. I, personally, did not. 24 Q. Did Bell Labs do it? 25 A. Other individuals in our group did. 92 1 Q. And were those reads are made known 2 to you? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And how? 5 A. They would have been, I would have 6 seen the reports if they had passed. 7 Q. Do you recall what the results of 8 those readings were? 9 A. As I recall, they were below the 10 occupational exposure limits. 11 Q. Were they above background? 12 A. I couldn't say. 13 Q. So your focus was whether it was 14 above or below not how much? 15 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 16 Q. Scratch that. In other words, as 17 long as it was below, you didn't care about how 18 much below? 19 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 20 A. That's correct. 21 Q. Do you know if asbestos-containing 22 gloves used by Operating Company employees 23 released asbestos into the ambient work 24 environment? 25 A. To my knowledge, we never measured 93 1 anything above the occupational exposure 2 limits. 3 Q. At the some point in time, however, 4 there was a recommendation made to get rid of 5 all the asbestos-containing gloves in the Bell 6 Operating Systems, correct? 7 A. Correct. 8 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 9 Q. And that recollection was made by 10 somebody that worked for you? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Who made that recommendation? 13 A. As I recall, that recommendation 14 came out from someone in AT&T. 15 Q. Okay. And when was that? 16 A. I can't say. I would guess 17 somewhere in the 1975 to '84 time frame. 18 Q. And why was that recommendation 19 made? 20 A. It was believed that there was no 21 need for the asbestos-containing gloves and use 22 that it was meant for. 23 Q. Well, was it also based for the 24 potential for exposure? 25 A. It was potential for exposure. 94 1 Q. Now, did AT&T ever mandate that all 2 of the asbestos-containing gloves that are 3 already in use, that were used be removed? 4 A. I believe that was part of the 5 letter. 6 Q. And when was that? 7 A. I would imagine sometime around 8 1980 in the '75 to '84 time frame. 9 Q. And what did the letter say to your 10 recollection? 11 A. Remove the asbestos-containing 12 gloves from central offices. 13 Q. So that directive came from AT&T to 14 the Bell Operating Companies? 15 A. Correct. 16 Q. So it was actually AT&T who had the 17 ultimate say as to what products were used or 18 not used? 19 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form. 20 A. False. 21 Q. Well, did the Bell Operating 22 Companies have the ability at that point to 23 say, hey we're not going to listen? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Okay. Did they do that to your 95 1 knowledge? 2 A. Not to my knowledge. 3 Q. What was the nature of the 4 directive? Why did AT&T express that? Why did 5 AT&T have the ability to provide such a 6 directive if it was a separate company from the 7 Bell Operating Company? 8 A. I can't argue for the management 9 but because AT&T was the majority shareholder 10 in most of the Bell Operating Systems that gave 11 them of the authority. 12 Q. Okay. Were the workers who had 13 been using asbestos-containing gloves in the 14 past advised at that point that they were 15 potentially exposed to asbestos by using the 16 gloves? 17 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 18 A. I couldn't state how they were 19 warned or what they were told. 20 Q. Who would know that? 21 A. The supervisors of the workers who 22 removed them. 23 Q. Did AT&T ever direct, to your 24 knowledge, that the workers be told that they 25 had used asbestos-containing gloves that 96 1 created potential exposure in the past? 2 A. Would you rephrase. 3 Q. That was a bad question. Do you 4 know whether or AT&T directed that the 5 employees in the Operating Companies be advised 6 that they had previously had the potential for 7 asbestos exposure by using asbestos-containing 8 gloves? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Do you know what program AT&T 11 directed to make sure that all of the asbestos- 12 containing gloves were taken out of circulation 13 in the Bell Operating Companies? 14 A. I do not know. 15 Q. Do you know whether such a program 16 was ever instituted? 17 A. I do not know. 18 Q. Do you know whether Bell -- scratch 19 that. Do you know whether AT&T ever 20 recommended that people who have worked with 21 asbestos-containing gloves have annual physical 22 examinations? 23 A. To my knowledge they were not. 24 That was not recommended. 25 Q. Do you know if Bell Labs ever made 97 1 a recommendation that people who were working 2 with asbestos-containing gloves in the past get 3 annual physical exams? 4 A. I do not know of any 5 recommendation. 6 Q. Are you familiar with a product 7 known as an asbestos wiping cloth? 8 A. I am. 9 Q. What is an asbestos wiping cloth? 10 A. As I remember it is a square cloth 11 perhaps four or six inches square, perhaps half 12 an inch thick that's used in lead soldering 13 operations. 14 Q. And during what period of time was 15 that used by employees in the Bell Operating 16 System, do you know? 17 A. I imagine well before 1975, but by 18 the time I started in 1975, very little lead 19 was done. And so it was difficult for us to 20 observe that operation. 21 Q. Do you understand that the use of a 22 wiping cloth was to remove or mold solder 23 around? 24 A. That was one of the uses perhaps 25 the most minor use. 98 1 Q. What was the major use? 2 A. The major use as I was taught was, 3 basically, to be able to catch the lead solder 4 as it came off the wipe and use it, hold the -- 5 provide heat for the bottom part of the wipe 6 when it was being done. And, basically, to 7 wipe the solder into the joint and to smooth it 8 off. 9 Q. Was that product used in the 10 manholes? 11 A. It was. 12 Q. Was it used in the poles? 13 A. Perhaps. I didn't see that. 14 Q. Would you agree with me that given 15 enough time and use that the cloth would fray 16 over time? 17 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 18 A. All the cloths that I saw were very 19 much unfrayed, and they appeared to be quite 20 substantial. 21 Q. Did you ever observed it being 22 used? 23 A. I did. 24 Q. When? 25 A. Well, I actually used one myself. 99 1 I observed it being used in training classes. 2 I observed it being used in the field. 3 Q. So as part of your training in 1975 4 you were still handling asbestos wiping cloths? 5 A. That's correct. 6 Q. Did you ever test for the release 7 of asbestos fiber from an asbestos wiping 8 cloth? 9 A. I don't recall that I ever did. 10 Q. Did anyone at Bell Laboratories 11 ever test for the release of asbestos fibers 12 from asbestos wiping cloths? 13 A. I don't recall. 14 Q. Were employees of the Bell 15 Operating Companies -- scratch that. Where did 16 those asbestos wiping cloths, do you know where 17 they came from? 18 A. I do not. 19 Q. Do you know whether they were 20 distributed through Western Electric? 21 A. I do not. 22 Q. Who would know that, do you know? 23 A. Possibly they're KS specifications 24 for the -- most of part products that came from 25 Western Electric and so there might be some 100 1 information on the KS information. 2 Q. What is a KS specification? 3 A. I don't exactly know what the word 4 KS stands for. It was specifications for 5 products that were provided for Western 6 Electric. 7 Q. Okay. And what would be like 8 included in a typical specification? 9 A. What the material, what materials 10 to make it off, how you would test it to be 11 sure it performed its function, possibly 12 suppliers and ultimate suppliers of that 13 particular product. 14 Q. And was that specification 15 available for most of the products that were 16 used by Bell Operating Companies' employees on 17 the field? 18 A. Products that came from Western 19 Electric, yes. 20 Q. Would you agree with me that the 21 use of an asbestos wiping cloth had the 22 potential for asbestos exposure? 23 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 24 A. I would agree that it has the 25 potential for asbestos exposure but not likely 101 1 above the occupational exposure level. 2 Q. But you never tested to find that 3 out? 4 A. I, personally, never did. 5 Q. Did anybody at Bell Labs ever 6 tested to determine whether using asbestos 7 wiping cloths would create exposures above the 8 occupational limits? 9 A. I do not remember. 10 Q. Was a recommendation ever made by 11 the Bell Laboratories that employees using 12 asbestos-containing wiping cloths had the 13 potential for asbestos? 14 A. Let me specify that I don't know 15 what the wiping cloths were made off so they 16 may or may not have been made of asbestos. I 17 don't know that there was any recommendation 18 for -- I'm sorry, what was it? What 19 recommendation were you asking about? 20 Q. Well, let me ask you. You are 21 aware that at some point in time the wiping 22 cloths that were being used for soldering 23 operations contained asbestos, true? 24 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 25 A. False. 102 1 Q. You don't know that? 2 A. I don't know that. 3 Q. So then, how do you know whether 4 they would release asbestos or not? 5 A. If they didn't have asbestos, 6 didn't contain asbestos they would not release 7 it. 8 Q. So you just were aware that wiping 9 cloths were being used in conjunction with the 10 soldering operation? 11 A. That's correct. 12 Q. But you don't know what they 13 contained? 14 A. That's correct. 15 Q. Did you ever hear that wiping 16 cloths contained asbestos that were used at the 17 Bell Operating Companies? 18 A. I do not remember ever hearing 19 that. 20 Q. All right. So before today, that 21 has never arisen? 22 A. I'm sorry, what? Please -- 23 Q. The issue as to whether the wiping 24 cloths that were used in the soldering 25 operations whether that contained asbestos, 103 1 today's the first time that issue ever came up 2 to you? 3 A. No. 4 Q. When is that issue first addressed 5 to you? 6 A. Possibly several years ago in 7 testimony or deposition for testimony. 8 Q. So when you were working -- let me 9 ask the question this way? When you were 10 working at Bell Laboratories or its successor, 11 the subject of whether the wiping cloths that 12 were used by operating employees or soldering 13 operations containing asbestos never came up? 14 A. I do not recall ever evaluating 15 wiping cloths for asbestos-containing 16 materials. 17 Q. So if the wiping cloths contained 18 asbestos, nobody ever told you? 19 A. That is correct. 20 Q. Are you aware of any testing 21 whatsoever to determine whether the wiping 22 cloths contained asbestos? 23 A. I am not aware of any testing. 24 Q. Are you aware as to whether 25 asbestos was released from the use of wiping 104 1 cloths in soldering operations? 2 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 3 A. As I've said before, no, I'm not 4 aware of any testing for asbestos release for 5 soldering operations. 6 Q. As an industrial hygienist charged 7 with protecting the health and safety of 8 workers, if those wiping cloths contained 9 asbestos, would you have liked to have known 10 that? 11 A. I definitely would have liked to 12 have known that, yes. 13 Q. Why? 14 A. 'Cause that was our job. That was 15 our task to find out employees exposures to 16 hazardous materials. 17 Q. And unless somebody told you it had 18 asbestos, there's nothing that you could do in 19 order to protect people who were working with 20 the product, correct? 21 A. Incorrect. 22 Q. What could you do? 23 A. I could have and we did review 24 specifications of the materials that people 25 were using. 105 1 Q. Did you review specifications for 2 wiping cloths? 3 A. I did not. 4 Q. Did anybody in your group review 5 specifications for wiping cloths? 6 A. I am not aware of any. 7 Q. Are you aware as to whether any 8 workers were ever told that the wiping cloths 9 they were using contain asbestos? 10 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 11 A. I am not aware of any. 12 Q. Do you know and understand what an 13 asbestos pillow is? 14 A. My understanding of an asbestos 15 pillow is something that's used to plug holes 16 between floors in a central office. 17 Q. Are they also known as asbestos 18 bags? 19 A. Possibly. 20 Q. And you're aware that at some point 21 in time -- well, scratch that. What was the 22 purpose of an asbestos pillow? 23 A. The purpose of an asbestos pillow 24 was to plug the opening in the floor between 25 the central offices cables went through as a 106 1 fire stopping material. 2 Q. Did you ever personally observed an 3 asbestos-containing pillow? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Do you know from others in the 6 group or any kind of research what an asbestos- 7 containing pillow looked like? 8 A. I should sit back and say I've seen 9 pillows stuff in holes in Central Offices, 10 whether or not they contained asbestos or not, 11 I don't know. So I have seen pillows, whether 12 or not they were asbestos-containing pillows, I 13 don't know. 14 Q. Do you know, did you ever remove 15 any specifications for the pillows that were 16 used? 17 A. I, personally, did not review 18 specifications. 19 Q. Okay. Anybody in your group review 20 specifications? 21 A. I believe some people did. 22 Q. Were they Western Electric 23 specifications? 24 A. I imagine they were. 25 Q. Okay. Now, the pillows that you 107 1 stuffed in the holes in Central Offices, what 2 color were they? 3 A. As I recall they were either green 4 or blue. 5 MR. PLACITELLA: Why don't we take 6 five minutes or so. 7 VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now off the 8 record. This is the end of Tape 2 of 9 today's deposition. 10 (Whereupon a brief recess is 11 taken.) 12 VIDEOGRAPHER: This is Tape 3 of 13 today's videotape deposition of Charles 14 Paul Lichtenwalner in the matter of Degnan 15 versus Lucent. Deposition is being held 16 at 25 DeForest Avenue, Summit, New Jersey, 17 July 25, 2008, video time is 12:12. We 18 are now on the record. 19 BY MR. PLACITELLA: 20 Q. Are you aware during what period of 21 time asbestos-containing pillows were used in 22 Operating Company Central Offices? 23 A. I don't know the dates. 24 Q. There was at some point in time a 25 recommendation made by you to discontinue the 108 1 use of asbestos-containing pillows? 2 A. Not by me personally. 3 Q. By whom? 4 A. I believe, again, it came from 5 someone at AT&T. 6 Q. So at some point in time AT&T 7 directed that asbestos-containing pillows no 8 longer be used? 9 A. Possible it was AT&T, possible it 10 was Western Electric. 11 Q. And was that after you started 12 working as an industrial hygienist in Bell 13 Laboratories Group? 14 A. I don't know the time frame for 15 that. 16 Q. Do you know whether the directive 17 ever indicated that all the asbestos-containing 18 pillows were already in placed should be 19 removed from the Central Offices? 20 A. It's my recollection that that 21 recommendation was not -- it was required to 22 remove the ones that were already in place. 23 Q. So there was no recall if you, for 24 lack of a better term, for the asbestos- 25 containing pillows that were already in place? 109 1 A. That's my understanding. 2 Q. And would you agree with me that 3 they're likely at the that point, if you take 4 into account all of the holes and all the 5 buildings, thousands of the asbestos- 6 containing pillows in place? 7 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 8 A. Given the buildings, it's likely 9 there were thousands of pillows. 10 Q. Now, the presence of asbestos- 11 containing pillows created the probability of 12 company employees being exposed to asbestos, 13 would you agree with that? 14 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection. 15 A. I would state that I don't believe 16 that that would create an exposure permissible 17 above the occupational exposure limits. 18 Q. Well, was testing ever done to 19 determine whether the handling of asbestos- 20 containing pillows generated the release of 21 asbestos fiber? 22 A. I did not do it, and I am not aware 23 of any testing done during the handling of 24 pillows. 25 Q. Now, are you distinguishing 110 1 handling from something else? 2 A. I am distinguishing it from having 3 the pillows in place. 4 Q. Okay. 5 A. And I did numerous applications in 6 Operating Telephone Companies, Central Offices 7 where these pillows were used and did not find 8 high levels of asbestos. 9 Q. In other words, you just did a 10 sample around where the pillow was already in 11 place? 12 A. That's correct. 13 Q. But you never actually pulled the 14 pillow out to see if that process would release 15 asbestos fiber? 16 A. I, personally, never did that. 17 Q. Did anybody else? 18 A. I don't know. I don't remember. 19 Q. Why not? 20 MR. MCGOWAN: Form, two questions 21 prior. I do apologize. 22 Q. Why not? 23 A. Again, I don't remember. 24 Q. Were you aware that those pillows 25 had the potential for being moved when work had 111 1 to be done on cables running through the holes 2 that they were stuffed then, correct? 3 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 4 A. That's correct. 5 Q. So the only testing that was ever 6 done was taking the test to see if the pillows 7 that were already there were releasing any 8 fiber as they sat there? 9 MR. HORNBY: Objection. That's not 10 the witness's testimony. 11 A. I'm sorry. I don't remember 12 whether testing was done during movement of the 13 pillows. 14 Q. Well, you didn't do it, did you? 15 A. I did not do it. 16 Q. And as you sit here today, are you 17 aware of any? 18 A. I am not aware on any testing that 19 was done? 20 Q. Are you aware of any testing what 21 would happen if somebody took the pillow in 22 their hand and manipulated it? 23 A. I am not aware of any testing. 24 Q. Are you aware what would happen 25 when somebody had to pulled the pillow out? 112 1 A. I am not aware of testing when the 2 pillow was pulled out. 3 Q. What happens with those pillows, am 4 I correct, is they actually get shoved in 5 tightly into a hole to stop the cables from 6 moving around? 7 A. You could not say. I never saw 8 pillows being used. 9 Q. Did you ever run a test to 10 determine whether pushing the pillows into a 11 hole would release asbestos fibers? 12 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. The witness 13 has testified he does not know if it had 14 asbestos. 15 MR. PLACITELLA: No, that's not 16 what he said. 17 A. As I said before, I do not, I did 18 do any testing in the use of the pillows. 19 Q. Okay. Do you remember what the 20 directive from AT&T said when it was mandated 21 that you could no longer use asbestos-containing 22 pillows. 23 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form. 24 A. I don't recall that there was a 25 directive about no longer using asbestos- 113 1 containing pillows. It's possible it was just 2 changed so that asbestos be no longer used in 3 the pillows. 4 Q. Do you know whether the people who 5 would have either removed or installed those 6 pillows were ever warned that the pillows 7 contained asbestos? 8 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 9 A. I have a very vague recollection of 10 information being disseminated that some of the 11 pillows contained asbestos and that employees 12 were to be informed that they were not to 13 manipulate them anymore than was necessary. 14 And if they knew that they had asbestos- 15 containing pillows, to replace them when they 16 needed to remove the pillows from the floors. 17 Q. Why would they not -- 18 A. That's a very vague recollection 19 and you know I wouldn't want to since I'm under 20 oath here, I don't remember exactly the 21 recommendation requirement letter that went 22 out. I do remember vaguely something to that 23 effect went out. 24 Q. Would that be contained in the 25 industrial hygiene files? 114 1 A. Likely it would not. 2 Q. Where would that kind of records be 3 stored? 4 A. If there are any locations where 5 people maintain the recommendation letters, 6 general letters, and so forth from AT&T, that 7 would likely be the source of that. 8 Q. Now, you say be careful not to move 9 or manipulate it, why should you be careful not 10 to move or manipulate it? 11 A. Whenever you move or manipulate 12 asbestos-containing materials there's potential 13 for release of asbestos fibers in the air. 14 Q. Do you know whether cable splicers 15 who had to run their cables or remove those 16 bags were ever warned that they were 17 potentially exposed to asbestos in doing that 18 operation? 19 A. I am not aware at any time that 20 they were warned, but I would not have been 21 privy to that, those training or warnings. 22 Q. Do you know whether AT&T ever 23 recommended that they be warned? 24 A. I am not aware of any 25 recommendation to that effect. 115 1 Q. Do you know whether the employees 2 in the Operating Companies were ever told that 3 they were -- the pillows they used in the past 4 contained asbestos? 5 A. I am not aware of that. 6 Q. Do you know whether the employees 7 who would have encountered asbestos-containing 8 pillows as part of their job were informed to 9 have annual medical examinations? 10 A. I am not aware of that. 11 Q. A principle of industrial hygiene 12 recognized for decades would have dictated that 13 the air be tested for people who installed or 14 removed pillows known to contain asbestos, 15 true? 16 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 17 A. False. Possibly one could look at 18 the coverings for the pillows and determine 19 whether or not it was likely to release 20 asbestos. It was my understanding that the 21 coverings for the pillows did not contain 22 asbestos. Again, as I said, I cannot, I am 23 familiar with the pillows only indirectly from 24 reports or talking with other industrial 25 hygienist. 116 1 Q. Well, there's no allegation that 2 the outside of the pillow itself was asbestos? 3 Is there any information to that effect? 4 A. There's no information one way or 5 other. 6 Q. Okay. 7 A. But it's my understanding that they 8 were not asbestos on the outside. 9 Q. Now, you went to this course at the 10 McCrone Institute? 11 A. I did. 12 Q. And there you learned how to test 13 to see if something on the surface of an object 14 contained asbestos? 15 A. I learned how to test if materials 16 contained asbestos, surface interior 17 everywhere. 18 Q. So you could have taken those bags 19 that were thought to contain asbestos and look 20 at the outside using the techniques that you 21 were taught to determine if that, in fact, was 22 the case that there was asbestos on the 23 outside, true? 24 A. That's true, I could have done 25 that. 117 1 Q. But it wasn't done? 2 A. I did not do it. 3 Q. And nobody else at Bell Labs did? 4 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 5 A. I don't remember if -- 6 Q. And AT&T never directed that it be 7 done? 8 A. They never directed me to do that. 9 Q. Now, in a prior deposition you were 10 asked the following question and you gave the 11 following answer. It says, "My point is not as 12 though the Western Electric Company's employees 13 were actually going to be exposed to the 14 asbestos-containing bags and not the Operating 15 Telephone Company employees or vice versa. 16 Both the employees of Western Electric as well 17 as, for example, Pacific Bell, had a 18 probability of being exposed to asbestos as a 19 result of the presence of these 20 asbestos-containing bags in the workplace, 21 right?" 22 And your answer was, "My 23 understanding that there was a probability for 24 both of them to be exposed." Do you recall that 25 testimony? 118 1 A. I do not. 2 Q. All right. Do you have -- 3 MR. MCGOWAN: Where is that from? 4 MR. PLACITELLA: Page 181 of the 5 deposition are Mr. Lichtenwalner, September 6 16, 2003, in the Graham case. 7 Q. Would you agree that there was a 8 probability that Operating Companies' employees 9 would be exposed if you testified under oath in 10 this case? 11 MR. MCGOWAN: I'm going to object 12 to the form in terms of any prior or 13 preceding language in testimony that may 14 differ from your question. 15 MR. PLACITELLA: That's fine. 16 A. I would agree that there is a 17 probability. The probability may be small. 18 Q. Okay. You understand what a 19 transite cable hole cover is? 20 A. I understand what a transite cover 21 is. Are you referring to transite covers used 22 in Central Offices? 23 Q. Correct. 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Materials used in Bell Operating 119 1 Companies contain transite, would you agree 2 with that? 3 A. Transite was used at Bell Operating 4 Companies, yes. 5 Q. Under what specification? Was that 6 a Western Electric specification? 7 A. I don't know. 8 Q. Okay. Do you believe it was more 9 likely than not a Western Electric 10 specification? 11 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 12 A. I couldn't say for that particular 13 product for that particular use of that 14 product. 15 Q. Would you agree that transite was a 16 potential problem to Operating Telephone 17 Company employees? 18 A. I would disagree with that. 19 Q. In your deposition that I just told 20 your counsel about on page 147 you were asked 21 the following question and you gave the 22 following answers. 23 "You had indicated earlier that 24 there were potential materials containing 25 transite that might pose a potential 120 1 problem to the Operating Telephone Company 2 employees. 3 "ANSWER: Yes. 4 "QUESTION: What kinds of material 5 contained transite? Materials made of 6 transite." 7 Does that refresh your recollection 8 as to whether transite was a potential problem 9 for the Operating Telephone Company employees? 10 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection to form. 11 A. Perhaps I misspoke. As transite 12 asbestos in place, I do not believe poses a 13 potential exposure hazard to Operating 14 Telephone Company employees. Disturbing 15 transite materials might pose a potential 16 problem. 17 Q. Transite was -- let's just make 18 sure we're talking about the same thing. The 19 transite covers, they were used in Central 20 Offices, correct? 21 A. Correct. 22 Q. Okay. And they would actually 23 cover the holes where the asbestos pillows were 24 stuffed into, correct? 25 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 121 1 A. Possibly. Possibly they would be 2 used in lieu of the asbestos pillows. 3 Q. Okay. Now, give me a description 4 of the transite cable hole covers that you're 5 thinking of? 6 A. The ones that I'm thinking of would 7 be a transite board, perhaps a half an inch 8 thick, basically, made long and wide enough to 9 cover generally a slot if it was between the 10 board in the Central Office. 11 Q. So they'd be about, maybe 12 three-quarters of a foot long? 13 A. Three-quarters of a foot? 14 Q. How long would they be typically? 15 A. It depends. It would need to be 16 long enough to cover the width of the slot and 17 they were various size slots. The largest that 18 I saw was probably 4 foot long and perhaps a 19 foot wide. 20 Q. About three-quarters of an inch 21 thick? 22 A. I would I think something like 23 that, yes. 24 Q. Now, did you ever do any testing of 25 the transite covers in place in the Central 122 1 Office to see if they were releasing asbestos 2 fibers? 3 A. In the sense that we tested 4 asbestos in Central Offices, yes, we did that 5 testing. 6 Q. So you specifically tested to see 7 whether the transite cover in place was 8 releasing asbestos? 9 A. No. We specifically tested to see 10 if there was asbestos in Central Offices. 11 Q. Okay. Did you ever tested to 12 determine whether the moving of the transite -- 13 this is made of cement, right? 14 A. I believe it is. 15 Q. And how did you, how heavy are 16 these things typically? 17 A. They weigh as much as a piece of 18 cement. That thickness and area of volume. 19 Q. Well, when you have to move them, 20 do people typically pick them up or do they 21 slide them across the floor or what? 22 A. Again, I never saw them being 23 moved, but it would be very easy to pick them 24 up. It weighed even the largest ones would be 25 a few pounds. 123 1 Q. And when those, did you ever do any 2 testing to determine when you pick up the 3 covers and put them back down, whether that 4 process release is asbestos fibers? 5 A. I never did any testing like that. 6 Q. Did anybody else do that kind of 7 testing? 8 A. I don't recall it being done in 9 Central offices. 10 Q. Was it done elsewhere? 11 A. I had some friends who did some 12 testing working with asbestos in a laboratory 13 setting. 14 Q. And where was that? 15 A. In Holmdel, New Jersey. 16 Q. And what kind of test did they run? 17 A. Basically, were doing testing to 18 determine what happens when you drill transite 19 board to determine what the potential exposures 20 were. 21 Q. And what were the results of those 22 tests? 23 A. I don't know. It's in the 24 literature of the Industrial Hygiene 25 Association. 124 1 Q. Under what circumstances -- you 2 mean those tests were performed by Bell? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Why would an Operating Company 5 employee have to drill, cut, saw transite in 6 the course of their work? 7 A. This was done for work at the Bell 8 Laboratories so it was to determine exposure at 9 Bell Laboratories personnel. 10 Q. In the Laboratories themselves? 11 A. That is correct. 12 Q. Okay. But what about testing done 13 in the field for people who were moving around 14 these transite covers? 15 A. I am not aware of any. 16 Q. So just so we're clear, no testing 17 was ever done to determine whether there was a 18 release of asbestos fiber when handling, 19 replacing, or moving transite of hole covers? 20 MR. HORNBY: Objection, it 21 misstates his testimony. 22 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 23 A. No testing was ever done, 24 specifically, to determine exposure, moving or 25 handling asbestos covers. However, exposure 125 1 monitoring was done in Central Offices -- 2 Q. Right. 3 A. -- and some of that may have been 4 the handling or removal of transite covers at 5 that time. 6 Q. So you believe that because the 7 exposure levels were low generally in the 8 Central Offices that that somehow was an 9 indication that people who might be handling 10 the hole covers were not at risk for exposure? 11 Would that be the extrapolation you made? 12 A. I didn't make an extrapolation like 13 that. My statement would be that we measured 14 concentrations in Central Offices, handling of 15 transite may have been going on at the time; 16 therefore, there may have been some exposures 17 that measure that type of operation. 18 Q. Well, how close to this operation 19 of moving the transite were your testing done? 20 A. It could be any distance from one 21 foot to the maximum dimension of a Central 22 Office. 23 Q. So you have no idea whether the 24 testing that you did in Central Offices had any 25 bearing whatsoever on whether asbestos was 126 1 released during the moving of transite cable 2 hole covers? 3 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 4 A. I have no direct knowledge of 5 asbestos exposure when those things were 6 moved. 7 Q. 'Cause no one ever looked? 8 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 9 A. Not that I recall. 10 Q. Okay. Did anyone -- by the way, 11 the guys like the cable splicers who had to run 12 cable through those holes, would they have to 13 move those covers as part of their jobs? 14 A. I don't know. 15 Q. People working with transite cable 16 hole covers included workers running new cables 17 from one floor to the next; would you agree 18 with that? 19 A. That's a possibility. 20 Q. Do you remember testifying about 21 that? 22 A. No, I don't. 23 Q. Would you quarrel with that? 24 A. No, I would not. 25 Q. Now, did a directive ever come from 127 1 AT&T that transite cable hole covers never 2 stopped being used in the Central Offices? 3 A. Not to my knowledge. 4 Q. Did a directive ever come from AT&T 5 indicating that people who moved those covers 6 should be warned that they contained asbestos? 7 A. Not to my knowledge. 8 Q. Was there ever a recall of cable 9 hole covers in Central Offices that were made 10 from transite? 11 A. Not to my knowledge. 12 Q. Just to round out the whole cable 13 issue, are you familiar with a product known as 14 Quick Plug Cement? 15 A. I am not. 16 Q. Do you know whether cement was used 17 as part of the process of sealing the area 18 where the cable hole cover was used? 19 A. I am not aware of that. 20 Q. Okay. 21 MR. PLACITELLA: Do you want to 22 stop now for a half hour? Is that a good 23 time for you? 24 (Whereupon a brief luncheon 25 recess is taken.) 128 1 A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O O N. 2 VIDEOGRAPHER: Time is 1:22. We 3 are on the record. 4 BY MR. PLACITELLA: 5 Q. Good afternoon. No disrespect but 6 I have to ask you this question. Did you 7 discuss the subject of your testimony at all at 8 lunchtime? 9 A. Yes, not the subject. The form of 10 testimony. 11 Q. What does that mean? 12 A. Discussed how I was performing. 13 Q. And what were you told? 14 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection. 15 MR. PLACITELLA: Any discussion you 16 had while he's still under oath is not 17 privilege. 18 Q. What was it that you discussed? 19 A. What I had said, how I had said it, 20 sorry. 21 Q. What does that mean? 22 A. How I answered the questions. 23 Q. Well, were you told to do anything 24 differently? 25 A. No, I was not. 129 1 Q. What was the sum and substance of 2 your discussion? 3 A. Basically, that I was answering the 4 questions and continue to do so. 5 Q. Okay. Am I correct that transite 6 conduits were used to hold cables for 7 underground telephone communications? 8 A. Correct. 9 Q. And what would happen is those 10 transite conduits would connect one manhole to 11 another; is that fair? 12 A. That's true. 13 Q. So what would happen is there would 14 be a manhole in Point A, another one in Point 15 B, and the conduit would be laid underground, 16 correct? 17 A. Correct. 18 Q. Okay. And the cable would actually 19 be pulled through that conduit? 20 A. That's correct. 21 Q. Okay. And during what period of 22 time, if you know, was transite conduit used 23 for that purpose in the Bell Operating 24 Companies? 25 A. I don't know the time frame. 130 1 Q. Was there ever a time when you were 2 working for Bell Labs or any of its successors 3 where the transite cement conduit was 4 discontinued? 5 A. I am not aware of it being 6 discontinued. 7 Q. So no time, to your knowledge, was 8 there ever a directive that transite cement 9 conduit should no longer be used for holding 10 telecommunications cable underground? 11 A. Not to my knowledge. 12 Q. Okay. Now, what would be the 13 reason for pulling cable through a conduit? 14 A. To put the cable inside the 15 conduit. The conduits were normally placed on 16 the ground empty. 17 Q. Did you ever see, physically, 18 observe transite conduit? 19 MR. MCGOWAN: Object to the form. 20 A. I've been inside manholes and 21 perhaps was present, but I don't recall if I 22 was ever present when they were laying the 23 conduit. All I would have seen was the conduit 24 where, actually the face of the manhole. 25 Q. Did you ever observe that, in any 131 1 New Jersey Bell property? 2 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 3 A. I was in numerous manholes in New 4 Jersey Bell properties. 5 Q. Did you physically witness, ever 6 physically witness the pulling of the cable 7 through transite conduit in New Jersey Bell 8 properties? 9 A. I did. 10 Q. Now, is that something that would 11 be done in the presence of a cable splicer? 12 A. It would not. 13 Q. Are you aware of cable splicers 14 ever doing that? 15 A. I am not aware of cable splicers 16 pulling cable. 17 Q. Can you say with certainty that 18 that did not happen? 19 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 20 A. There were a million people in the 21 Bell System. I cannot say with certainty what 22 did or did not take place. 23 Q. Now, the pulling of cable through 24 conduit resulted in the release that 25 contaminated the ambient air, the release of 132 1 asbestos, that contaminated the ambient air in 2 manholes, true? 3 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 4 A. The potential was there, yes. 5 Q. In fact, did you ever do any 6 measurements to determine if that, in fact, 7 happened? 8 A. I believe I did some measurements. 9 Q. And did you do those measurements 10 yourself? 11 A. I believe I did. 12 Q. And what were the results of your 13 measurements? 14 A. I do not recall. 15 Q. Do you recall that your 16 measurements showed elevated levels of asbestos 17 fibers in the manholes where cable was pulled 18 through the transite conduit? 19 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 20 A. I do not recall. 21 Q. The concern you had, you don't 22 remember the results one way or the other? 23 A. That's correct. 24 Q. Did you generate reports from doing 25 that testing? 133 1 A. If I made measurements, I generate 2 a report, reports. 3 Q. And that generated the file that's 4 in some CD-ROM that you left behind? 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. Now, your concern was that in 7 pulling the cables that there was concern, you 8 had concern about pulling cables through 9 transite conduit, did you not? 10 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 11 A. I did. 12 Q. And what you found was that the 13 pulling of the cable through the transite 14 conduit typically contaminated the manhole with 15 asbestos, true? 16 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 17 A. I don't recall what the results 18 were. 19 Q. I want to see if I can refresh your 20 recollection. In your deposition of September 21 16, 2003, in the Graham case, you were asked 22 the following question, and giving the 23 following answers. Page 154 starting on the 24 bottom, line 24. 25 "You also indicated there was 134 1 exposure to asbestos from working with 2 transite conduit. How would the exposure 3 take place in that circumstances? 4 "ANSWER: The concern that we had 5 is when they were pulling out cables from 6 transite conduits so it would be the 7 cables being pulled through the conduit. 8 "QUESTION: The cables being pulled 9 through the conduit would result in the 10 release of asbestos that contaminated the 11 ambient air? 12 "ANSWER: Typically, it contaminated 13 the manhole. 14 "QUESTION: The manhole area? 15 "ANSWER: Right." 16 Q. Do you recall giving that 17 testimony? 18 A. I recall giving the testimony. I 19 don't recall the specific details of my 20 responses. 21 Q. You want a retract that testimony 22 here today? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Okay. So your testing showed that 25 the pulling of cable through transite conduit 135 1 typically contaminated manholes with asbestos, 2 true? 3 MR. MCGOWAN: Object to form. 4 A. As I said, I don't remember the 5 results of that testing. 6 MR. MCGOWAN: Just for 7 clarification, I don't think the testimony 8 read to him had the word "testing" in it. 9 I might have misheard. 10 Q. It said, all right, just so we're 11 clear, "The cables being pulled through the 12 conduit would result in the release of asbestos 13 that contaminated the ambient air. 14 "ANSWER: Typically it contaminated 15 the manhole. 16 "QUESTION: The manhole area? 17 "ANSWER: Right." 18 Can you tell me what was the basis 19 for that statement, that it typically 20 contaminated the manhole. 21 A. The basis for that statement would 22 be that when you're creating, pulling cable 23 through material you have the possibility of 24 generating dust. 25 Q. Now, cable splicers worked in 136 1 manholes. You agree with that? 2 A. I agree with that. 3 Q. Okay. Would you agree that once 4 the manhole was contaminated, it remained 5 contaminated unless it was properly abated? 6 A. I could see possibilities that it 7 did not remain contaminated. 8 Q. And what would those possibilities 9 be? 10 A. The possibilities are that before 11 people entered manholes, they had to ventilate 12 manholes. That ventilation created a lot of 13 air that would have been removed a lot of the 14 dust that was in the manhole. 15 Q. But what happened to the people 16 that were in the manhole pulling the cable 17 through? 18 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection to form. 19 A. People were not standing in the 20 manhole when the cable was being pulled 21 through. That was forbidden. 22 Q. By whom? 23 A. By Bell System practices. 24 Q. Is that written down somewhere? 25 A. Yes. 137 1 Q. Why was it forbidden? 2 A. As a safety hazard in case 3 something broke. 4 Q. What do you mean as a safety hazard 5 if something broke? 6 A. When you're pulling cable there's 7 large forces involved to pull that cable 8 through the manhole large distances. There is 9 typically large wheels that are used to prevent 10 bending the cable. So there's large forces 11 involved and there could be, you know, some 12 people were not allowed to be in the manhole 13 while the cable was being pulled. 14 Q. What ventilation was put in the 15 manhole that would remove the air in the 16 manhole? 17 A. Ventilation was required before 18 entering any manhole. 19 Q. What does that mean by ventilation? 20 A. It means that there was manhole 21 ventilators that provided air into manholes 22 basically, purged the air and provide fresh 23 airs into manholes while people were working in 24 them. 25 Q. And the ventilation would also have 138 1 the effect of stirring up whatever dust had 2 settled in the manhole, true? 3 A. That's true. 4 Q. And how long would a manhole have 5 to be ventilated before somebody would have to 6 go in there? 7 A. I don't recall the exact time, but 8 it depends on the size of the manhole. Most 9 manholes I believe it's a minimum of five 10 minutes. It required at least seven air 11 changes. 12 Q. And did you ever do any testing to 13 see after the manhole was ventilated whether 14 asbestos was removed from the manhole that was 15 contaminated? 16 A. I do not recall doing any testing. 17 Q. Why not? 18 A. I don't see what the purpose would 19 be. 20 Q. Well, you knew that pulling the 21 transite cable through, pulling the cable 22 through the transite typically contaminated the 23 manhole, true? 24 A. True. 25 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 139 1 Q. You know that people would then go 2 into the manhole, true? 3 A. True. 4 Q. But you never determined to see 5 whether those people were going to be exposed 6 once they went into the manhole? 7 A. Let me restate. I may have done 8 some testing for asbestos in manholes while 9 people were working, but I don't recall any 10 specific times that I did that. 11 Q. Well, as you sit here today, you 12 cannot recall ever testing to determine whether 13 people were exposed to asbestos that you say 14 were typically contaminated inside of 15 manholes? 16 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form. 17 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 18 A. I don't recall I ever said 19 typically contaminated. 20 Q. So you did not testify, "The cables 21 being pulled through the conduit would result 22 in the release of asbestos that contaminated 23 the ambient air; your answer, typically, it 24 contaminated the manhole." 25 You didn't say that under oath 140 1 under penalty of perjury, sir? 2 A. Perhaps I did. 3 Q. Was it the truth under penalty of 4 perjury, sir? 5 MR. MCGOWAN: Form, argumentative. 6 A. Was what -- 7 Q. That asbestos typically 8 contaminated the manhole through -- by the 9 pulling of the cable through the transite 10 conduit? 11 A. I'd like you to repeat the question 12 that was asked. I had some particular concerns 13 about the way that question was asked prior to 14 my answer. 15 Q. Sir, did you give the answer to the 16 following question? "The cables being pulled 17 through the conduit would result in the release 18 of asbestos that contaminated the ambient air." 19 Your answer, "Typically it contaminated the 20 manhole." 21 Do you remember that testimony? 22 A. I remember the testimony. 23 Q. Okay. What tests did you run to 24 determine whether people who went into that 25 manhole after the cable was pulled through were 141 1 not at risk for asbestos exposure? 2 A. That test would have been done 3 while the cable, after the cable had been 4 pulled through the manhole. At that point I 5 would have been monitoring the linemen who were 6 doing that cable pulling. 7 I thought, sorry, I assumed that 8 your question prior to this was whether or not 9 I did any testing of cable splicers working in 10 manholes after cables had been pulled. And I 11 don't recall, but it's possible that there was 12 testing done for asbestos in cable splicers. 13 Q. But you have no information, as you 14 sit here today, that that testing was done? 15 A. I do not recall any of that 16 testing. 17 Q. Did you ever receive a directive 18 from AT&T to test the manholes to see how long 19 they remained contaminated? 20 A. No, I did not. 21 Q. Did you ever receive a directive 22 from the Occupational Health Working Group to 23 test the manhole to see how long they remained 24 contaminated? 25 A. I did not. 142 1 Q. As someone whose dedicated his life 2 to protecting his life to the health and safety 3 of workers, why didn't you on your own run 4 tests to determine how long the manhole 5 remained contaminated with asbestos after it 6 was pulled through? 7 MR. MCGOWAN: Form, argumentative. 8 A. How long? That's a difficult 9 series of questions to answer given the 10 variable nature of manholes and exposures and 11 water conditions and things like that. That 12 would not be an easy study to determine how 13 long contamination existed in manholes. 14 Q. Well, did you do it, say, two hours 15 after the cable was pulled? 16 A. As I said before, I did testing 17 while cable was being pulled. I don't recall 18 the results, the specific results of that 19 test. I also know that we did sampling in 20 manholes while cable splicers were working. I 21 don't recall if asbestos measurements were 22 taken as part of that. 23 Q. What trades would enter the 24 manholes on behalf of Bell Operating Companies 25 after the cable was pulled through the transite 143 1 conduit? 2 A. Cable splicers. 3 Q. That's it? 4 A. Linemen would also be in there, 5 possibly some people for doing testing, but 6 most of it would be cable splicers and 7 linemen. 8 Q. So you only have two trades 9 possibly that you had to test for? 10 A. Right. That's correct. 11 Q. So there are only two sets of 12 people that needed your attention for 13 protection in the manholes after the cable was 14 pulled through the transite conduit, correct? 15 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 16 A. Correct. 17 Q. But as you sit here today, you 18 can't point to any testing that you ever did to 19 see if those people were at the risk? 20 MR. HORNBY: Objection. 21 A. I don't have access to my records. 22 We're talking about things that occurred 35 23 years ago. I don't recall all the measurements 24 that I took. 25 Q. Well, if you had to get those 144 1 records to provide complete and accurate 2 testimony, who would you ask and what would you 3 do? 4 A. Who would I ask? Basically, I 5 would go to the operating telephone companies 6 and ask if any of them still retain the records 7 that were given to them as a result of the 8 divestiture. Another possibility would be Bell 9 Laboratories to see if any of the records still 10 exist there, and then I don't know. 11 Q. Okay. Was anybody else involved in 12 the testing that found contamination, asbestos 13 contamination in manholes other than yourself? 14 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection to form. 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Who? 17 A. There were a number of people who 18 worked in the Bell System Services Group and we 19 all did testing. 20 Q. Give me some names? 21 A. Francis Foster, Gary Kenny, Roy 22 Deichman, Patty Paine. Those are the ones 23 that immediately come to mind. 24 Q. Now, did you ever test any other 25 asbestos-containing product on behalf of Bell 145 1 Labs where your conclusion was that that 2 product contaminated the work environment with 3 asbestos? 4 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection to form. 5 A. Not that I can recall. 6 Q. So the only test you ever can 7 recall doing where you find contamination of 8 the work environment was on the transite 9 conduit in the manholes, correct? 10 MR. HORNBY: Objection. 11 A. Incorrect. I just remember there 12 was sprayed asbestos insulation on buildings. 13 Let's see those are, right. 14 Q. So just those two? 15 A. I object to the use of the word 16 contamination. I would prefer to hear it as -- 17 Q. I'm sorry, that was your word, 18 contaminated the manhole, right, not mind, 19 correct? 20 A. All right. 21 Q. You object to your own words, sir? 22 A. I would have preferred to have said 23 potential contamination. 24 Q. It's not funny, right, sir? 25 Contamination with asbestos in a working 146 1 environment, it's not funny, is it? 2 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection, 3 argumentative. 4 Q. It's not something to laugh about, 5 is it? 6 A. It is not. 7 Q. Especially for my client who went 8 down in those manholes. It's not funny for 9 him, is it? 10 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection, 11 argumentative. 12 Q. Tell me what you did to protect my 13 client, Mr. Degnan, who climbed down in those 14 manholes for New Jersey Bell after the cable 15 was pulled through the transite conduit? 16 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection to form. 17 A. We evaluated work practices, the 18 people that were inside manholes to determine 19 their hazards and potential exposures. 20 Q. And what did you find? 21 A. As I said, we found, as I recall, 22 little to no exposures above the occupational 23 exposure limits. 24 Q. Do you have those tests? Where did 25 you come up with that? 147 1 MR. HORNBY: Objection to form. 2 Q. You tested in the manholes after 3 you said they were contaminated and found 4 little exposures above the occupational limits 5 or below? 6 A. We're talking about asbestos. I 7 don't recall the ones for asbestos, but I 8 certainly made other measurements inside 9 manholes for people who where working. 10 Q. I am focusing on asbestos here. My 11 client died from asbestos. You understand 12 that? 13 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection, 14 argumentative. 15 A. That's my understanding. 16 Q. You understand my client, Mr. 17 Degnan, was a cable splicer who worked at New 18 Jersey Bell, and he died from mesothelioma. 19 You understand that? 20 A. That's what I've been told. 21 Q. So that's what I want to talk 22 about. What readings did you do to determine, 23 after you found out that manholes were 24 contaminated from pulling cable through 25 transite conduit, what did you to do protect 148 1 people like Mr. Degnan from asbestos exposure 2 in those manholes? 3 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection to form. 4 A. I don't recall that I measured 5 exposures above the permissible exposure limit. 6 Q. Well, did you measure any exposures 7 for asbestos? 8 A. When you say did I measure any 9 exposures, you mean did I take any exposure 10 measurements or did I take, did I get any 11 measurements that determined asbestos? 12 Q. Did you take any measurements to 13 determine whether there was asbestos fibers in 14 the work environment in manholes after the 15 cable was pulled through the transite conduit? 16 MR. HORNBY: Objection. 17 A. I don't recall. 18 Q. Did you ever report back to the 19 Occupational Health Working Group that you 20 determined that manholes were contaminated with 21 asbestos as a result of the pulling with cable 22 through transite conduit? 23 MR. HORNBY: Objection to form. 24 A. I don't recall. 25 Q. Would there be any reason why you 149 1 would withhold that information from the 2 members of the Occupational Health Working 3 Group? 4 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 5 A. I definitely would not withhold 6 that information. 7 Q. So after that information was 8 communicated, what, if anything, did the 9 Occupational Health Working Group do in 10 response to the report that manholes were 11 contaminated with asbestos as a result of 12 pulling cable through transite conduit? 13 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form. 14 A. I don't know what report was given 15 to the Occupational Health Working Group. 16 Q. Well, you think it was likely you 17 told them? 18 A. I think it's quite likely someone 19 told them, not necessarily myself. And then 20 what action was taken by them to make sure that 21 the people who would go into those manholes 22 after they were contaminated were not placed at 23 risk? 24 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection to form. 25 Asked and answered. 150 1 A. What was done was I believe special 2 efforts were taken to determine asbestos 3 exposures in pulling cables through manholes. 4 We were, specifically, charged in trying to 5 find out what the exposures were. 6 Q. Okay. And what did you find out? 7 A. Again, as I said, I don't know and 8 it wasn't just myself doing this work. It was 9 a team of us that did it. 10 Q. There were only two classes of 11 workers who went in those manholes after the 12 cable splicers after the cables were pulled, 13 right; linemen and splicers, right? 14 A. That's correct. 15 Q. They wouldn't have been hard to 16 find and hard to warn, correct? 17 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection to form. 18 MR. HORNBY: Objection. 19 A. It was difficult to find people who 20 were pulling cable through manholes. 21 Q. Not my point. I'm saying after the 22 cable was pulled, you knew there were only two 23 classes of workers that were going into those 24 manholes; cable splicers and linemen, true? 25 A. Correct. 151 1 Q. So if you warned classes of workers 2 to protect themselves, you knew who they were 3 and where to find them, true? 4 A. That wasn't our job, to warn or to 5 find people. 6 Q. If AT&T wanted to warn the cable 7 splicers they knew who to warn and where to 8 find them, true? 9 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form. 10 A. True. 11 Q. And you told me at the beginning of 12 this deposition that AT&T had both the money 13 and the resources to do whatever warning was 14 necessary to protect the health and safety of 15 workers, true? 16 A. I did. 17 Q. Do you have any information, as you 18 sit here today, that AT&T used its money and 19 its resources to warn cable splicers who 20 entered the manholes that those manholes could 21 be contaminated with asbestos? 22 A. I have no information. 23 Q. Have you ever heard of a company 24 called Henkels & McCoy? 25 A. Yes. 152 1 Q. Who is Henkels & McCoy? 2 A. It's a company I believe provides 3 telecommunication services to Sprint. They 4 have an office near the bottom of the road 5 where I live. 6 Q. Do you know whether they ever 7 supplied the transite conduit that was used in 8 the New Jersey Bell Operating Companies? 9 MS. D'ANNUNZIO: Objection to form. 10 A. I do not. 11 MR. PLACITELLA: Was that a bad 12 question? 13 MS. D'ANNUNZIO: Yes. 14 MR. PLACITELLA: What was wrong 15 with it? 16 MS. D'ANNUNZIO: Can you just read 17 it back then I'll tell you what it is. 18 Going on, I'll remember it. 19 (Whereupon last question was read 20 back.) 21 MR. PLACITELLA: That was a bad 22 question? 23 MS. D'ANNUNZIO: Maybe not. 24 MR. PLACITELLA: Okay. 25 BY MR. PLACITELLA: 153 1 Q. Do you have any knowledge of 2 Henkels & McCoy in any role they had in 3 relation to New Jersey Bell? 4 A. I do not. 5 Q. Do you know what a cable vault 6 cover is? 7 A. No, I don't. 8 Q. So then you wouldn't have any idea 9 what the composition of a cable vault cover is? 10 A. What a cable vault cover be used in 11 a cable? 12 Q. To cover cable for splicing? 13 A. So you're saying a cover used in 14 cable vaults; is that what you're talking 15 about? 16 Q. It's called a cable vault cover. 17 A. I'm not familiar with that term. 18 Q. Do you know what a cable bag is? 19 A. A cable bag is my understanding is 20 a place where small pieces of wire get placed 21 when they're doing, cutting pieces of wire. 22 Q. Do you know what the composition of 23 a cable bag was? 24 A. The ones that I saw were paper. 25 Q. So you don't know about any -- 154 1 you're unaware of any fire retardant cable bag? 2 A. I'm not aware of -- 3 Q. In the contents of Bell Operating 4 Companies? 5 A. No, I am not aware of it. 6 Q. Okay. Do you know what an asbestos 7 blanket is? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. You're aware that asbestos blankets 10 were used in the Bell Operating Companies in 11 conjunction with soldering operations? 12 A. I have a very vague recollection of 13 something like that. Whether or not it 14 contained asbestos, I don't know. I know that 15 blankets were placed when they were working on 16 the distribution price. 17 Q. Do you know whether those blankets 18 were ever tested by your group to determine 19 whether they contained asbestos? 20 A. I don't recall. 21 Q. Did your group ever test blankets 22 to determine whether fiber, asbestos fiber was 23 released during the use of those blankets? 24 A. I don't remember any testing. 25 Q. Can you tell me, as you sit here 155 1 today, 'cause I'm going to write them down, all 2 of the products that you're aware that 3 Operating Company employees used or encountered 4 that contained asbestos? 5 A. Can I get a clarification there? 6 You said encountered, Operating Telephone 7 Company employees worked on customer premises. 8 Q. I'm going to exclude customer 9 premises, okay? That's a good clarification. 10 A. Okay. 11 Q. Can you tell me all of the 12 asbestos-containing products that you're aware 13 of that Operating Company employees would have 14 used or encountered other than on customer's 15 premises? You want to think about that. He 16 had to change the tape. 17 A. All right. 18 VIDEOGRAPHER: This completes Tape 19 3 of the video deposition. 20 (Whereupon a brief recess is 21 taken.) 22 VIDEOGRAPHER: This is Tape 4 of the 23 videotape deposition of Charles Paul 24 Lichtenwalner in the matter of Degnan 25 versus Lucent. It is July 25, 2008, video 156 1 time is two o'clock. We are on the 2 record. 3 BY MR. PLACITELLA: 4 Q. You're going to list for me the 5 products that you can recall that contain 6 asbestos that would be used or encountered by 7 Bell Operating Company employees other than the 8 products they would have encountered on the 9 customer's premises. 10 A. We've mentioned transite and 11 transite was used on a number of different 12 places as in the ducts and also used in various 13 places in buildings as in fireproofing 14 material. I am not sure I can list all the 15 places, but those are the ones that I remember. 16 Q. Okay. 17 A. There were asbestos-containing 18 resistors that were used in Central Office 19 switching equipment. At one point I was sent a 20 small piece of wire that had asbestos 21 insulation around it. It appeared to be quite 22 old. I was told that it hadn't been used for 23 many years, and I believe it was for power 24 cable, but, again, this was just something that 25 was something sort of an odd-kind of a thing. 157 1 There were, we mentioned asbestos 2 gloves. These were used in the Central Offices 3 extensively. Hopefully, they were never used. 4 They were there to put out fires and they were 5 kept in canvas bags and pulled out for 6 inspection once a year. 7 There was a clay containing 8 asbestos that I was asked to analysis at one 9 point for asbestos. I was told to use it for 10 fire stopping, but I never saw it used. I 11 never saw it being used. Let's see. 12 There's almost certainly where some 13 buildings with spray-on asbestos insulation but 14 that would have been rare in the Bell System as 15 most of the buildings that I was aware of were 16 encased in concrete. At the moment I've run 17 out of the things. 18 Q. Okay. I'm not going to ask you 19 about resistors. That has nothing to do with 20 this case. The clay, what was the form that 21 that came to you that you observed? 22 A. It came to me as a piece of clay 23 like child's modeling clay, you know, pliable 24 kind of material that that would retain its 25 shape. You can mold it any shape you want. 158 1 Q. Did you see a package for that, or 2 did it just come? 3 A. I did not see a package for it. I 4 got it sent in an envelop kind of thing. 5 Q. And the clay would that hardened or 6 would it remain malleable? 7 A. It would remain malleable. 8 Q. And did you test that clay? 9 A. I tested that clay. 10 Q. And what did you determine? 11 A. I found asbestos in it. 12 Q. Okay. 13 A. I'm sorry I can also -- there would 14 have been vinyl asbestos tiles for the floors. 15 Q. And you said they had potential for 16 creating exposure when they're cut, correct? 17 A. I never saw them being cut. 18 Q. Well, do the cutting of asbestos 19 floor tile create potential for asbestos 20 exposure? 21 A. I didn't measure that at all 'cause 22 I wasn't aware that Bell System people would do 23 cutting of floor tiles. 24 Q. All right. There's some you 25 probably forgot. What about ebony power board? 159 1 A. Oh, ebony power board I was told 2 had asbestos as well. 3 Q. Okay. Well, we'll agree that you 4 can't remember everyone as you sit here, 5 correct? 6 A. Thank you. 7 Q. Now, was something known as a Bell 8 System Practices guide? 9 A. There were numerous Bell System 10 Practices. I don't know about a guide for Bell 11 System. 12 Q. What is that? 13 A. Basically, Bell System Practices 14 were written practices that were written to 15 inform employees how to do their job. 16 Q. Okay. Who was the author? 17 A. There were various authors, and, 18 basically, they're usually subject matter 19 experts in the use of that particular product. 20 Q. Where did they originate? 21 A. I believe they originated, I know 22 they originated, some of them originated in 23 Bell Labs. Some of them originated in Western 24 Electric. Some of them originated at AT&T. So 25 they could have come from a number of different 160 1 places. 2 Q. And those were guides that were 3 distributed to operating company employees? 4 A. They were. 5 Q. And they would have manuals and say 6 like something like how to enter a manhole? 7 A. That was one of them, yes. 8 Q. How to use a screwdriver? 9 A. That is correct. 10 Q. How to pull cable through 11 distribution frame? 12 A. I'm not familiar with that one, but 13 there probably was one. 14 Q. How to pull cable through a 15 conduit? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. How to do soldering? 18 A. Different types of soldering so 19 there would have been several for the type of 20 soldering that was being done. 21 Q. And did any of these guides have an 22 industrial hygiene section? 23 A. I am not sure what you mean by 24 industrial hygiene. There was no specific 25 section for industrial hygiene. 161 1 Q. In other words, if somebody, for 2 instance, if there's a guide for pulling cable 3 through conduit, does the guide say anything 4 about be careful doing this, can release 5 asbestos fiber? 6 A. Every Bell System practice that I'm 7 aware, basically, had a section on safety, 8 which would have included a section on 9 industrial hygiene. 10 Q. Did the guides ever warn, 11 specifically, about using or manipulating 12 asbestos? 13 A. I don't know. 14 Q. Do you know whether or not the 15 guides provided them with any cautions about 16 possible asbestos contamination in the 17 manholes? 18 A. I'm not aware of it. 19 Q. That would have been a good place 20 to put it, don't you think? 21 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection to form. 22 A. Yes, it would. 23 Q. Now, how about the -- was there a 24 guide for using asbestos gloves? 25 A. The only use of asbestos gloves 162 1 that I'm aware of, would have been for putting 2 out fires in cable trays. There probably was a 3 guide for fire protection that would have 4 mentioned asbestos gloves, but I don't believe 5 there would have been a Bell System practice 6 for use of asbestos gloves. 7 Q. Well, if their witness's say they 8 used asbestos gloves when they were handling 9 hot solder, would you quarrel with that? 10 A. As I said, there were a lot of 11 people working for the Bell System and possibly 12 there were people who used them. 13 Q. Okay. Did any of the practice 14 guides that you're aware of, contain warnings 15 about potential asbestos exposure? 16 A. I don't recall any. 17 Q. But those guides would have 18 actually reached the operating company 19 employees, true? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. So if you wanted to make sure 22 somebody knew about asbestos, that would have 23 been a good place to put it? 24 A. That would be one place to put it, 25 yes, and it may have been in some. 163 1 Q. But you're not aware of any? 2 A. I don't recall. 3 Q. Now, just to be clear, the good 4 news is I'm getting close to the end. You are 5 not aware of any testing -- well, scratch 6 that. AT&T, Bell Labs, and Western Electric 7 all knew that asbestos could cause cancer the 8 day you walked into to your job as an 9 industrial hygienist at Bell Labs, true? 10 MR. MCGOWAN: Object to form. 11 A. There were people at AT&T Bell Labs 12 knew that asbestos could cause cancer. 13 Q. And there were people at AT&T, Bell 14 Labs, and Western Electric that understood what 15 their principles of industrial hygiene were to 16 protect workers if they wanted to, true? 17 A. That's correct. 18 Q. And one of those principles as we 19 discussed this morning was testing to determine 20 whether people who handled asbestos-containing 21 products were at risk, true? 22 A. Correct. 23 Q. So these were all things known to 24 AT&T, Bell Labs, and Western Electric the day 25 you walked into work. 164 1 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection to form. 2 Q. Right? 3 A. That's correct. When I walked into 4 work, yeah. 5 Q. All right. You have no evidence as 6 you sit here today that any testing was ever 7 done to determine whether asbestos fibers was 8 released during the use of asbestos-containing 9 gloves, correct? 10 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection. 11 A. Before when I started, I don't 12 recall any information to that effect. 13 Q. At any point in time? 14 A. Well, testing I believe was done 15 not by me of the use of the gloves during an 16 inspection process. The annual inspection 17 process I believe measurements were taken. 18 Q. You mean somebody went and looked 19 at a glove that was not in use and did a test? 20 A. No. 21 Q. What happened? 22 A. I am saying that the requirement 23 was that the gloves be pulled out of their bag 24 an inspected once a year. 25 Q. Okay. 165 1 A. And as I recall, someone in our 2 group made measurements of that person while 3 they did that inspection. 4 Q. Okay. No testing was ever done of 5 gloves used, asbestos gloves used in soldering 6 operations, true? 7 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 8 A. I am not aware of asbestos gloves 9 used in soldering operations. 10 Q. No study was ever done of asbestos 11 gloves being used in asbestos soldering 12 operations, true? 13 A. As I said, I am not aware of any 14 gloves being used in soldering operations; 15 therefore, no testing was done. 16 Q. No testing was done of the use of 17 asbestos wiping cloths by cable splicers, 18 true? 19 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 20 MR. HORNBY: Objection. 21 A. It's true. I am not aware of any 22 testing for that. 23 Q. And AT&T never directed that such 24 testing be done, correct? 25 A. I would suggest that that's 166 1 somewhat leading. The way that I would phrase 2 it, the answer is that AT&T directed the Bell 3 System Services Group to investigate asbestos 4 exposure whenever they can find it. I am not 5 aware, you know, testing in some these 6 instances, that you've mentioned. 7 Q. So you've never received a 8 directive from AT&T or the Occupational Health 9 Working Group to test the asbestos cloth, true? 10 A. That's true. 11 Q. Okay. You never did any testing 12 concerning the installation or removing of 13 asbestos pillows, true? 14 A. I don't recall doing any testing, 15 correct. 16 Q. And you never received the 17 directive from AT&T to do testing on the 18 installation or removal of asbestos pillows, 19 true? 20 A. Again, the way you are phrasing it 21 is not the way I would like to answer that 22 question. We were charged with testing 23 wherever people might have health problems 24 exposures and in some sense we instructed to do 25 some kind of testing. In another sense nothing 167 1 as a specific charge was given to us. 2 Q. So you were instructed to do it, 3 but you didn't do it? 4 A. We were instructed to find out 5 where we judge there was likely to be 6 exposures. 7 Q. How would you know unless you 8 pulled it out of the hole and stuffed it back 9 in? 10 A. That's one of the ways by testing 11 it. Another way is by looking at the potential 12 for exposure. 13 Q. Just by looking at it sitting 14 there, that was good enough for you? 15 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection. 16 A. Things like vinyl asbestos tile, 17 that was probably enough. 18 Q. I'm not talking about that. I'm 19 talking about bags of asbestos that men took 20 and shoved into holes. Did you ever test 21 those? 22 A. I never saw that operation, and so 23 I never tested for that. 24 Q. Well, you could have done it, 25 right? They were there. All you could do is 168 1 pull them out and shoved them back in. You 2 could have tested for that, right? 3 A. At the time I didn't know they 4 contained asbestos. 5 Q. Neither did the poor people that 6 were using them, right? 7 MR. HORNBY: Objection to form. 8 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection. 9 A. I don't know what they knew. 10 Q. You never did any testing and were 11 never directed to do any testing for use with 12 asbestos blankets, true? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. You never warned people who used 15 asbestos gloves that they had the potential for 16 exposure, true? 17 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. And the Occupational Health Working 20 Group never directed that people who used 21 asbestos-containing gloves be warned, true? 22 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 23 A. I'm sorry. What was the question? 24 Q. The Occupational Health Working 25 Group that you worked for never directed the 169 1 people who used asbestos gloves be warned for 2 the potential of exposure? 3 A. Sorry, I thought worn meaning wear 4 but you mean warned as -- 5 Q. I mean warned like -- 6 A. Alert. 7 Q. -- alert. 8 A. I don't know. 9 Q. The Occupational Health Working 10 Group never directed that you warn people who 11 use asbestos wiping cloths that they have 12 potential for exposure, true? 13 A. Not to my knowledge. 14 Q. The Occupational Health Working 15 Group never told you to warn people who removed 16 or installed asbestos-containing pillows that 17 there was potential for asbestos exposure, 18 true? 19 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 20 A. That was not my job. They did not 21 tell me to do so. 22 Q. Do you have any idea that they ever 23 provided the warnings for pillows? 24 A. For pillows I don't recall what. 25 Sorry, I have a vague recollection there was 170 1 something mentioned about pillows, but I don't 2 recall the details. 3 Q. Now, as part of your job, did you 4 ever go out to new construction sites? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Under what circumstances? Why 7 would you go out to new construction sites? 8 A. The reason I hesitated was because 9 if I did, it would be seldom. Why would I go 10 out, because there was potential for people to 11 be, to find out if there was a potential for 12 people to be exposed. 13 Q. Under what circumstance? 14 A. While they're performing their 15 job. The construction site, the people I would 16 have been looking at, would typically have been 17 worked engineers that were overseeing outside 18 contractors. 19 Q. Why is that? 20 A. It was my understanding that New 21 Jersey Bell at that time most of the 22 construction was done by outside contractors. 23 Q. But why would you be concerned in 24 1975 and thereafter for engineers that worked 25 for New Jersey Bell being exposed to asbestos? 171 1 A. I'm sorry, eliminate asbestos. I 2 don't recall I ever did that for asbestos. 3 Q. Okay. 4 A. Other hazards, yes. 5 Q. Okay. Was it a recognized 6 industrial hygiene principle that work site 7 owners had the duty to protect outside 8 contractors from harmful exposures on their 9 properties? 10 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection to form, 11 calls for legal conclusion. 12 MS. CRAWFORD: Join. 13 A. That's a general principle, yes. 14 Q. Would you have supported allowing a 15 Bell System employee without protection in a 16 new construction environment where asbestos was 17 used? 18 MR. MCGOWAN: Could we have that 19 question read back? 20 Q. I'll just give the question gain so 21 we're clear. Would you have supported as an 22 industrial hygienist for Bell Laboratories 23 allowing a Bell System employee without any 24 respiratory protection to enter a new 25 construction environment where asbestos- 172 1 containing products were used? 2 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 3 A. Yes. I would because that would 4 have been my job. If it were to monitor them 5 or to determine what their exposures were, 6 again, you're saying asbestos-containing 7 products were used. Many asbestos-containing 8 products were not capable of releasing fibers 9 into the air. 10 Q. Okay. You are familiar with a 11 product know as joint compound? 12 A. I've heard the term. 13 Q. Do you know the spackling that goes 14 on the walls? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Have you ever seen that sanded? 17 A. Have it -- 18 Q. -- sanded when it's applied? 19 A. Yes, I have. I have. 20 Q. It creates dust? 21 A. It does. 22 Q. Were you aware that that product 23 contained asbestos? 24 A. Some of it may have. 25 Q. Would you have allowed a Bell 173 1 Operating employee to enter a work environment 2 where joint compound was being sanded without 3 any protection? 4 A. It was not my job to disallow 5 employees to enter areas. That was their 6 supervisor. 7 Q. Would you recommended that an 8 employee be allowed in an area where asbestos- 9 containing joint compound were be sanded and 10 created dust? 11 A. If I -- how would I know or how 12 would the employee know if it contained 13 asbestos? 14 Q. Someone would have to test it, 15 right? 16 A. Or in that particular case you'd 17 have to read the product label. 18 Q. Right. Would you have recommended 19 that a Bell System employee work in an 20 environment without any protection where 21 asbestos-containing joint compound was being 22 sanded? 23 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 24 A. I would first of all, been testing 25 it before I recommended it or removed it or 174 1 decided not to recommend it. 2 Q. Test it for what? 3 A. Test it for asbestos. 4 Q. Supposed you found out -- 5 A. And other materials that might be 6 present there. 7 Q. Supposed you found out it was 8 asbestos, then what would you have 9 recommended? 10 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection. 11 A. It depends on the levels. 12 Q. Well, if you knew there was 13 asbestos in the dust that was being created in 14 the sanding operation, what recommendations 15 would you make? 16 MR. MCGOWAN: Object to form. 17 A. Is this hypothetical? 18 Q. It's not hypothetical, sir. 19 A. It's not hypothetical? 20 Q. No. 21 A. No? Because, again, that never 22 occurred to me at the time so that's why. 23 Basically, okay, you want me to go through with 24 that? 25 Q. (Indicating.) 175 1 A. I would recommend respiratory 2 protection while I was monitoring them. Then 3 based on results, I would determine whether or 4 not respiratory was needed in the future. 5 Q. If AT&T was building a new building 6 and asbestos products were being used and those 7 products created dust on their installation, 8 would you have allowed a Bell System employee 9 in that building without you first testing to 10 see if a hazard existed? 11 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 12 MS. CRAWFORD: Object to form. 13 A. Basically, I would discuss what 14 kind of work they were doing to determine 15 whether or not that material would be 16 disturbed. 17 Q. Supposed it was going to be 18 disturbed and they were going to be in the 19 area, what recommendation would you make? 20 A. Recommendation would be, it could 21 be many recommendations. One of the 22 recommendations would be to have the employer 23 or the owner of the building clean it before 24 they are allowed to work, wear respiratory 25 protection if you don't know what the maximum 176 1 level is, instruct the employee not to disturb 2 the material, wet it down. Again, it would 3 depend very much on a particular situation. 4 Q. The recommendation once you knew 5 there was a potential for exposure would never 6 be to do nothing, am I right? 7 A. Do nothing mean not do the job? 8 Q. Doing nothing to protect the 9 worker. 10 A. I'm sorry, another possibility 11 would be not to do that job so. . . 12 Q. The recommendation would never be 13 to do nothing to protect the health and safety 14 of that that worker if there was a potential 15 for exposures, true? 16 A. That's correct. 17 Q. What I want to do is, I want to 18 take minutes, go through my notes to see if I'm 19 done here, okay? 20 (Whereupon a brief recess is 21 taken.) 22 VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 2:38. 23 We are on the record. 24 BY MR. PLACITELLA: 25 Q. I just want to be clear on 177 1 something, when you did the testing in the New 2 Jersey Bell Central Offices, I think you told 3 me there was asbestos present in the ambient 4 air based on your testimony, correct? 5 A. I am sorry if I did. I misspoke. 6 I meant fibers were present in the ambient 7 air. 8 Q. All right. 9 A. And the asbestos standard is based 10 on the fibers that you count. 11 Q. Okay. You found asbestos fibers in 12 the ambient air in the New Jersey Bell 13 Operating Offices? 14 A. No. We found fibers in the ambient 15 air and the asbestos standards specify that you 16 count the fibers in the air. And that's how 17 you determine whether or not you've exceeded 18 the standard. 19 Q. All right. 20 A. And it may or may not be asbestos. 21 Q. So you never looked to see if the 22 fibers in the air were asbestos or not. 23 A. Never is a strong term. We did do 24 some -- it requires transmission microscopy 25 just to find out fibers in the air. There were 178 1 certainly some samples that were done like 2 that. But the standard technique is just to 3 count the number of fibers in the air. 4 Q. Okay. Once you found out there 5 were fibers in the air, you never went to the 6 next step to find out if the fibers were 7 asbestos? 8 A. Generally, not. 9 Q. Well, were the fibers in the air 10 above background? 11 A. Usually, they were below the 12 ambient outside background. 13 Q. So you saw fibers in the air, but 14 you never figured out whether the fibers were 15 asbestos? 16 A. I wouldn't say never, but most of 17 the time we did not go the next step to 18 determine whether or not these fibers were 19 asbestos. The standard at the time, and I 20 think, believe still, does not call for 21 identification of those fibers as to whether or 22 not they are asbestos. 23 Q. So as long as they were below the 24 then existing OSHA limit, you did not endeavor 25 to find out whether the fibers that were 179 1 floating around in the air were asbestos or 2 not; is that a fair statement? 3 A. That's a fair statement. 4 Q. Okay. Even if they were in the 5 breathing zone of the people that worked in 6 that building? 7 A. That is correct. 8 Q. Do you try -- scratch that. Every 9 time you did a study in the New Jersey Central 10 Offices for New Jersey Bell, did you find 11 fibers in the air? 12 A. It's a difficult thing to answer 13 because the way you do -- the analysis is done, 14 there's almost always some residual background 15 on the filters that you've analyze and you have 16 to subtract what you find in the air sample 17 from what you get on a blank filter. 18 So there were almost invariably 19 fibers determined when we did count even on 20 blank filters that had no air drawn through 21 them. 22 Q. I don't want to know about the 23 blank stuff. All I want to know is every time 24 you actually test the air in the New Jersey 25 Bell Central Offices, did you find fibers? 180 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. How many times did you do that 3 testing? 4 A. I don't know the exact number. 5 Q. Or was it ten, 50, a hundred, a 6 thousand, guesstimate? 7 A. My guess would be about 200. 8 Q. So on, approximately, 200 samples 9 you did, every time you found fibers in the 10 air, right? 11 A. All right, I mean fibers on the 12 filters. 13 Q. All right. 14 A. I wouldn't necessarily say fibers 15 in the air, but we found fibers and the fiber 16 is defined basically as a certain morphological 17 shape. It may or may not be a fiber. It might 18 be some artifact of the way the filter is 19 prepared. 20 Q. You found fibers in each of the 200 21 samples that you took, correct? 22 A. Correct. 23 Q. And even though you took 200 24 samples where you found fibers, you never once 25 looked to see if any of those fibers were 181 1 asbestos? 2 A. I don't know how many times. We 3 did some sampling by transmission of 4 electro microscopy to determine whether 5 or not there were asbestos fibers in 6 the air. 7 Q. So you did do it? 8 A. We did some. 9 Q. Did you find asbestos fibers? 10 A. I believe we found them. 11 Q. Okay. When you found there was 12 asbestos fibers in the air, was that indicative 13 that -- well, scratch that. What 14 recommendations did you make to the Bell, to 15 the Objectional Working Group about whether the 16 people working in those offices should know 17 that there was asbestos floating in the air? 18 A. The recommendation that was made 19 was a letter to the OSHA director as to what 20 happens when you find asbestos fibers in the 21 air and you also find asbestos fibers in the 22 ambient air and they are approximately equal. 23 So that letter for clarification of the OSHA 24 specs standards went out to the director of 25 OSHA at the time. 182 1 Q. Okay. And what happened? 2 A. I believe it was Mark Horn, and on 3 his last day in office, he, two years after the 4 question went out to him, he responded, and, 5 basically, ducked the question, to my, as I 6 recall the answer. 7 Q. So he ducked the question? 8 A. Right. 9 Q. So while you waited for two years 10 for an answer, nobody was told anything? 11 A. Sorry? 12 MR. MCGOWAN: About what? 13 Q. About what you do about the fibers 14 floating in the air inside Central Offices? 15 You waited for two years from OSHA and during 16 that whole time the Occupational Working Group 17 never said we better tell the people in those 18 offices? 19 A. The levels were below the 20 occupational exposure limits at the time. 21 Q. Okay. I understand that. 22 A. Typically, in the Central Offices 23 they were below the ambient outside air. 24 Q. Okay. You build a building, 25 right? When you build that building, don't you 183 1 have ventilation in that building? 2 A. That's correct. 3 Q. And how many times an hour does the 4 building get ventilated, the ventilated air 5 changed typically? 6 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection to form. 7 A. It depends. But in Central Offices 8 probably something like two to four times per 9 hour. 10 Q. So two to four times per hour. So 11 let's say two 'cause I'm bad in math. And 12 there are 24 hours in a day, so that's 48 hours 13 times a day the air is changed, correct? 14 A. Correct. 15 Q. Even though the air is changed over 16 48 times a day, when you did your testing over 17 time, each time you still found fibers in the 18 air? 19 A. I don't understand what you're 20 driving at. We find fibers in the outside air 21 and we find fibers in the building. 22 Q. I understand but -- 23 A. And we typically find lower levels 24 inside the building because the air that's 25 brought inside the building is filtered and 184 1 that removes dust particles included. 2 Q. So then any of the fibers that were 3 inside the building came from inside the 4 building, right? 5 A. Incorrect. 6 Q. Well, you just said that the air 7 that was coming from the outside removed the 8 fibers with the filter. 9 A. I said it was filtered but that's 10 not a hundred percent filtration. 11 Q. Well, what percent? 12 A. With the filters that we're using 13 at the Bell System, I believe they were 14 something like 95 percent filters through. 15 Q. So they took out 95 percent of 16 whatever could come in and we filtered out at 17 least 48 times a day, but every time you went 18 and you took a sample, you found fibers in the 19 air? 20 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 21 MR. CRAWFORD: Objection. 22 A. It wasn't filtered 48 times a day. 23 Q. Well, there was an air exchange 48 24 times, right? 25 A. That's correct. 185 1 Q. Didn't you tell me that the air 2 exchange has ability to eliminate asbestos from 3 the environment? 4 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection to form. 5 MR. HORNBY: Objection. 6 A. I said it has the ability to 7 partially eliminate. 8 Q. Never totally? 9 A. Never totally. 10 Q. Okay. So when those guys were down 11 in the contaminated manholes, and those 12 manholes were ventilated, they were never 13 totally decontaminated by ventilation were 14 they -- 15 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection to form. 16 MR. HORNBY: Objection. 17 Q. -- by your own statement? 18 A. There was no filtration with the 19 stuff that was used in the manhole. 20 Q. All right. So if the manhole was 21 contaminated with asbestos, there was no way of 22 getting all the asbestos out that was 23 contaminating that manhole, true? 24 MS. D'ANNUNZIO: Objection. 25 A. I don't see how that follows the 186 1 filtration in a building. 2 Q. Well, you told me that one of the 3 ways you got the asbestos out the manhole was 4 there was an air exchange, ventilated, right? 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. But that ventilation would never 7 totally remove the asbestos in the manholes 8 once they were there, would you agree with 9 that? 10 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 11 A. Again, if there's asbestos in the 12 ambient air outside and you're blowing that 13 into the manhole, that asbestos in the ambient 14 air is going to be in the manhole as well as -- 15 well, it's going to be in the manhole. 16 Q. Well, what about the asbestos 17 that's in the manhole from the pulling the 18 cable, where does that go? 19 A. Blown out of the manhole. 20 Q. All of it? 21 A. No. 22 Q. So once the asbestos is in the 23 manhole and contaminated, it's never totally 24 removed, do you agree with that? 25 MR. MCGOWAN: Object to the form. 187 1 MS. D'ANNUNZIO: Objection. 2 A. I would -- totally remove? 3 Q. Right. 4 A. No. 5 Q. But the workers were never told 6 that, right? 7 MR. HORNBY: Objection. 8 A. There were a number of training, 9 things that were given for asbestos. I know in 10 particular for people working on customer 11 premises. I don't know what kind of training 12 was given on asbestos for New Jersey Bell 13 employees. I do know that New Jersey Bell did 14 keep training records of the training for their 15 employees. 16 Q. You're aware of training that says 17 hey you cable splicer go down on that manhole, 18 you're at risk of dying from asbestos? 19 A. I am not aware of any training with 20 those exact words. 21 Q. So now let's go back to the AT&T 22 building. I just want to make sure I 23 understand this. You did samples, at least 200 24 samples in the New Jersey Bell Central Offices 25 over an extended period of time? 188 1 A. Eighteen months? 2 Q. Okay. Over 18 months. I don't 3 have the math in my head to do. And you say 4 that the air is exchanged, it's cleared out two 5 to four times an hour, right? 6 A. With air from outside. 7 Q. Right. And that you filter out 95 8 percent of the air comes in is clean, right? 9 A. No, it filters out 95 percent of 10 the particles. 11 Q. Right, the fibers. 12 A. Right. Of a certain size and again 13 it depends on specified tests and it -- 14 Q. Just so I understand -- 15 A. Okay. 16 Q. So over 18 months, even though you 17 filter out 95 percent of what can come in terms 18 of fibers, and you have 48 air changes a day, 19 every time you looked in the Central Offices, 20 you found asbestos fiber, you found fibers in 21 the air, right? 22 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 23 A. We found fibers in the filters. 24 Q. That came from the air? 25 A. Some came from the air. Some were 189 1 artifacts of the filter and the analytical 2 technique. 3 Q. Okay. Some came from the air? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Don't you think that any of those 6 fibers could have come from activities that 7 went on inside the offices? 8 A. I believe it could, yes. 9 Q. Now, any increase in the number of 10 fibers in a work environment increases the risk 11 for getting disease, do you agree with that? 12 MR. HORNBY: Object to form. 13 A. That's not my, I'm not an 14 epidemiology. 15 Q. That's fair. Was there a spec for 16 the transite conduit? 17 A. I'm sorry, was there a what? 18 Q. A specification for the transite 19 conduit. 20 A. I'm almost certain there was. 21 Q. Do you know whose specification it 22 was? 23 A. I do not know. 24 Q. If I wanted to find a spec for the 25 conduit, what would I look for? 190 1 A. Good question. I really couldn't 2 say. 3 Q. Looking back, knowing everything 4 that you know now, did the Occupational Health 5 Working Group make any mistakes in protecting 6 workers in Bell Operating Companies from 7 potential exposure to asbestos during their 8 work activities? 9 MR. MCGOWAN: Object to form. 10 A. None that I know of. 11 Q. So you agree that everything they 12 did then was deliberate? 13 MR. MCGOWAN: Object to the form. 14 MR. HORNBY: Objection. 15 A. Deliberate? 16 Q. There was no mistakes, then it was 17 deliberate? 18 A. Deliberate and no mistakes are not 19 opposites in my terminology. 20 Q. How about on purpose? Everything 21 they did was on purpose? 22 A. Everything they did was on purpose. 23 MR. PLACITELLA: That's all the 24 questions I have. Thank you. 25 Anybody else? 191 1 MR. KOOI: I have a few questions. 2 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. KOOI: 3 Q. Good afternoon, sir. I'm with the 4 law firm of Margolis, Edelstein. Hopefully, 5 I'll be quick. I only have a few questions for 6 you. 7 MR. PLACITELLA: Can you tell me 8 who you represent? 9 MR. KOOI: John Crane. 10 Q. What, if any, procedures were in 11 place regarding the safety of the work 12 performed by contractors or subcontractors at 13 Bell or AT&T facilities? 14 A. What time frame are you talking 15 about? If you have any or can you be more 16 specific? 17 Q. From the time of your initial 18 industrial hygiene position forward. 19 A. Again, at Bell Laboratories there 20 were requirements, basically, people when they 21 sign the contract, they had to show that they 22 had -- were going to follow OSHA regulations 23 and so forth. Depending upon where they were 24 working we would inform them of that. 25 In the Operating Telephone 192 1 Companies, it was my understanding that most of 2 the contractors, the buildings were secured and 3 contractors were generally not performing work 4 in there unless you want to consider Western 5 Election as being contractors inside a New 6 Jersey Bell or an AT&T building. It's a very 7 broad question, I am an industrial hygienist. 8 I didn't specify what the requirements were. 9 Q. Okay. Do you know if Bell had any 10 policies separate and distinct from the OSHA 11 regulations regarding workplace safety of 12 contractors or subcontractors. 13 A. To my knowledge they required 14 contractors or subcontractors to follow the 15 OSHA regulations. 16 There were no differences between 17 the OSHA regulations or the recommendations of 18 the American Conference of Governmental 19 Hygienists or the National Institute of 20 Occupational Safety & Health. We would 21 typically choose to use the most restrictive 22 occupational exposure limit. 23 Q. Did Bell separate its in-house 24 personnel from the work areas of contractors or 25 subcontractors? 193 1 MR. MCGOWAN: Object to form. Bell 2 who? 3 Q. Bell Labs? 4 A. Bell Labs? Depends on what was 5 going on. If we're talking construction 6 activity, we try to seal off the areas where 7 the construction was going on to protect the 8 employees. If we're talking about people like 9 digital equipment who did computers and so 10 forth at Bell Laboratories, then they would 11 often times have desks nearby, be treated much 12 like Bell Labs' employees. 13 Q. For the purposes of my questions 14 today, I am going to use contractors and 15 subcontractors as construction workers, okay? 16 A. Okay. 17 Q. I apologize for that for the lack 18 of clarity there. To what extent did Bell Labs 19 direct the work of contractors or 20 subcontractors performing work on its 21 premises? 22 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form. 23 MR. MCGOWAN: Form. 24 A. Without specific information about 25 the type work that was being done, I couldn't 194 1 really say. 2 Q. Did you have any interaction with 3 construction contractors while working at Bell 4 Labs? 5 A. I did. 6 Q. And what was the extent of your 7 interaction? 8 A. My interaction was typically to 9 sometimes review the plan scope of work and 10 also to do monitoring in the areas outside 11 where the construction was being done to ensure 12 that Bell Labs' employees were not overexposed 13 to toxic agents, noise, physical agents. 14 Q. Did you have any role in 15 formulating the safety procedures for 16 contractors or subcontractors working at Bell 17 facilities? 18 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form. 19 MR. PLACITELLA: Are we talking 20 about labs? 21 A. Basically, I had very little role 22 in terms of writing procedures for the work 23 activities. 24 Q. Do you know who did -- withdrawn. 25 Okay. I think that's all the questions I have 195 1 for you today. Thanks. For your time. 2 MR. PLACITELLA: Okay. I have a 3 couple, just a couple. 4 REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PLACITELLA: 5 Q. Do you have any familiarity with 6 the AT&T buildings at Hoes Lane in Piscataway? 7 A. There was a tower at Hoes Lane in 8 Piscataway that I spent some time at, yes. 9 Q. You're talking about an office 10 building? 11 A. Yeah. 12 Q. What did you do there? 13 A. I oversaw asbestos removal after 14 the breakup of the Bell System. 15 Q. When did that asbestos removal take 16 place? Sorry, it's going to take five minutes. 17 A. Yeah. Again, I don't know the 18 exact date, but it was probably after, 19 somewhere around 1984, '85. 20 Q. What areas of the building it would 21 be, do you recall? 22 A. The asbestos was removed from the 23 hung ceilings. 24 Q. You mean the sealing tiles 25 themselves? 196 1 A. No. I don't mean the ceiling tiles 2 themselves, I mean spay-on asbestos on the 3 ceilings of the ceiling tiles. 4 Q. Do you know when that building was 5 constructed? 6 A. I do not. 7 Q. Was that the only asbestos that was 8 abated? 9 A. I don't recall, but that was the 10 major bulk of the work. 11 Q. Did you oversee the abatement? 12 A. I was hired to perform air 13 monitoring to assure that the people in the 14 buildings on floors, other than where the 15 asbestos was being removed, were not exposed to 16 asbestos. So I didn't oversee necessarily the 17 actual work. 18 Q. What floors, do you remember how 19 many floors? 20 A. As I remember, it was nine or ten 21 floors. 22 Q. And they all had spray asbestos 23 above the plenums? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Were cables run above the plenums? 197 1 A. At the time that I was, probably 2 the cables perhaps were probably there. I 3 don't remember in particular. 4 Q. When that building was constructed, 5 would Bell Labs have been in charge of the 6 industrial hygiene related to that building? 7 A. It would not. 8 Q. Who would have been in charge? 9 A. There was a company called 195 10 Broadway Corporation that built a lot of the 11 buildings. I don't know for a fact, but I 12 would guess that the 195 Broadway Corporation 13 would have been responsible for it, or it may 14 have been another company and they purchased 15 the building. Again, I don't -- 16 Q. How long had AT&T own that building 17 to your knowledge? 18 A. I have no knowledge of how long. 19 Q. Did AT&T maintain the ability as 20 the owner of the building on new construction 21 to stop construction anytime it wanted to if it 22 thought it was an unhealthy work environment? 23 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form. 24 A. I would assume that it did. 25 Q. The ultimate control of the work 198 1 site on new construction laid with the building 2 owner, would you agree with that? 3 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form. 4 A. I'm sorry, could you repeat that? 5 Q. The ultimate control of what went 6 on with the work site was with the building 7 owner doing construction? 8 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form. 9 A. I couldn't say. Responsibility 10 could have been handed to the general 11 contractor. So I really don't know. 12 Q. But the buck ultimately stops with 13 the owner? 14 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form. 15 A. I am not sure of the legal 16 ramifications. 17 Q. How about from an industrial 18 hygiene perspective? Is the responsibility to 19 the workers on a construction site ultimately 20 that of the owner? 21 A. The responsibility, to my mind, 22 would rest both with the owner and the 23 contractor that was building it. 24 Q. Thank you. That's all the 25 questions I have. 199 1 MR. MCGOWAN: We're done? Thank 2 you everyone. 3 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 4 VIDEOGRAPHER: This concludes 5 today's deposition. We are off the 6 record. 7 (Deposition adjourned at 3:10 p.m.) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 200 1 CERTIFICATION OF VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT 2 3 I, Rachel Santiago, hereby certify that 4 the transcript I have herein produced is within 5 the guidelines adopted by the State of New 6 Jersey Administrative Code and I certify to the 7 following: 8 I am not related to any party involved in 9 this action and I have no financial interest in 10 the outcome of this action. 11 I am a court reporter, an unbiased agent 12 of the courts and the transcript produced 13 herein is a verbatim record of the testimony as 14 testified to under oath within a judicial body 15 created by statute of the State of New Jersey. 16 Also, I am a duly authorized Notary Public 17 of the State of New Jersey or an otherwise 18 acceptable Foreign Commissioner of Deeds, duly 19 authorized to administer oaths for the purpose 20 of this record. 21 My commission expires August 2012. Notary 22 Public NO. 2204535. 23 24 25 Signature__________________________

Please provide any information you think may be helpful to mesothelioma victims and their families

Eli Lilly Said to Play Down Risk of Top Pill - New York Times

2006-12-18T17:22:00.000-05:00

Eli Lilly Said to Play Down Risk of Top Pill - New York Times: "Eli Lilly Said to Play Down Risk of Top Pill
Sign In to E-Mail or Save This
Print
Single Page
Reprints
Share
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
Permalink

By ALEX BERENSON
Published: December 17, 2006
The drug maker Eli Lilly has engaged in a decade-long effort to play down the health risks of Zyprexa, its best-selling medication for schizophrenia, according to hundreds of internal Lilly documents and e-mail messages among top company managers.
Skip to next paragraph

Darron Cummings/Associated Press
Zyprexa is Lilly’s top-selling drug, with sales of $4.2 billion last year.

Joshua Borough for The New York Times
James B. Gottstein, a lawyer who represents the mentally ill, said the documents about Zyprexa’s side effects raised public health issues. The documents, given to The Times by a lawyer representing mentally ill patients, show that Lilly executives kept important information from doctors about Zyprexa’s links to obesity and its tendency to raise blood sugar — both known risk factors for diabetes.
Lilly’s own published data, which it told its sales representatives to play down in conversations with doctors, has shown that 30 percent of patients taking Zyprexa gain 22 pounds or more after a year on the drug, and some patients have reported gaining 100 pounds or more. But Lilly was concerned that Zyprexa’s sales would be hurt if the company was more forthright about the fact that the drug might cause unmanageable weight gain or diabetes, according to the documents, which cover the period 1995 to 2004. "

Unhealthy outlook for industry?

2006-05-02T15:34:00.000-04:00

Industrial diseases are in the news on two counts at the moment. A coroner in Wolverhampton has delivered a landmark judgement that a former Goodyear worker died of the respiratory disease mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos.
And the Health and Safety Executive is describing what it calls "the biggest occupational asthma outbreak in the world" at Longbridge in 2004.
For workers who may be suffering what they believe to be an industrial disease, or who may be worried that their working environment could be affecting their health in the short or long term there are places to go on the web for help.
Unfortunately - or fortunately depending on your point of view - making a search on a phrase like "industrial disease" will land you slap in the middle of a very crowded beauty contest where firms of solicitors will, through their websites, offer what they consider to be the best deals and advice on compensation claims.
If this is what's meant by "compensation culture" it is all too evident, swamping what might be thought as more independent counsel.
But if information is your first priority, the first places to go should be where there's no cheque expected at either end of the deal.
Probably the first port of call should be the Health and Safety Executive's site at www.hse.gov.uk
As it says on the tin, health and safety at work is the organisation's oxygen.
The site includes a comprehensive search facility on all manner of issues.
The section on asbestos at www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos/index.htm is typically thorough.
The front page links to even deeper information, including a look at all the relevant legislation, including new combined regulations due to be launched in October of this year.
Following the link www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos/furtherreadjun.pdf brings up a three-page pdf document listing all the relevant documents and where to get them.
There is information on Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983 as amended in 1998 and on Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002 which is not just about workers' rights, but employers' responsibilities and help for all on either side of the fence.
Elsewhere, the Department for Work and Pensions at www.dwp.gov.uk offers practical help if a claim is required.
Under its Advisors and Claim Forms sections it actually includes a form to claim for benefit for a prescribed industrial disease.
You can read through the claim form online using Adobe Reader or download and print it.
There's also more advice from Department for Constitutional Affairs, which has a section on personal injury claims at www.dca.gov.uk/pubs/injuryclaims.htm
And if a potential claim really is the first thing on your mind, there is virtually no limit to the online offerings.
One piece of advice may be to look for the logo of the Claims Standards Council a www.claimscouncil.org , which says it is a "a non-profit making company limited by guarantee and is governed by a Board of Trustees. It was formed to represent organisations and individuals interested in the development of regulation in the UK."
Last word, though, should probably come from the HSE site, which leads its asbestos section with this quote from Bill Callaghan, chairman of the Health and Safety Council:
"Tackling the problem of asbestos is a huge undertaking, but the HSC regards it as one of its highest priorities. Asbestos killed 50,000 people in the 30 years to 1998, and the toll will continue to rise because illnesses resulting from work with the material can take up to 60 years to manifest themselves."
As the events at the coroners court this week have so clearly demonstrated.

BR doctor finds his gifts of flowers, prayers returning to him since illness

2006-05-02T15:32:00.000-04:00

Dr. Mike Hackler put in a rose garden when he moved into Santa Maria subdivision in 1999.
The roses are for sharing.
The cardiovascular surgeon regularly takes them in plastic bags hanging off each arm to First Presbyterian Church, where each woman who passes gets a rose to match her attire.
Now it’s the women’s turn to give to him.
Hackler, battling asbestos-caused cancer, goes each Sunday to a room set aside for prayer and before he enters receives a rose from a member of the Presbyterian Women.
Never mind that the effectiveness of prayer as a help in healing remains a source of debate in scientific circles.
And never mind that studies of the subject yield mixed results at best with a recently published study funded by Templeton Foundation and Harvard Medical School finding no discernible benefits for the 1,800-plus heart patients studies over nearly a decade.
Hackler, as doctor and man of faith, credits “the power of prayer and the grace of God” along with medicine for the life he continues to experience today.
“Only 20 percent of people with mesothelioma have a positive response to chemotherapy,” he said.
Nevertheless, after four rounds of chemotherapy and a CAT scan in early March, he was told that the large tumor on his liver is shrinking. “I ask friends to keep on praying,” he said.
Hackler, who is associated with CTV Surgical Center, grew up in Port Allen, a football star and award-winning honor student.
He always held jobs while attending school for 16 years, including LSU Medical School in Shreveport, the Medical School of South Carolina and School of Medicine in Tennessee.
It was while pursuing an engineering degree at LSU that he worked as a longshoreman at the Port of Baton Rouge, where he unloaded asbestos from ships coming from Africa.
“I diagnosed two friends/co-workers with the same cancer,” Hackler said. “Until a year ago, there was no hope. Now, there is one chance out of five for a positive response.”
His first symptom in mid-2005 was lassitude — a feeling of weariness.
Next came pain in the right shoulder radiating to the chest, then came pain in the right upper abdomen.
Not until he had a laparoscopy, a procedure where two holes are drilled in the abdomen and pictures taken, was the diagnosis made.
“I felt like a bomb had been dropped on me when the biopsy was confirmed,” he said. “I was dumbfounded.
“Here I was, age 59 and at the peak of my career.”
After conferring with Dr. Gerald Miletello, he learned that only two places in the country have experimental surgery for mesothelioma. “I knew medical statistics give a patient three to six months to live, if nothing is done. It took me about 20 seconds to say yes.”
On Dec. 29 at the National Institute of Health in Bethesda, Md., he had his abdomen opened up, the intent being to remove as much of the tumor in the abdomen as possible. “It was a bloody mess, I lost four units of blood. They removed the omemtum (a veil of fat that hangs off the stomach and colon), and closed me back up,” he said. “The tumor was attached to the right diaphragm, and in trying to dislodge it, they put a hole in the diaphragm and saw that the cancer originated in the right chest.”
He returned to Baton Rouge for the chemotherapy — two successive days every three weeks.
He recently had his fifth round of treatment.
“I have two good weeks out of three,” he said. “The week after chemo, I am laid low, feel weak, tired and nauseated. I take a derivative of morphine to control pain.
“In good weeks, when I feel like it, I go to the office and do paperwork, and I visit in the hospitals.”
During Mardi Gras, he danced at the Karnival Krewe de Louisiane’s ball that benefits cancer patients. “I had no idea when I joined at its inception 15 years ago that I would be a cancer patient,” he said.
A lifelong Christian, reared in the West Baton Rouge Presbyterian Church, as a high school senior, he contemplated going to seminary.
He has traveled to Russia to help found a church.
Several years ago he taped some televised segments on Spirituality in Medicine for Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center.
He always offers to pray with a patient and the family prior to surgery, and 95 percent of them take him up on it, he said. While scrubbing, in preparation for his surgery, he prayed.
“Once I faced the cancer, I accepted the fact I have it, I quit worrying and turned it over to God,” he said. “I got ‘the peace that passeth all understanding’ that we read about in the Bible.” In thank-you notes to friends, he writes, “All is well with my soul.”
His roses, 40 varieties of hybrid tea roses, began blooming in late March and he has begun taking them again to the sick and to church. The difference now at First Presbyterian is that he receives one from a different woman every week, to let him know he is loved and in their prayers.
“I’ve been floored by the people who have called and written. I’m on prayer lists throughout the world. I had no idea that I had touched their lives.”
Irregardless of some studies showing that prayer has no impact on healing, Hackler is convinced otherwise.
“I recall a study in California years ago with one group of patients being the subject of prayer, without their knowledge, and the other group left alone. Those being prayed over did far better.
“I believe that we doctors are just a tool of the Lord’s will and the Lord is the Great Physician.”

Asbestos is something we can do something about

2006-05-02T15:31:00.000-04:00

Quebec miners still digging asbestos out of the ground aren’t the only ones who have to worry about workplace exposure — many people who work in office buildings or construction sites may come into contact with the dangerous mineral fibres on the job, a workplace safety expert told a conference in Halifax on Thursday.
Most buildings across Canada contain some form of the material in insulation, floor and ceiling tiles or around pipes and furnaces, Cathy Walker, national health and safety director for the Canadian Auto Workers union, said during a meeting of the Canadian Occupational Health Nurses Association.
"Asbestos is something we can do something about," Ms. Walker said.
Whether mixed with cement or sprayed loose into walls, the asbestos will eventually dry and crumble and its dust is a killer, she said.
Car brake pads were also made out of asbestos until the late 1980s.
Tiny asbestos fibres are easily inhaled or ingested and become permanently lodged deep in the lungs.
Asbestosis, a scarring of the lungs, isn’t often seen these days and usually only in people with prolonged heavy exposure. But lung cancer and mesothelioma, cancer of the lining of the lung or abdomen, are more common, found among people with long-term, low-level exposure or brief exposure to large amounts of asbestos.
Ms. Walker said two faculty members from the anthropology department at the University of Manitoba died of mesothelioma after coming in contact with dust over a number of years. A union member whose office was covered in dust from the ceiling after a small fire in a downtown Toronto office building also died of the disease.
"(Mesothelioma) is always associated with asbestos," Ms. Walker said.
But the cancer typically doesn’t appear for 30 to 45 years after exposure to the material, meaning many people never make the connection.
Signs of the disease are now being seen in the children and spouses of construction workers and others who may have been protected by breathing filters but came home in clothes caked in dust to hug their children and wash up, she said.
Ms. Walker suggested a number of ways workers can protect themselves against the hazard.
She said most provinces require employers to provide maps of where asbestos has been used in buildings, but they’re often not accurate, and employees should insist on accurate maps.
Where dust is created by construction or renovations, workers should ask that it be analyzed for asbestos.
The CAW has negotiated contracts that ban asbestos from being brought into a workplace and are now seeking contracts that require the safe removal of existing asbestos, Ms. Walker said.
Safe removal means work must be done in completely enclosed areas with negative pressure to make sure any dust does not escape.
"You’ve really got to wonder, in this industry how many fly-by-nighters there are," she said.
In situations where crumbling asbestos, dust or unsafe removals make workers feel unsafe, they can refuse to work, she said.
Unionized airport workers across the country have done just that.
"They’ve protected not just themselves but the public as well and forced the airport authorities to do this correctly," Ms. Walker said.
The conference continues at the Lord Nelson Hotel today.

CTU Launches Campaign for Asbestos Victims

2006-05-02T14:48:00.000-04:00

The Council of Trade Unions today launched a campaign for fair compensation for victims of workplace asbestos exposure.
"The campaign marks International Workers' Memorial Day and its first objective is to get the same ACC lump sum compensation for asbestos victims that injured workers get," CTU President Ross Wilson said today.
"The CTU is calling on Government to urgently amend the ACC laws to ensure lump sum compensation for asbestos victims," said Ross Wilson. "If cost is an issue, companies like James Hardies and Fletchers, which created the hazard, should pay a special levy to ACC to fund fair compensation for asbestos disease victims."
"The potentially lethal nature of asbestos fibres has been known for centuries but credible international research has been available since at least the early 1960s. Yet New Zealand workers continued to be exposed to asbestos, right through the 60s, 70s and 80s," Ross Wilson said in an open letter to Prime Minister Helen Clark today.
"Through no fault of their own, hundreds of New Zealand workers have suffered the painful and terminal effects of lung cancer, asbestosis and mesothelioma through their exposure to asbestos related products."
"The research report of the National Occupational Health & Safety Advisory Committee released yesterday highlights the gross inequity that only 2% of the full costs of occupational disease are compensated and that workers themselves bear a disproportionate 46.4% of those costs compared with 5.9% by employers," Ross Wilson said.
Union members will be sending postcards to the Prime Minister in support of the asbestos campaign, and will be organising members of the public to do the same.

Anger over withdrawal of asbestos drug

2006-04-24T10:36:00.000-04:00

A decision to withdraw a drug which can prolong the lives of patients affected by exposure to asbestos was today condemned by Norfolk families and campaigners. Alimta has been licensed for use, but the NHS's National Institute for Clinical Excellence (Nice) said it was not cost effective. Alimta, in combination with another drug, Cisplatin, is the only treatment for patients suffering from mesothelioma, a cancer caused by breathing in asbestos fibres. The disease claims most of its victims within a year of diagnosis.The news has angered Eileen Wharton, 61, whose husband is suffering from an asbestos-related illness.Brian Wharton, 66, was an electrician with the former Norwich Electrical in Exeter Street in the 1950s and 1960s when he came into contact with asbestos. Three years ago he was diagnosed with pleural plaques, a benign scarring of the lung lining. Mrs Wharton, of Piper Road, Thorpe St Andrew, said: “I don't think it's right to ban it. If there is a drug that can extend people's lives it should be available, no matter how much it costs.”Kim Daniels, who runs asbestos claims at Corrie's solicitors in Yorkshire and is working for Mr Wharton, said: “Alimta has been used successfully to delay the progress of mesothelioma for the past few months. There has been a campaign to make sure it's available for mesothelioma victims.“Any decision to ban use of the drug would be an absolute tragedy. This condition affects people, some of whom are only in their 30s and 40s, and even if it only buys them a few more months, it's time they can be with their children or grandchildren.”Norwich solicitor Godfrey Morgan, whose firm deals with asbestos cases, said: “How can they put a price on it? These people are only on short lifespans anyway.”Tony Whitston, of the English Association of Asbestos Victim Support Groups, said: “It seems wrong that Nice can just tell patients they can't have a drug that works, particularly when it is the only option.”Some patients have been given the drug since its launch 18 months ago, but many health authorities have banned it before a decision by Nice. A Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital spokeswoman said: “None of our patients is taking the new drug. It has yet to be approved by Nice, which is due to announce its decision in October 2006.”An 18-week course of treatment costs the NHS £8,000, and the annual cost to treat all UK patients would be £4 million.A Nice spokesman said: “Nice is aware that mesothelioma is a rare and aggressive cancer caused by occupational exposure and for which limited treatment options are available. “However, the independent appraisal committee's review of the data available on the clinical and cost effectiveness of pemetrexed disodium suggests there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that Pemetrexed plus Cisplatin is better than other, less costly treatment regimens that are being used to treat mesothelioma.” The Evening News' Dust of Death Asbestos Action campaign was launched in 1997, supported by Norwich North MP Ian Gibson.Are you trying to get compensation for an industrial disease? Call David Bale on (01603) 772427 or email david.bale2@archant.co.uk

Asbestos-case widow seeks help

2006-04-07T09:33:00.000-04:00

THE family of a Sheffield cancer victim are appealing for witnesses to support their claim for compensation.Widow Joan Stothard, of Occupation Lane, Hackenthorpe, believes her husband George contracted incurable asbestos-related cancer mesothelioma between 1970 and 1996 while he was a sewerage worker with Sheffield Council in its former guise as Sheffield Corporation.She alleges that while based at its Olive Grove depot he came into contact with asbestos when excavating underground pipework insulated with asbestos lagging, . "My husband worked alongside colleagues excavating damaged heating and water pipes running from boiler houses close to estates," she said. "His job involved exposing the pipework so that it could be repaired or replaced by fitters.""When it was exposed the lagging was often found to be in a poor condition after being buried underground for a long time. It easily crumbled when disturbed, covering George's overalls and causing him to inhale the dust while he removed and disposed of the pipes."No protective facemasks were provided and no warnings of the dangers involved were ever given."Mr Stothard was 62 when he died on February 21, 2004, leaving four children and 14 grandchildren, four months after being diagnosed.He began showing symptoms of mesothelioma in June 2003 after he experienced breathing difficulties. His doctor arranged for various tests at the Royal Hallamshire Hospital in October 2003.The results were conclusive and he remained in hospital until early November undergoing further treatment.He was admitted again in February 2004 for surgery to drain fluid from his lungs. Mr Stothard was discharged three days later and died at home later that month.His widow's solicitor, Martyn Hayward, of Sheffield-based Irwin Mitchell, who is now preparing court proceedings against the Corporation, said: "Mr Stothard worked with many colleagues during his 25 years with Sheffield Corporation, many of whom might also have been exposed to deadly asbestos while carrying out similar duties."The family is convinced his exposure to asbestos dust and fibres at work led to his death. We are hoping to trace George's colleagues who can provide further information about the materials that were used in these products and help Mrs Stothard and her family start rebuilding their lives."In addition, we'd also be interested to hear from anyone who worked at the Corporation who might be able to provide information, even if they didn't know George."Mesothelioma affects the membrane lining the chest. Diagnosis is made on the basis of clinical features, X-rays, symptoms of breathlessness, chest pain and a history of asbestos exposure. Symptoms first appear within 10 to 40 years, although there is no upper limit. The condition is invariably terminal.Other asbestos conditions include lung cancer, asbestosis, pleural thickening and pleural plaques. The dangers of asbestosis have been known about since the 1930s and employers since this period should have been aware of the risks to workers' health.A council spokesman said: "The council has denied liability on the basis that there is no evidence that Mr Stoth-ard was exposed to asbestos during the course of his em-ployment with us."It will now be a matter for the court to decide whether the council has any liability in this case."He added that the council would always scrutinise claims against it carefully. Unless there was clear evid-ence of liability, claims would be defended and the council's case put to the court.Mr Hayward asks anyone able to help to contact him at Irwin Mitchell on 0870 1500 100.emma.dunlop@ypn.co.uk

New asbestos removal laws proposed

2006-04-07T09:30:00.001-04:00

THE NSW government is drafting new laws to prevent anyone other than licensed operators from removing small amounts of bonded asbestos from buildings.
Currently, only licensed personnel are permitted to remove more than 199 square metres of the deadly fibre from a building.
The new laws, drafts of which were today released for public consultation, will reduce this to 50 square metres by September 1 and to 10 square metres by July 1, 2007.
Commerce Minister John Della Bosca said the laws had been drafted following community concerns about operators inappropriately removing asbestos.
"By following the correct procedures, builders can manage the risks of working with bonded asbestos to ensure no-one is exposed to the tragedy of asbestosis, mesothelioma or lung cancer," Mr Della Bosca said in a statement.
He said the government would work with industry to ensure more courses were available

Heating firm took my health

2006-04-07T09:30:00.000-04:00

A former city factory worker who believes he developed cancer after being exposed to asbestos has launched a legal battle against his former employers.Russell Yaxley was struck down by severe breathing difficulties in October 2005 and rushed for an emergency operation to remove fluid from the outside of his lungs.The 78-year-old grandfather was informed he has mesothelioma, an incurable form of lung cancer which is usually brought on by exposure to asbestos.Mr Yaxley is now bringing a legal action against Heatrae Sadia Heating Ltd, whose Norwich factory he worked at between 1942 and 1946.A writ submitted to the High Court in London claims he was exposed to asbestos dust and fibre while working for the company at its old factory in St George's Street.His claim for damages includes an amount for pain, suffering and loss of amenity. Mr Yaxley, born and brought up in Norwich, who now lives in Peterborough, said the cancer had taken a heavy toll.The former school caretaker said: “I've been out and about all my life and then suddenly I can't walk 50 yards without collapsing.“During my National Service after the war, I was a fitness instructor because I liked running around so much.”Mr Yaxley used to live in South Park Avenue, Norwich, and attended the Alderman Jex boys' school in Constitution Hill.He added: “I would have loved to go back to that school if it is still there and see what it looks like. I won't have the opportunity to do that now that I am spending every day in agony and on morphine.“Hetrae Sadia was my first job and I was there from 1942 to 1946.“I feel very bitter towards the company now; I always liked my independence and was very active until this happened just before Christmas.“I used to do so much and make toys. I was really happy, then all of a sudden I am dreading every day. I don't want any sympathy, everyone has an ending and this is mine.”Asbestos was widely used in the building and heating industries until the serious health-effects were realised. It is made up of tiny fibres which work their way into the lungs and damage cells.Mr Yaxley's wife Mavis, 60, who has had to give up her job as a cook to look after her husband, added: “We used to go for lovely drives to the coast together, but now that's not possible any more. Russell can't even go up the stairs by himself because he is afraid of falling over due to his trouble breathing. It's awful to see your husband in such a terrible state.”Nobody from Heatrae Sadia was prepared to comment on the case.Legal battle for compensation:A man who has developed an asbestos-related illness has launched a legal battle for compensation of up to £200,000.Robert Hartley has contracted mesothelioma, a cancer of the tissues surrounding his lungs or abdomen, according to a writ issued at London's High Court and just made publicly available.Now, Mr Hartley, of Cookes House, Bergh Apton, is claiming damages from the Laird Group plc.He developed the cancer after being exposed to deadly asbestos dust and fibres when he worked for the company at its shipyard, in Birkenhead, between 1944 and 1949, the writ claims.Although the writ does not specify the level of compensation sought, it indicates that lawyers value the claim, if successful, at up to £200,000.Ü Has your life been affected by exposure to asbestos? Call Alasdair McGregor at the Evening News on (01603) 772443 or email al.mcgregor@archant.co.uk

US tunnel workers face mesothelioma risk

2006-04-03T09:28:00.000-04:00

Washington: Workers who work in the Capitol, the seat of US Congress in Washington, tunnels say they risk a slow death from asbestos-related disease.
Asbestos is a known carcinogen, linked to lung cancer and to mesothelioma, a cancer caused only by asbestos exposure. It causes other health problems, including asbestosis.
According to the workers the tunnels covered with thick asbestos dust, punishing heat and locked emergency exits.
The Hill, a newsletter that covers Congress, reports that it obtained a copy of a letter sent to legislators by 10 employees of the Office of the Architect of the Capitol, which is responsible for maintaining the complex.
The workers said that the tunnels that connect the power plant to the House and Senate office buildings and the Capitol are so dangerous that Capitol Police do not patrol them. This has also raised security risk.
In their letter, the workers said the air in the tunnels is not surveyed for asbestos.
"The one thing we can tell you is we have breathed in an awful lot because it is everywhere and you can see it and physically pick it up," workers said.

Family, friends rally around Encinitas woman

2006-04-03T09:24:00.000-04:00

Rebekah Price is not your typical cancer patient. She has a full head of silky hair, dyed black for fashion, and looks vibrant in her form-fitting black top and pants and striking purple nails. Rebekah Price and daughter Skarlett Carpenter, 4, watched television together. Price, 33, has a rare form of cancer in her chest and abdomen. Skarlett knows her mother is sick. Price also has an 11-year-old daughter. You have to study her closely to find the three transparent fentanyl pain-killing patches on her left deltoid, obscured by the bright colors of her tattoo.
She sounds drugged, having taken extra doses of vicodin because her pain is so intense and her abdomen so uncomfortably bloated that she curls up in her dining chair.
Price, 33, has advanced mesothelioma in her chest and abdomen, which was not diagnosed until January, 1½ years after the first pangs of pain. She begins chemotherapy on Monday.
Mesothelioma is a cancer that begins in the lining of the body's organs. The cause of Price's disease is not known, said Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova, Price's oncologist at UCSD's Moores Cancer Center. But Price suspects it came from asbestos inhalation in her youth, and she has hired an attorney to investigate the possibility of a lawsuit.
Another Moores Cancer Center oncologist says the disease is incurable, and Price said she read in her medical report that she has a life expectancy of one year after being diagnosed.
The single mother and former preschool teacher talks stoically about her ordeal but breaks down at the thought of leaving her two young girls, 11-year-old Chloe Aker and 4-year-old Skarlett Carpenter.
“I didn't have my children for others to watch them, but the mother part of me thinks, 'They should start getting used to other people,' ” she says, tears welling as the Disney Channel blares with cheerful cartoons for Skarlett.
“When I'm alone, I cry, think about my fears – will I be alone, what will it look like, is it painful or ugly?” she said.
Her family and friends say there's little they can do to ease her distress, but they have organized a fundraising garage and bake sale today to help Price do things with her children to create memories.
How to help
What: Bake sale to benefit cancer patient Rebekah Price and her two daughters
Where: San Dieguito Academy student parking lot, Nardo and Melba roads
When: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. today
What money will be used for: Price's medical and daily expenses and a chance to do things with her children It is from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. at San Dieguito Academy's student parking lot at Nardo and Melba roads.
Price's sister, Bryn Faris, says there will be furniture, crystal glasses, clothes, books and paintings donated by Price's friends from across the county. There also will be a cake walk and face painting for kids.
Organizers say they hope to raise as much as they can. Some of the money will be used for Price's daily expenses. She can no longer teach and lives on $1,800 a month from state disability payments and child support from the father of one of her daughters. Her family donates the rest.
Coping with the specter of dying is especially difficult for cancer patients who have young children, Bazhenova said.
“Most mature patients don't get cancer in their 30s. The average time when patients get cancer are in their 50s when their kids are grown,” she said. “It's difficult to deal with it when the kids are so young.”
Price's illness began in October 2004 when she felt pain in her ribs and the right side of her chest. But mesothelioma is hard to diagnose because it does not have specific symptoms, Bazhenova said.
Price's doctors sent her to specialists. The pain continued, and the illness was diagnosed in January.
Her insurance, a HMO that uses MediCal, does not offer her too many options, such as clinical trials, which Price would have liked to try, but she is receiving care, she says.
At home in Encinitas in her rental granny flat decorated with purple curtains and filled with her children's toys, Price passes time trying to be a mother to Skarlett.
Her older daughter, Chloe, has chosen to spend more time at Price's mother's nearby home. When with Skarlett, Price assembles Barbies for her and watches her play with her bobble-head polar bear. The two bake clay to make skulls fashioned after Mexican folk art. Sometimes, mother and daughter just sit together to soak up each other's presence.
“I tell her something in my body that isn't good is trying to kill me, but I will do my best to fight it,” she said. “She sees me crying, and she'd say, 'But you will go to heaven and see Hazel (a cat) and I will be there soon.' ”
Every day, Price's best friend, Erin Meister, spends the afternoon or almost all day at Price's, helping her with calls to support groups and home-aid providers, or just cutting up bananas to feed Skarlett. Price's boyfriend picks up the slack.
Price's sister arranges for friends to bring her regular meals. Her mother, Debbie Wilson, a 53-year-old part-time office manager for the Rancho Santa Fe Library Guild, baby-sits and has assured her she will share in the upbringing of her grandchildren with Price's ex-husband, Zack Carpenter.
“The girls will be . . . you know . . . it's not something you want to think about,” Wilson said. “I am angry. I feel like my whole world has changed.”

Increased Risk of Mesothelioma from Environmental Exposure to Volcanic Mineral (Erionite) Even Greater than that Associated with Asbestos – Study

2006-03-24T11:31:00.000-05:00

Although the often fatal cancer known as mesothelioma is almost always associated with asbestos, a new study has found that environmental exposure to a (nonasbestos) volcanic mineral, erionite, may be just as dangerous.
The study, published in the March 15 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institutefound a high incidence of mesothelioma among people living in a region of Turkey where erionite is plentiful and commonly used in construction and produce storage rooms.Previous reports suggest that erionite exposure is associated with a higher risk of cancer development than any other natural mineral fiber tested.
The researchers from Hacettepe University in Ankara, Turkey, followed 891 people age 20 years and older in three Turkish villages for 23 years. Two of the villages were exposed to erionite and one (the control) was not.
During this period, 372 deaths occurred, and 119 of these deaths occurred from mesothelioma. That figure represented 44.5% of all deaths in the two villages with erionite exposure.
Only two cases of mesothelioma occurred in the control village, both in people born outside of the control village.
The mortality data were analyzed jointly with Dr. Philippe Grandjean of the Harvard School of Public Health. When compared to the worldwide standardized annual incidence of pleural mesothelioma the two exposed villages had a pleural mesothelioma rate of 200 and 700 cases per 100,000 people annually. The rate in the non-exposed village was only 10 cases per 100,000 people each year.
This enormous discrepancy led the study authors to conclude that the long-term exposure to erionite is the cause of the extraordinarily high risk of developing mesothelioma.
Since millions of people are exposed to erionite mineral fibers in rural areas of Turkey, the researchers urge that resources “should therefore be directed to preventing these environmental exposures and additional study of the association between environmental exposure to nonasbestos fibers and the risk of cancer.”
This alarming finding comes on the heals of a similar study published in the second issue of the October 2005 of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine of the American Thoracic Society, that found Californians who live near naturally occurring asbestos sources and who are exposed to low levels of the mineral are at increased risk for developing malignant pleural mesothelioma, a serious cancer of the membrane covering the lung.
Dr. Marc B. Schenker, of the Division of Environmental and Occupational Health, at the University of California, Davis, and four associates, examined 2,908 malignant mesothelioma cases reported from 1988 to 1997.
Over 50% of the men and 58% of the women, all of whom were listed in the California Cancer Registry, either had no or little exposure to occupational asbestos at the workplace.
“People who lived closer to an asbestos source had a greater chance of having mesothelioma, and the chance decreased steadily as the distance increased,” said Dr. Schenker.
Mesothelioma is considered to be rare. It usually develops 30 to 40 years after exposure. It has been widely believed that the only known cause of the disease is exposure to asbestos fibers, which can cause tumors in the pleura, the two layers of membrane covering the lung, or, with more intense exposure, in membranes of the abdomen.
According to the study authors, California has more naturally occurring asbestos source rocks than any other state in the U.S.
Previous studies all point to occupational exposure to asbestos as the cause of mesothelioma. But population-based studies, Dr Schenker says, have almost all showed some examples of mesothelioma cases where there was no exposure at work. The new study reveals that the living environment could actually be the culprit in such cases.
The Turkish study would now seem to show that erionite mineral fibers pose the same or greater risk of mesothelioma development as asbestos.

Asbestos support group backs interstate moves

2006-03-24T11:30:00.000-05:00

The Gippsland Asbestos Related Diseases Support (GARDS) group has welcomed funding for an asbestos research facility interstate.
The New South Wales Government has provided $7 million for the centre in Sydney.
It aims to develop blood tests for asbestos-related cancers, to enable early diagnosis.
The rate of mesothelioma in the Latrobe Valley is seven times the state average.
The secretary of GARDS, Vicki Hamilton, says she has been lobbying the Victorian Government to support similar research in the Latrobe Valley.
"We've actually asked them on many occasions, even before the Latrobe Regional Cancer Care Centre was up and running, to look into a centre of excellence into research and specialist doctors and it fell on deaf ears," she said.

Alfacell Corporation Reports Second Quarter 2006 Financial Results and Key Developments

2006-03-24T11:29:00.000-05:00

Alfacell Corporation(Nasdaq: ACEL), today reported financial results and key developments from thesecond quarter of the Company's fiscal year, which ended on January 31, 2006. "We made significant progress during the second quarter of 2006," statedKuslima Shogen, Chief Executive Officer of Alfacell. "As a result, wecontinue to track on or ahead of schedule on key sections of the rolling NDA.We also remain confident that we will successfully complete all regulatoryrequirements necessary to gain marketing approval of ONCONASE in the U.S.,E.U. and other markets." Financial Results During the second quarter, Alfacell recorded a net loss of $2,286,000 or$(0.06) per common share, as compared to a net loss of $1,955,000 or $(0.06)per common share for the same period in FY 2005. The net loss for the secondquarter includes a non-cash charge of $436,000 which reflects the accountingfor share based payment as required by SFAS 123(R). The share-basedcompensation expense is expected to continue as a result of the adoption ofSFAS 123(R), which requires the Company to charge a non-cash compensationexpense for all employee stock options. Research and development expenses for the three months ended January 31,2006 totaled $1,430,000 compared to $1,554,000 for the same period last year,a decrease of $124,000, or 8%. The spending decrease reflects the near-completion of key requirements for the Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls(CMC) section of the ONCONASE NDA for UMM, including toxicology studies, theregistration batch stability program and a reduction in clinical trial costsas a result of reaching full patient enrollment. General and administrative (G&A) expenses for the three months endedJanuary 31, 2006 were $880,000 compared to $422,000 for the same period lastyear, an increase of $458,000, or 109%. This increase was primarily due to anincrease in non-cash expense related to share-based compensation, higher legalfees, ongoing cost of Sarbanes-Oxley compliance and auditing fees. Alfacell ended the second quarter of 2006 with cash, cash equivalents, andinvestments of $2,917,000. Total shares outstanding were 37,390,062 million. Key Developments * Announced that Tommy G. Thompson, former Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and four-term Governor of Wisconsin, joined the Company as Chairman of the Alfacell Business Policy Committee, which will focus on advancing and executing strategies in areas such as finance, government relations, and regulatory affairs. * Announced expectation to reach the full patient enrollment target for the ONCONASE Phase IIIb trial ahead of the previously announced timeframe of end of first quarter 2006. * Formed a new Thoracic Cancer Advisory Board (TCAB) to support the development of ONCONASE and other novel ribonuclease (RNase) therapies for diseases such as mesothelioma and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). * Initiated the manufacturing stability program for registration batches of ONCONASE. About Alfacell Corporation Alfacell Corporation is a biopharmaceutical company focused on thediscovery, development and commercialization of novel therapeutics for cancerand other diseases, using its ribonuclease (RNase) technology platform.ONCONASE(R) (ranpirnase), Alfacell's lead investigational drug candidate, iscurrently being evaluated in several studies, including a Phase IIIbregistration study for malignant mesothelioma (MM) and a Phase I / II trial inNon-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC). For more information, please visithttp://www.alfacell.com. This press release includes statements that may constitute "forward-looking" statements, usually containing the words "believe," "estimate,""project," "expect" or similar expressions. Forward-looking statements involverisks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materiallyfrom the forward-looking statements. Factors that would cause or contribute tosuch differences include, but are not limited to, uncertainties involved intransitioning from concept to product, uncertainties involving the ability ofthe Company to finance research and development activities, potentialchallenges to or violations of patents, uncertainties regarding the outcome ofclinical trials, the Company's ability to secure necessary approvals fromregulatory agencies, dependence upon third-party vendors, and other risksdiscussed in the Company's periodic filings with the Securities and ExchangeCommission. By making these forward-looking statements, the Company undertakesno obligation to update these statements for revisions or changes after thedate of this release.

Asbestos Workers Union Joins New Medical Foundation's Quest for Cure of Asbestos and Benzene-Related Cancers

2006-03-24T11:28:00.000-05:00

The Pacific Heart, Lung and BloodInstitute ("PACHLAB") is pleased to announce the addition of Terry Lynch as amember of its Board of Directors. PACHLAB is a 501(c)(3) non-profit medicalresearch foundation devoted to the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment ofoccupational diseases through independent research, collaboration, andeducation. Terry Lynch is Vice President at Large of the International AssociationHeat & Frost Insulators & Asbestos Workers and also serves as the Health andSafety Director for the Union. He comes from a proud family of asbestosinsulators, which include his grandfather, father, uncle, brother, and manycousins. Mr. Lynch's son, Jason, now completes the family's fourth generationof insulators. Over the years, Mr. Lynch has witnessed first hand the ravagesof asbestos on the lives of countless Union brothers. "The suffering must stop," Mr. Lynch said. "Too many insulators and otherworking people have died. We have known about asbestos cancer for decades,yet not enough has been done to lift the curse of mesothelioma. We must workwith industry, government, doctors, and drug companies to establish researchprograms that will end the apathy and build hope." "I am proud to join PACHLAB," Mr. Lynch continued. "We will be conductingresearch in the Punch Worthington lab at the David Geffen School of Medicineat UCLA. We have high expectations that our research will lead to noveltreatments." Mr. Lynch will act as a liaison between PACHLAB and constructionand shipyard labor unions whose members are at risk for asbestos and benzene-related cancers. Dr. Cameron, one of PACHLAB's scientific advisors, stated, "I have agreedto work closely with PACHLAB because it offers a unique approach tocollaborative research. Not only will we work with patients, doctors anddonors to raise funds for promising new research, we will actually do thebench work studies in-house, either alone or in conjunction with otherinvestigators." "'Punch' Worthington is a patient of mine who suffers from an asbestos-related cancer," Dr. Cameron explained. "As a painter-taper, Punch is also atrisk for another occupational cancer, acute myelogenous leukemia. We came upwith the idea for a research environment that fosters basic research that isoften pegged as too preliminary to receive funding from standard sources.This type of research, although highly speculative, also holds the mostpromise for true innovation." PACHLAB's first project will study immunologic and anti-angiogenic(anti-blood vessel) therapies, both of which have been praised as potential"cures" for mesothelioma. PACHLAB aims to conduct research in its ownlaboratory and in coordination with other institutions, such as the DavidGeffen School of Medicine at UCLA. "This is a true 21st Century approach to medical research," Cameroncontinued, "And is the brainchild of Punch Worthington who is a true scientistand scholar. Punch believes, for instance, that bringing all the partiesinvolved in asbestos litigation together to support and fund this type ofresearch by donating a portion of legal settlements, will accelerate the longoverdue discovery of truly effective therapies for this awful disease. Withheroes like Punch, scientists like myself cannot help but take up thechallenge." Also joining PACHLAB's Board of Directors is Terry McCann of Dana Point,California. Mr. McCann, who was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in2005, has led an exemplary life. He won the Olympic Gold Medal in wrestlingin 1960. He helped manage the Surfriders Foundation, served on severalOlympic Games committees, and was the CEO of Toastmasters International for 25years.

Asbestos-affected apply for relief

2006-03-24T11:27:00.000-05:00

People suffering from asbestos-linked diseases and those who lost relatives to such illnesses began filing applications Monday for government financial aid prior to the coming into force next week of a relief law for victims.
Relatives of an asbestos-linked fatality apply for state benefits at the Osaka branch of the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency.
The applications were submitted to labor standards inspection offices and other governmental entities nationwide.
The law was passed in the aftermath of revelations starting last June that many workers at a factory in Amagasaki, Hyogo Prefecture, had died of asbestos-linked diseases, and that nearby residents, too, had health problems apparently caused by the material. Such woes were said to be just the tip of the iceberg.
Subsequent reports about asbestos-linked health problems prompted the government to prepare the legislation, under which the state will cover medical expenses and treatment fees for the sufferers of asbestos-linked diseases, including mesothelioma, an incurable kind of cancer, and some of the funeral costs for those who died.
Due to demands for swift assistance to those afflicted, the new relief system enters into force without the government fully knowing the extent of the problem, and observers said they were watching to see how many people file applications and how effective the system is.
Relatives of workers who died from asbestos-linked diseases and were unable to file for workers' compensation because the statute of limitations had run out can now file at their nearest labor standards office.
All other sufferers and next of kin should apply to the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency in Kawasaki or its Osaka office, to one of the 11 regional environmental bureaus nationwide or to certain designated public health centers.
Asbestos is known to cause mesothelioma, lung cancer and other maladies if inhaled. It was used extensively in Japan as an insulation material until the mid-1980s.
When the doors to the ERCA head office in Kawasaki opened at 9 a.m., a 74-year-old man from Kanagawa Prefecture was one of the first to apply. His 76-year-old wife is stricken with mesothelioma.
"My wife did not work in an asbestos-related environment, but was diagnosed (with the disease), and we didn't know what to do," he said. "We learned about the new system through the newspaper and are very thankful."
Environment Minister Yuriko Koike visited the agency Monday, stressing the need to get the word out that the system had been launched, and called on those afflicted to come forward quickly.
If someone is recognized as a sufferer, the benefits will be paid out from the date of application. A sufferer will lose a month's worth of payments if they do not file by March 31. In addition, from March 27, if someone dies of mesothelioma or asbestos-induced lung cancer without having already applied for aid, their kin will be unable to receive the sympathy compensation or funeral payment.
At a health center in Amagasaki, more than 10 people had submitted applications by noon.
Yuri Ogino, 28, from Osaka who lost her mother to mesothelioma, said that while she was not completely satisfied with the state relief, she did believe it is a start.

Length of time using Vioxx seen key in Merck trial

2006-03-10T10:53:00.000-05:00

Corrects 5th paragraph to read based in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey
By Anna Driver
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Opening arguments in the next Vioxx liability trial start on Monday as Merck & Co. faces the lone lawyer who has beaten the company in one of these cases — this time representing two long-term users of the painkiller who say it caused their heart attacks.
So far, two juries have found Merck not liable, while Mark Lanier, a flamboyant Texas lawyer, helped secure a $253 million judgment for the widow of a Vioxx user last August.
The trial, set to begin next week in New Jersey Superior Court in Atlantic City, marks the first involving plaintiffs who took the painkiller for more than 18 months.
Merck withdrew the arthritis drug from the market in September 2004 after a study showed the risk of heart attack and stroke doubled in patients who took Vioxx for at least 18 months.
The company, based in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, faces nearly 10,000 lawsuits from people accusing it of hiding health risks of a medicine that once generated annual sales of $2.5 billion.
In earlier trials, Merck maintained there was no evidence of heightened risk for short-term Vioxx users.
"The length of exposure is a critical issue in these cases," Howard Erichson, a law professor at Seton Hall University, said. "The scientific evidence on causation is stronger for long-term use than short-term use, but that doesn't mean the defendant just lays down."
Lanier is representing Thomas Cona, a 59-year-old New Jersey businessman who says he took Vioxx for 22 months prior to suffering a heart attack in June 2003.
The other plaintiff, John McDarby, 77, says he took Vioxx for four years and had a heart attack in April 2004 after a fall in which he also broke his hip.
"I think what you are going to see is that the plaintiffs are going to have a difficult task showing that Vioxx caused their heart attacks," Chuck Harrell, one of Merck's attorneys in Atlantic City, said. "Each of them had multiple pre-existing risk factors that are well known to cause heart attacks."
Both men had a history of high blood pressure and high cholesterol and were smokers, Harrell said.
In court documents, Merck, citing prescription records, has also argued that Cona was not even a long-term user of Vioxx.
LANIER FACTOR?
Some even say the outcome of the trial could hinge on the performance of Lanier, a gifted attorney and preacher who has won hundreds of millions of dollars in damages for his clients in product liability cases.
"Only one out of four juries was able to reach a conclusion that Merck had withheld important information about Vioxx even though they all received similar factual records," Benjamin Zipursky, a professor at Fordham University School of Law, said.
"One obvious conjecture is that Mr. Lanier has the ability to present these facts in a way that is highly persuasive to the ordinary people sitting on juries," he said.
Still, there is some doubt about whether Lanier's folksy Southern style will play in Atlantic City, where an eight-woman and two-man jury was selected to hear the case.
"With trial lawyers, rapport with the jury is very important," Howard Erichson, a law professor at Seton Hall University, said. "An out-of-state lawyer may find it more difficult to connect with a jury, but it's all about preparation."
Merck is based in New Jersey, but its lead attorney in the case is Christy Jones, from the Jackson, Mississippi, firm of Butler, Snow, O'Mara, Stevens & Cannada.
The trial is expected to last three to four weeks, an attorney for Merck said.
Copyright 2006 Reuters News Service. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Short-term bills' interest mixed

2006-03-10T10:50:00.000-05:00

Interest rates on short-term Treasury bills were mixed in the government's auction with rates on three-month bills edging down while rates on six-month bills climbed to the highest level in more than five years.
The Treasury Department auctioned $21 billion in three-month bills at a discount rate of 4.50 percent, down from 4.51 percent last week. Six-month bills totaling $19 billion were auctioned at a discount rate of 4.60 percent, up from 4.58 percent last week.
The three-month rate was the lowest since these bills averaged 4.450 percent on Feb. 21. The six-month rate was the highest since 4.770 percent on Feb. 20, 2001.
Separately, the Federal Reserve said that the average yield for one-year Treasury bills, a popular index for making changes in adjustable rate mortgages, rose to 4.74 percent last week from 4.72 percent the previous week.
Associated Press
NBC Universal set to buy iVillage
General Electric's NBC Universal became the latest “old media” company to make a further foray into the fast-growing world of online advertising, announcing plans to acquire the women's Web site company iVillage for about $600 million.
The agreement signals an expanding strategy for NBC Universal, home to television network NBC, Universal Pictures and cable channels Bravo and USA Network. It also reflects the larger push among traditional media companies to not get left behind as more consumers shift to the Internet for news, entertainment and shopping.
NBC agreed to pay $8.50 in cash for each share of iVillage, which describes itself as “the Internet for women” with sites including Astrology.com, GardenWeb.com and gURL, a Web site aimed at teenage girls.
Associated Press
Attorneys clash in Vioxx case
The legal fight over Vioxx returned to a New Jersey courtroom with lawyers for two men who blame their heart attacks on the pain reliever telling jurors that manufacturer Merck & Co. knowingly concealed its risks from consumers.
Merck's lead attorney dismissed those claims, attributing the heart attacks to other health problems while saying Vioxx was rigorously studied for more than seven years and complied with government requirements for new drugs.
Mark Lanier, attorney for Thomas Cona, 59, said the use of Vioxx made people with risk factors for heart disease “walking time bombs,” but Merck executives purposely withheld information about the drug to make more money selling it.
Robert Gordon, a lawyer for plaintiff John McDarby, 77, told the eight-woman, two-man jury that McDarby – a diabetic – would never have had Vioxx prescribed for his arthritis pain if Merck had properly warned of its dangers.
Associated Press
Halozyme enrolls five for trial
Halozyme Therapeutics, a San Diego-based company developing recombinant human enzymes, said that it has completed enrollment of five patients in a Phase 1 clinical trial using its product Chemophase to improve delivery of chemotherapy drugs in people with bladder cancer.
The trial was designed to evaluate Chemophase with the widely used anti-cancer drug mitomycin.
GM to reduce holdings in Suzuk
General Motors will sell a 17.4 percent stake in Japan's Suzuki Motor Corp. for $2 billion, scaling down its share in an effort to gain much-needed cash, but the partnership between the automakers will continue.
GM, which is embarking on a massive turnaround effort after losing $8.6 billion last year, will maintain a 3 percent stake in Suzuki, dropping to seventh largest shareholder from top shareholder.
Suzuki plans to purchase all of the 92.36 million Suzuki shares that GM will sell in a buyback program.
Associated Press
Northwest pilots face pay cut
Pilots at Northwest Airlines will take a 24 percent pay cut and forgo raises for at least two years under a tentative contract reached with the bankrupt carrier last week.
The terms, spelled out in a summary of the agreement sent to pilots, include a 1.5 percent wage increase starting in 2008. The union's top council approved a plan Saturday for balloting by its 5,700 members. The group won't suggest how members should vote until a March 14 meeting. The agreement may spare Northwest from a strike by pilots that the airline has said would threaten its survival.
Bloomberg News
More Mexican cement due in U.S.
U.S. officials signed an agreement that will boost shipments of Mexican cement into the United States, resolving a 16-year trade fight. The agreement, which will take effect April 3, will allow imports of Mexican cement to rise to 3 million tons annually, up from what U.S. contractors estimate was 2.2 million tons of cement imported from Mexico last year.
The U.S. trade barriers are designed to be eliminated as part of a deal in which Mexico will open up its market to U.S. and other foreign cement manufacturers.
The United States began imposing penalty tariffs in 1990 after a finding that Mexican cement was being sold in the United States at unfairly low prices, a practice known as dumping.

Merck disclosed Vioxx heart risks, court told

2006-03-10T10:48:00.000-05:00

ATLANTIC CITY, New Jersey (Reuters) - Merck & Co. Inc. disclosed a report showing that its pain drug Vioxx had heart attack risks and did not try to hide results that could have hurt sales, the company's former head of marketing told a New Jersey state court on Wednesday.
David Anstice said Merck sales representatives and scientists talked openly to physicians, regulators and the media about a large study that found Vioxx users suffered five times as many cardiovascular events as those taking naproxen, another pain-reliever from a different class of drugs.
In his third day on the witness stand at the second Vioxx state trial in New Jersey, Anstice said Merck sales people were candid about the reasons for a change in the drug's labeling in April 2002 that drew attention to heart risks associated with the arthritis medicine.
"They were actively discussing the Vigor data after the label change," Anstice told the New Jersey Superior Court in Atlantic City in a reference to the 8,000-patient study published in March 2000.
Merck is being sued by two men who blame the drug for their heart attacks. Thomas Cona, 59, had a heart attack in June 2003 after using the drug for 22 months. John McDarby, 77, who has appeared in court in a wheelchair, took Vioxx for four years and suffered a heart attack in April 2004.
The trial is being closely watched as it is the first involving long-term Vioxx users and could provide a clearer view of what Merck is up against as it wades through nearly 10,000 Vioxx-related lawsuits.
Merck withdrew Vioxx from the market in September 2004 after a study showed it doubled the risk of heart attack and stroke after 18 months of use. All the previous Vioxx cases to come to trial involved patients who took the drug for less than 18 months, enabling Merck lawyers to argue that there was no evidence of increased risk with short-term use.
Under questioning from Merck attorney Mike Brock, Anstice said that a U.S. Food and Drug Administration panel which evaluates drugs for the market had voted unanimously to approve Vioxx, and that Merck scientists had had extensive discussions with regulators about the drug before that decision.
All the drug's effects, not just its benefits, were disclosed, Anstice said. "Any adverse experiences were also described to the FDA," he testified.
On Tuesday, Cona's attorney Mark Lanier accused Anstice of trying to hide the heart risks of Vioxx because Merck needed a major new drug to replace the sales of six others on which patents were soon to expire.
Brock showed the jury the Vioxx label that was updated to include data from the controversial Vigor study. He pointed out that it warned doctors to exercise "caution" in using Vioxx for patients with heart disease and contained tables of data showing the higher rate of "serious cardiovascular thrombotic events" for Vioxx users compared with those on naproxen.
Merck has said it believed the Vigor results signaled heart protective qualities of naproxen rather than increased risks from Vioxx -- an assessment questioned by many critics.
The Merck attorney highlighted a press release announcing the results of the Vigor study that also showed Vioxx caused fewer gastrointestinal problems than other pain killers.
"Are you telling them only about the GI data? You are telling the whole thing, aren't you?" Brock asked Anstice. "Yes, we are," the Merck executive replied.

Vioxx long-term use trial underway in New Jersey

2006-03-10T10:46:00.000-05:00

Opening statements began Monday in the second New Jersey state trial against New Jersey-based Merck [corporate website] over their distribution of the painkiller Vioxx [Merck Vioxx Information Center website; JURIST news archive]. Although a New Jersey jury found Merck not liable [JURIST report] in a separate trial last year, in the consolidated case now at trial, plaintiffs allege that damage occurred through the long-term use of the drug, an element missing in the previous New Jersey case. Vioxx was pulled from the shelves after clinical tests showed that patients using the drug for more than 18 months faced increased risks of stroke and heart attack [FDA public health advisory]. AP has more.The plaintiff's lawyer in this action is the same who won a $253 million verdict [JURIST report] in the first Vioxx state claim in Texas, which is currently being reviewed on appeal. Merck was cleared of responsibility in the first federal trial [JURIST report; original complaint]; another trial is currently underway [JURIST report] in Rio Grande City, Texas. Merck faces over 9,650 lawsuit in state and federal court over Vioxx, though the current New Jersey case is the first where the facts involve long term use of the drug.

Merck Sued by Doctor Who Prescribed Vioxx, Had Own Heart Attack

2006-03-10T10:45:00.000-05:00

March 9 (Bloomberg) --A doctor who will testify today against Merck & Co. in a trial over the company's Vioxx painkiller had a heart attack after taking the drug and is suing the company.
Dr. John Braun, 52, sued Merck and blames his 2004 heart attack on the Vioxx he said he took for 21 months. Braun will testify by videotape today at the trial of a lawsuit brought John McDarby, 77, who had a heart attack in 2004 after taking Vioxx for four years. Braun prescribed Vioxx for McDarby.
`I would never have taken the drug, nor would I have prescribed it to any of my patients, had I known of any of the risks,'' Braun said late yesterday in an interview. ``You assume that when someone comes in to the office with literature about the drug that what they're telling you is true. You assume this drug is safe.''
McDarby's suit in Atlantic City, New Jersey is the fifth to go to trial over claims that Vioxx caused heart attacks and strokes. Merck, the No. 4 U.S. drugmaker, withdrew Vioxx when a study showed it doubled the risk of heart attacks after 18 months of use. Merck faces 10,000 lawsuits. It won two cases at trial and lost one.
A jury is considering lawsuits by McDarby and another man, Thomas Cona, 59, who each blame their heart attack on the drug. Aside from McDarby's case, another trial is under way in Texas. Merck, based in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, set aside $970 million for legal costs and nothing for liability.
Lawyers for McDarby and Merck agreed jurors won't be told about Braun's heart attack because it might prejudice them. Braun has said he no longer sees Merck sales representatives because they weren't truthful about Vioxx's risks before the company withdrew the drug in September 2004.
Patients' Claims
McDarby and Cona claim Merck failed to warn doctors of the cardiovascular risks of Vioxx. Merck says it properly researched the drug and warned of its risks, and Cona and McDarby had heart attacks because of their health risks, not Vioxx. McDarby, a diabetic with arthritis, had coronary artery disease, and high blood pressure and cholesterol, Merck says.
Braun, who treated McDarby for five years, has been a family practitioner in Oradell, New Jersey, for 18 years, court records show. He began taking free samples of Vioxx in November 2002 for neck pain, according to his pre-trial deposition on Feb. 1. He liked Vioxx so much he gave it to his wife and sister, he said.
Braun said he continued to take Vioxx and found it more effective than two Pfizer Inc. painkillers, Bextra and Celebrex. He said he arrived on Aug. 10, 2004, at Holy Name Hospital in Teaneck, New Jersey, to see patients. His heart attack there followed a ventricular fibrillation, or chaotic heartbeat.
`On the Floor'
``I was found on the floor in V fib arrest,'' said Braun, a father of three young children, in his deposition. ``Bleeding from the lip and unconscious and no pulse.''
Five days later, he woke up at Hackensack University Medical Center in Hackensack, New Jersey, with no memory of the attack, he said. A cardiologist had removed a clot ``the size of a Grand Canyon'' in his left anterior descending artery, he said.
An attorney for Merck, Chuck Harrell, said both sides agreed that the McDarby jurors won't hear about Braun's heart attack.
``By stipulation of the parties, Dr. Braun won't be asked about his pending lawsuit or his use of Vioxx because it's not relevant to the issues in this case,'' said Harrell, of Butler, Snow, O'Mara, Stevens & Cannada in Jackson, Mississippi.
Braun said he had no family history of heart disease and no other risk factors. He concluded Vioxx caused his heart attack, his deposition said. His suit, filed last May, is one of 5,100 before Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee. She is presiding at the Cona and McDarby trial, which began March 6.
220 Visits
McDarby's attorney, Robert Gordon, told jurors that Braun got 220 visits from 17 Merck sales representatives about Vioxx between 1999 and 2004. Jurors heard testimony that thousands of sales representatives gave away millions of free samples of Vioxx during the biggest drug launch campaign in the history of Merck.
Braun said in a Feb. 9 deposition that he saw two Merck representatives a week. He said the sales force reassured him that Vioxx was safe after a March 2000 study found that patients on the drug had five times more heart attacks than those on another painkiller, naproxen.
Braun said the sales representatives never told him that Vioxx increased the risk of heart attacks or blood clots. Gordon said that two of those drug representatives are expected to testify today about visiting Braun.
The cases are Cona v. Merck & Co., L-3553-05 and McDarby v. Merck & Co., L-1296-05, and Braun v. Merck, L-2911-05, Superior Court, New Jersey (Atlantic City).

Vioxx Trial Underway in Merck's Home State

2006-03-10T10:42:00.001-05:00

The legal fight over Vioxx returned to New Jersey on Monday, with the lawyer for a man who blames his heart attack on the blockbuster arthritis drug telling jurors that executives with manufacturer Merck & Co. knowingly concealed its risks from consumers.
Mark Lanier, the attorney for Thomas Cona, 59, said the use of Vioxx made people with risk factors for heart disease "walking time bombs" but Merck withheld information about the drug to make more money selling it.
"They decided to cut corners. That's basically what this case is about," Lanier said in opening statements.
Cona's case is being tried along with that of John McDarby, 77, of Park Ridge, N.J., because the two cases have been consolidated by the judge overseeing more than 5,000 state court cases against Merck.
Lawyers for McDarby and Merck were to give their openings later Monday.
So far, Merck has won two Vioxx cases and lost a third in courtrooms around the country. Another trial is ongoing in Rio Grande City, Texas.
Merck, which is based in Whitehouse Station, N.J., sold the drug beginning in 1999 as a pain reliever for arthritis and osteoarthritis sufferers who found other pain drugs too harsh on the stomach.
The company pulled it off the market in September 2004 after a clinical study showed it doubled the risk of heart attacks and strokes after 18 months' use.
More than 9,650 lawsuits over Vioxx have been filed in state and federal courts, but the Cona-McDarby trial is the first to involve plaintiffs who allege long-term use. Cona's lawyers say he took it for 22 months; McDarby's say he took it for four years.
Merck says the men had other risk factors for heart disease and that Vioxx can't be blamed. The company also contends that Cona's medical records don't support the long-term use allegation.
In the last New Jersey trial, a jury absolved Merck of liability for an Idaho postal worker who suffered a heart attack after taking Vioxx for only two months.
But Cona's Texas attorney Lanier won a $253 million jury verdict for the widow of a Wal-Mart produce manager who died of a heart attack while taking Vioxx. That verdict is expected to be reduced on appeal.
New Jersey Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee planned to use a pair of chess clocks to enforce time limits agreed upon by lawyers for Merck, Cona and McDarby. The plaintiffs' attorneys will get a total of 40 hours to present their cases, not counting opening statements and closing arguments. Merck will get 35 hours.

Fresh scrutiny after asbestos presentations

2006-03-10T10:42:00.000-05:00

Please provide any information you think may be helpful to mesothelioma victimd and their familiesThe dust kicked up by two recent asbestos studies contradicting federal Environmental Protection Agency results in 2004 got another pass from concerned residents during a special meeting at the El Dorado Hills Community Services District Pavilion.RJ Lee group chief analyst Drew Van Orden and Network Environmental Systems industrial hygienist Jennifer Bailey took turns presenting their respective studies. The presentations were followed by a spirited hour-long question and answer session during which residents made pointed comments about the results.Despite El Dorado County Office of Education Superintendent Vicki Barber's statement that "this is not an opportunity for other positions to be put forth," the warning occasionally got lost in the discussion.It was the school district that sought a second opinion on the county's asbestos problem after the EPA found hazardous levels at Oak Ridge High School and other sites.Partnering with the National Sand, Stone and Gravel Association, the district commissioned RJ Lee Group to evaluate the EPA results by testing three school sites and one park site. Oak Ridge High School was not re-tested.The company's ties to the building industry and the asbestos crisis in Libby, Montana has since raised questions among critics about the veracity of the results.
Arguing that the EPA's method couldn't distinguish between asbestos and non-asbestos amphiboles, Van Orden said 63 to 86 percent of the amphibole fibers identified as asbestos could not be because of their high aluminum content. Nor was asbestos found in the soil samples it took from the EPA."We found amphiboles, we found hornblende, but we didn't find any asbestos fibers" in the 21 split samples RJ Lee examined, Van Orden told attendees. "That's not to say there isn't amphibole asbestos here in El Dorado County."The latter was a statement that would be repeated by Van Orden and Bailey multiple times, highlighting for attendees the limitations of each study.While NES found lower levels of asbestos at three community park ball fields in El Dorado Hills, Bailey cautioned against drawing comparisons between the NES and EPA results because of the marked differences in testing methods."We're not trying to duplicate the EPA sampling ... or the activity based sampling (performed by the EPA)," Bailey said. NES only had a fraction of the operating budget EPA used in its 2004 study.After the presentations, asbestos expert Dr. Art Langer raised the issue of RJ Lee's involvement in the Libby asbestos crisis, saying, "Many of these arguments were made during the WR Grace lawsuit and weren't thought highly of."Van Orden disputed the claim, calling Langer's statement "a simple fabrication," because the courts didn't address issues regarding low levels of asbestos.While Libby had a heavy population of asbestos and non-asbestos amphibole particles, Van Orden said his study only found the latter in El Dorado County."There's so much aluminum in there, it can't possibly be asbestos," he said.El Dorado Hills resident Chris Anaya argued Van Orden's point about the aluminum content, saying, "I don't care what we call it or what the legal definition is ... my concern is, Is there something deadly in the air that may affect my children?"In answer to another question, Van Orden said, "Our expertise is not in toxicology.""There's very little research on the health effects associated with low concentrations of asbestos," Bailey added. "These are some things that need to be further evaluated."With this uncertainty persisting, Langer asked the two presenters what types of tests they would like to see as residents."I personally would like to see more toxicological studies," Bailey answered.As Barber noted for some of the frustrated attendees - many of them hearing the presentations for the first time - asbestos science is "an emerging field."Calling for "good science," Barber said further studies were needed to address potential health issues like mesothelioma, "as well as taking a look at the economic feasibility of the issues before us."

Give us back the £152k you got for husband's death

2006-03-10T10:38:00.000-05:00

A NORTH Wales widow faces a legal challenge over a £152,000 asbestos compensation pay-out. In what is being billed as a landmark ruling, a French company ordered to make the pay-out will argue compensation should be shared between previous employers.
The case will be heard in the House of Lords on Monday.
Sylvia Barker was awarded the money after her 57-year-old husband, Vernon, died of asbestos-related cancer mesothelioma in 1996, after working at Shotton steelworks.
Between 1960 and 1968, Mr Barker was "heavily, regularly and frequently" exposed to asbestos dust.
Mrs Barker, of Wood Lane, Pen y Maes, Holywell, has already fought off one bid to strip her of the payment at the Appeal Court.
Four years ago the insurance companies lost their case in the House of Lords when they argued cancer, in theory, could be triggered by just one asbestos fibre, making it near impossible to prove an employee contracted the dis-ease in just one place.
The House of Lords found against the insurance companies, but gave them leave to appeal.
The insurance companies are now arguing that if the worker could have contracted the disease in more than one place of employment the compensation bill should be shared out.
Lawyers for asbestos claimants are concerned a shared compensation bill could include now defunct companies, resulting in reduced payments to claimants and their families.
Mr and Mrs Barker had been married for almost 30 years when former labourer Mr Barker died.
The courts were told Mr Barker was most exposed over a six-month period while cleaning up the galvanising section at Shotton Steel.
Mrs Barker won her award at the High Court, but St Gobain argued the High Court was legally wrong to hold it responsible for the death of Mr Barker, and the issue went before the Appeal Court.
St Gobain said Mr Barker worked for another company for six weeks in 1958.
The firm claimed he was also exposed to asbestos dust when working as a self-employed plasterer between 1968 and 1989 and could have suffered the eventually fatal exposure at any point in his working life.

Mired in asbestos

2006-03-10T10:36:00.000-05:00

When Tommy Malot founded an environmental cleanup company five years ago, it made sense to his customers and to his accountant.
Among the Central Point business’ major components was asbestos abatement and removal.
In the years since, Malot discovered even a remote association with asbestos can be financially vexing given the mass of litigation that has piled up for nearly four decades.
Last month, Malot journeyed to Capitol Hill where he asked a Senate panel to support legislation that would establish a $140 billion industry-financed trust fund. The Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2005 bill by Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., would push tens of thousands of asbestos-exposure claims out of the court system and allow victims to directly apply for compensation.
"We never produced, installed or sold any asbestos related material, and yet even our small, local company has been threatened with the potential of lawsuits," Malot told a congressional committee. "Of particular concern is that the legal system is now focusing on businesses which, like ours, are not responsible for the problem. Yet sympathetic juries are awarding multi-million dollar settlements to individuals who have yet to show any symptoms of any disease."
The bill failed a procedural test by one vote in February, but appears back on its way to the floor according to a March 1 report in CongressDaily AM.
"The threat of getting sued scares small-business owners to even be in this kind of work," Malot said. "We’re in this business to remove product so (customers) don’t injure themselves or anyone around them. If we can’t do it, then people are going to do it wrong and expose others to harm."
Asbestos, made from silicate minerals, is used in many industrial processes because of its fire-resistant properties. Easily inhaled asbestos fibers, however, can cause an incurable cancer called mesothelioma. It can also impair lung function without causing cancer.
During its heyday, asbestos was a standard ingredient in the making of thousands of products including textiles, auto brake linings, insulation and ship hulls.
"I’m regulated so highly by the state and federal government that it’s unbelievable," Malot said. "But if something is done wrong, somebody should pay for it. What I’m trying to do is to get money to people who deserve it."
A RAND Corp. study released in May 2005 found that more than 730,000 people in the United States filed compensation claims for asbestos-related injuries through the end of 2002, costing businesses and insurance companies more than $70 billion.
According to the Cato Institute, the first claims were filed in 1966 and lawsuits against asbestos manufacturers and suppliers shot up in the early 1970s, even as use of the product was phased out.
The RAND report said claimants have received about 42 cents of every dollar spent on asbestos litigation, according to the study, while 31 cents has gone to defense costs and 27 cents to plaintiffs’ attorneys. At least 8,400 entities were named as defendants in asbestos claims through 2002. At least 73 companies named in a substantial number of asbestos claims filed for bankruptcy through mid-2004.
Even companies on the periphery of the industry have been hit hard.
Crown Cork & Seal Co., a Philadelphia bottle cap and can maker with holdings in Oregon, acquired a company with an insulation division in 1963 before spinning it off three months later.
The company said in June 2002, its $7 million investment in Mundet Cork Co. has resulted in an expense of more than $350 million in asbestos-related payments. That was after a Pennsylvania court dismissed 376 pending asbestos cases against the company.
"Crown is simply in the bottle cap and can business," William Gallagher, General Counsel for Crown, told Productiondaily.com in 2002. "Yet, through the technical application of corporate merger successor liability law, thousands of asbestos claims have been filed against Crown because of Crown’s brief connection nearly 40 years ago with Mundet Cork Co., a manufacturer of cork-lined bottle caps that had also owned a small insulation division."

Emergency workers face asbestos threat

2006-03-10T10:35:00.000-05:00

Please provide any information you think may be helpful to mesothelioma victimd and their familiesThe personnel at risk include members of the Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) unit, who were told last week that they may have contracted life-threatening illnesses after training on a demolition site at Holsworthy Army Barracks.
The site was set up to simulate rescues in the event of a terrorist attack or natural disaster and has been regularly used by fire brigade, ambulance, police and army personnel since 2004.
Asbestos has been found in huge piles of rubble, which are used to resemble collapsed city buildings.
Emergency workers who spent up to three weeks at a time crawling through the rubble were contacted by their department chiefs last week and told the exposure could kill them.
The calls last week left senior personnel devastated. Asbestos-related diseases such as mesothelioma can take decades to appear and it may be 30 years before the emergency workers can be cleared of infection.
Even Premier Morris Iemma has visited the site he has been warned he has a low-level risk of exposure.
NSW Fire Brigades chief Greg Mullins said last night he was reviewing a scientific assessment of the site and was talking to his own staff, ambulance, police, the Defence Department and unions about the mass exposure.
The Daily Telegraph understands the rescuers have been divided into categories A, B and C, with category A the most severely affected.
Fifteen of the ambulance service's special casualty access team's 40 members have been diagnosed as category A.
An unknown number of support staff including police, doctors, nurses and hazardous material personnel have also been exposed at the facility.
Mr Iemma, listed as a category C, walked around the site during a visit to Holsworthy in September, soon after becoming Premier.
Mr Mullins issued a press release last week stating asbestos had been found at the site, which was used by personnel "from time to time".
But today the real story behind the bureaucratic bungle can be revealed.
Following interviews with the state's top-level emergency personnel, it has been established that:
NO proper tests were done at the site before it became a training ground for hundreds of top-level rescuers in 2004;
PERSONNEL were kept in the dark for up to a year about the asbestos before being told last week;
NSW public officials and a host of ministers may have been exposed;
AMBULANCE chief Greg Rochford and Mr Mullins have been at the site and must face a health clearance; and
THE Dust Diseases Tribunal is conducting an investigation into the long-term impact the mass exposure could have on emergency services in NSW.
The Fire Brigade took over the training site from the Defence Department in 2004 after an audit found the state's emergency services were not adequately prepared for a terrorist attack.
Mr Mullins told Mr Rochford about the asbestos last week.
WorkCover inspectors were called in to shut down the site last week.

Thousands sign up to urge action over 'cruel' disease

2006-03-10T10:32:00.000-05:00

Please provide any information you think may be helpful to mesothelioma victimd and their familiesA LEEDS MP visited 10 Downing Street to hand over a charter signed by more than 14,000 people calling for action on a deadly asbestos-linked cancer.
The charter, urging more support for mesothelioma victims and their families, was presented to launch the Action Mesothelioma Campaign which is to run for a year and is backed by a range of organisations, including the British Lung Foundation. Leeds West Labour MP John Battle, whose constituency was home to the Armley J W Roberts asbestos factory which left a legacy of asbestos-related illness in the city, was in the delegation, along with Russell Hancock, son of Armley campaigner June Hancock. Mesothelioma victim Mrs Hancock won a legal battle for compensation from the factory's owners, Turner Newall, before she died in 1997.The Action Mesothelioma patient charter calls for faster diagnosis, better treatment and care services, more funding for research and measures to prevent future asbestos exposure.Mr Battle said: "This cruel disease kills one person every five hours in the UK and this figure is set to peak over the next decade. This campaign is vital to raise awareness of the condition and also the potential danger that people could face from asbestos in their homes when undertaking DIY projects.For more information about the British Lung Foundation, or Action Mesothelioma, visit www.lunguk.org or call the BLF Helpline on 08458 50 50 20.

Ringing out a death warning

2006-03-10T10:30:00.000-05:00

One by one, members of the elite ambulance and fire brigade rescue units were told the news they had never expected or wanted to hear.
They had been exposed to asbestos diseases – the silent killer almost impossible to detect – during training exercises at Holsworthy army barracks.
These are the men who are trained to go where others won't dare in the event of disaster.
"I just couldn't believe it. You do this dangerous work for a living but you never expect something like this to get you," a rescuer who asked not to be named said.
"The bosses got on the phone and told everyone who had spent time crawling around Holsworthy in the past two years that they might come down with this illness over the next 20 years."
As a mark of their courage, the cream of the fire brigade and ambulance service are powering through their ordeal.
There have been no reports of anyone taking sick leave. They are going about their work, going home to their families and hoping for the best.
There is anger in the ranks for two reasons: many officers who had not set foot on the site for up to a year were not told about the problem until their superiors called out of the blue last week.
They also want to know why tests were not conducted at the site two years ago, before the state's most qualified rescuers began crawling around the rubble.
The potential victims are not your average firefighters and paramedics. They are members of elite units such as Urban Service and Rescue (USAR), set up to deal with mass casualties in the event of a September 11-type bombing on the streets of Sydney.
Spare a thought for the close-knit Special Casualty Access Team of paramedics attached to the ambulance service.
Out of its 40 members, 15 were told last week that they had been listed as the most-at-risk "Category A" patients.
Before it turned out to be riddled with asbestos, the training site at Holsworthy was the ideal setting for rescue crews to practise.
The site was specially designed to resemble a city landscape torn apart by a natural disaster such as an earthquake or the aftermath of a terrorist attack.
The emergency workers have no choice but to wait. Asbestos diseases such as the fatal mesothelioma – cancer of the lung lining – can take 30 years to develop.
"The bosses will say it's under control, but you know what? They have no idea how it will turn out," one of the potential victims said.

DID SCHOOL ASBESTOS KILL HEAD?

2006-03-10T10:28:00.000-05:00

exclusive By Phil ColemanChief reporterA CARLISLE primary school is at the centre of a health scare after its former headteacher died from an asbestos-related cancer.Governors at St Cuthbert’s Roman Catholic school have sought advice from Cumbria County Council on organising an asbestos survey after Ian White, 66, died from mesothelioma on Christmas Day.In the weeks since Mr White’s death, it is believed other staff at the school were concerned enough to arrange for medical tests.North-east Cumbria coroner David Osborne has alerted the Health & Safety Executive to Mr White’s death, and the potential presence of asbestos in the school.Mr White retired as school head nearly five years ago after working there for 18 years. A retired caretaker from the school has confirmed that ceilings in the school were made from asbestos tiles.Mr White’s widow Eileen said the only asbestos she knew that her husband could have been exposed to was that in St Cuthbert’s, in Victoria Road, Botcherby.The school, which has around 140 pupils, has refused to confirm or deny whether the tiles are still there. Cumbria County Council confirmed that governors recently sought advice on organising an asbestos survey. The tests, to include checks for airborne asbestos, were due to go ahead last month.Carlisle pensioner Paul Blackshaw worked as the school’s caretaker until September 1998.With the exception of recently built areas in St Cuthbert’s, the asbestos tiles were used throughout the school, said Mr Blackshaw.He recalled staff being advised to avoid using drawing pins in the ceiling for fear of releasing dust.Mr Blackshaw said safety experts who checked the tiles in the 1990s pronounced them safe because their underside was sealed with paint.“It’s an established fact that they were asbestos,” said Mr Blackshaw, 70.“The question of their safety was investigated by the building and design department of the education authority at the county council.“The tiles were given a clean bill of health. Provided they were not disturbed unduly, the asbestos dust which was presumably above shouldn’t have got into the building below.“One member of staff was particularly concerned, and as far as I know that’s why she left. I was caretaker there for eight years and knew that ceiling pretty intimately. In my time there, I actually removed the tiles at times and replaced them.“When the security system was being installed I helped the installer put the wires through the roof space.“The electrician and myself didn’t even use breathing masks. I’ve heard some school staff have been for tests, and I’m wondering whether I should.”A dedicated headteacher, Mr White regularly spent time in the school out of hours, when he would do simple jobs such as decorating.At her home in Stanwix, his widow Eileen told the News & Star: “Even if there is a slight possibility that the asbestos there was responsible for Ian’s illness, it should be removed.“Ian always put the safety and welfare of his staff and pupils first and it’s what he would have wanted.”An inquest into Mr White’s death has been opened and adjourned by north east Cumbria coroner David Osborne.The cause of death was confirmed as mesothelioma.A spokesman for Cumbria County Council said the authority has an agreement to give health and safety advice and information to all Cumbrian schools.He added: “Even though St Cuthbert’s School is not controlled by the local education authority, we were approached by them regarding an asbestos survey in the school and Cumbria County Council recommended they carry out a ‘level 2’ survey including air clearance tests, which we understand the school arranged for last month.”Between 1998 and 2000 ‘level 1’ checks were carried out throughout schools in Cumbria. This involved visual checks for items such as broken tiles.In 2004, following a change in the regulations covering asbestos at work, Type 2 asbestos surveys have been carried out in all schools across the country.The spokesman added: “It’s an ongoing programme and all but 18 schools in Cumbria have now been checked.“All schools carry an asbestos register detailing where there is asbestos in the school – so any contractors working in the schools are aware.”A Health & Safety Executive spokesman said: “HSE has been made aware by the coroner of the death of a former headmaster at St Cuthbert’s and the potential presence of a quantity of asbestos at the school.“HSE staff will be making enquiries to ensure that any asbestos material found is being properly managed and does not pose any health risks.”The News & Star invited the school to comment but chairman of the governors Doug Hulme declined. Current headteacher John Turner said today: “We feel it’s not appropriate to make any comment.”Last year, Dr Peter Mustchin, a consultant physician at the Cumberland Infirmary in Carlisle, warned that asbestos-related illness was “an epidemic in the making.”

Dying asbestos victims fear new court challenge will slash payouts

2006-03-10T10:27:00.000-05:00

A landmark legal challenge starts in the House of Lords on 13 March in an attempt to limit payouts for the most deadly form of asbestos-related cancer.
Employers hope to overturn existing law by arguing that the cost of compensating mesothelioma sufferers should be apportioned between companies if a worker was exposed at more than one workplace. At present, full damages can be claimed against any company where there has been exposure and there is more than one defendant company.
Stephen Buckley, 52, an engineer from Dukingfield, Cheshire, is living on borrowed time. Two years ago he was given nine months to live when he was diagnosed with the invariably terminal cancer caused by asbestos. In 1968, at the age of 15, he left school to become an apprentice at the ICI plant in Hyde, near Manchester. 'I was just a lad when I started there and one of my first jobs was to strip the boilers down. Our overalls would be covered in this white dust but we never gave it a second thought,' he recalls. 'The air was heavy with it.'
Tragically, that deadly dust was asbestos. When Buckley began as an apprentice, he recalls having no safety gear - not even a mask. 'Safety wasn't an issue in those days. People used to say, "You'll be alright as long as you stay away from the blue".' This was the even more dangerous blue asbestos.
Every year, about 1,800 people in Britain die from mesothelioma, and that number is expected to peak at about 3,000 in 2020. Compensation is low, with many victims and their families receiving in the region of £150,000.
In the landmark Fairchild case four years ago, insurers attempted to refute claims. It was argued that the cancer could in theory be triggered by just one asbestos fibre, and so someone who had worked with asbestos, and had more than one employer, could not prove where they had got the disease. The insurers went on to argue that the responsibility could not be shared between them because cancer was an 'all or nothing' condition.
It was a battle that went all the way to the highest court, where the Law Lords ruled against the insurers. They held that any asbestos exposure that materially contributed to the disease added to the risk and caused it.
The latest legal challenge concerns three test cases (known as Barker v St Gobain Pipelines). In the lead case the widow, Sylvia Barker, was awarded £152,000 after her husband Vernon died of the cancer eight years earlier. The courts were told that between 1960 and 1968 he had been 'heavily, regularly and frequently' exposed to asbestos dust while working at the Shotton Steelworks on Deeside for John Summers and Sons (the French-owned St Gobain is the legal successor).
In a complete about-turn from the insurers' previous stance, it will be argued that if there is more than one employer, compensation should be split between them all.
The insurer Norwich Union is watching Barker closely. 'The case is about seeking clarity after Fairchild,' says Dominic Clayden, head of technical claims at NU. 'That case did not deal with apportionment of damages between multiple defendants.'
According to Anthony Coombs, a solicitor who specialises in asbestos disease cases, a ruling in favour of St Gobain could affect many of his terminally ill clients. 'If your job with one employer involved more than enough asbestos exposure to give you mesothelioma but you had also worked with asbestos for another employer that's gone bust, your compensation will be reduced,' he says. 'This may leave you with very little, after the benefits from the government are taken off.'
Michael Eason, a 62-year-old electrical engineer, died last April from mesothelioma. 'He was such a fit man, never smoked and never had anything wrong with him,' recalls his wife Barbara. 'He retired at the beginning of 2003 and was really looking forward to the future. He was hoping to be a Justice of the Peace.'
Barbara says her husband went to see his doctor complaining of 'a slight cough and some breathing difficulties'. The family was devastated to discover he had cancer. 'He went downhill so fast and the pain and suffering he went through was terrible,' she says. Eason died three months after he was first diagnosed.
More than 40 years before, he had briefly worked in a number of places where he could have been exposed, including a power station and a chemical works. Barbara and her son, Paul, 34, have received no money from Michael's employers and are concerned as to how this week's challenge might affect any payout.
'Mike used to say he knew he wouldn't benefit from any compensation but he would be happy if Paul and I could. All I really want is my husband back,' she says. 'But I do think somebody has to pay because, of all the cancers people get, this is one that could have been avoided.'
Anthony Coombs reckons that the ruling could affect at least half of his clients suffering from mesothelioma. He estimates that a fifth of all sufferers cannot sue at all because their employers have gone bankrupt and no one can find the insurers, and that almost a third cannot sue all their employers.
'It is unfair to punish the victim when the insurers who took the premiums are still there hiding behind the employers that have gone bust,' Coombs reckons.
Stephen Buckley had not had a day off work in 12 years before being diagnosed with mesothelioma two years ago. He immediately married Angela, his partner of 27 years, because both knew what he had in store.
'It is like being sentenced to death for something that happened to you years ago - in my case, when I was a teenager,' he says.
So far, he has received an interim payment of £70,000 from ICI but he is concerned about where the legal challenge will leave his wife after he dies.
'I don't know how much time I've got left to live, and this claim needs to be sorted out,' he says. 'Whenever I read about mesothelioma it is always about how much compensation costs and what the companies are going to do to cut the bill. I got this disease when I was 15 years old at work. I have always worked and I've never cost anyone a bean. There are times when people should just shut up and pay up.'
The unknown killer
Last Monday was Action Mesothelioma Day, marking the start of a year-long campaign to raise awareness about the deadly chest cancer that develops up to 40 years after exposure to asbestos.
According to new research by the British Lung Foundation, only 6 per cent of people in the UK know what the disease is, yet the cancer kills one person every five hours in the UK. This figure is set to peak over the next decade, with as many as 3,000 people dying from it every year.
The rising number of deaths from the condition is linked to the use of asbestos in the building industry up until the mid 1980s. The time between exposure to asbestos and developing mesothelioma can range from 15 to 60 years, with death coming within two years of diagnosis.

ASBESTOS-RELATED CANCER COMPENSATION CASE OPENS

2006-03-10T10:25:00.000-05:00

Please provide any information you think may be helpful to mesothelioma victimd and their familiesLawyers are about to start legal action after an ex-councillor from a village near Bath died of cancer. Former Timsbury councillor Bill Brown died in August last year, at the age of 77, having suffered from mesothelioma, a chest cancer that develops 15 to 60 years after exposure to asbestos.His widow, Iris, 79, who lives in Farmborough, said: "He had not been too well back at Christmas 2004."It was not until February last year, when the doctor called to tell us he had cancer and that they thought it was through the asbestos."It was very sad to see him sink so low, but he had such good care."Mr Brown worked as an engineer for Bristol paper and packaging firm DRG, where he rose to supervisor and later manager. He retired in 1988.Mrs Brown said her late husband came into contact with asbestos while at work.She said: "He had to supervise the work of the men stripping down various components in the factory. All the engine parts were clad with asbestos."Brigitte Chandler, a partner at Charles Lucas and Marshall solicitors in Swindon, is handling the claim.Ms Chandler said the company Mr Brown worked for no longer existed as it was."It is their insurers that we are dealing with," she said."They have been notified about the claim and we hope to issue proceedings shortly."Meanwhile, Monday saw the launch of the first Action Mesothelioma Day.According to new research by the British Lung Foundation (BLF), only six per cent of people in the UK know what the disease is, yet it kills one person every five hours in the UK. This figure is set to peak over the next decade.The rising number of deaths from the condition is linked to the use of asbestos in the building industry up until the mid 1980s.The time between exposure to asbestos and developing mesothelioma can range from 15 to 60 years, with death coming within two years of diagnosis.The aim of Action Mesothelioma Day was to raise the profile of the condition through a series of events and the presentation to the Government of a Patient Charter signed by more than 10,000 people.However, the increasing number of people carrying out do-it-yourself and home improvements has also sparked fears that people could be exposing themselves to asbestos which was used as insulation materials in homes built between the 1950s and '80s.Dame Helena Shovelton, chief executive of the BLF, said: "Mesothelioma destroys the lives of its victims and their families."The time between diagnosis and death is short and in the vast majority of cases, people suffer a tortured and agonising death."John McClean, national health and safety officer for the GMB trade union, added: "For too long sufferers of mesothelioma have been the hidden cancer victims in this country."A spokesman for insurance company Zurich said: "At this time we extend our condolences to Mr Brown's family for their loss."Our claims department is in contact with the family's solicitor and currently awaits further information relating to the claim as requested from the broker. This is required in order for us to conclude our investigations and bring the claim to an appropriate resolution."

Rally salutes victims of the ‘hidden killer’

2006-03-10T10:24:00.000-05:00

Rochdale families who had lost relations, friends or colleagues to asbestos-related cancers.
Mr Addy said: "The problem is that mesothelioma can lie undetected for many years. That’s why it’s called the hidden disease. But when it is finally diagnosed, the end can come very quickly indeed for its victims."
He acknowleged that not all suffererers of mesothelioma would have worked at Turner’s.
Anyone who had been exposed to asbestos from their work, such as garage mechanics, painting contractors, engineers, construction workers, school teachers and even wives who might have washed their husband’s overalls, could have been affected.
"The fact is that more people die from asbestos cancer every year in the UK than road accidents.
"That is equivalent to a 9/11 tragedy every year in the UK until the middle of this century."
As Monday’s rally was going on, MPs were presenting the mesothelioma charter at 10 Downing Street, calling for more government research into treatments for asbestos-related cancers which, almost invariably, are terminal.
Local MP Jim Dobbin, whose constituency includes Castleton, Norden and Bamford, is also supporting the call.
He said: "This cruel disease kills one person every five hours in the UK and this figure is set to peak over the next decade.
"I hope the government will look closely at the mesothelioma charter and do all they can to address the issues it raises."
The Action Mesothelioma Charter has been signed by more than 14,000 people.
Dame Helena Shovelton, chief executive of the British Lung Foundation, said: "Mesothelioma destroys the lives of its victims and their families.
"The time between diagnosis and death is short and in the vast majority of cases people suffer a tortuous and agonising death."

Asbestos-related deaths 54 higher than estimate for women living near Kubota factory

2006-03-10T10:23:00.000-05:00

Please provide any information you think may be helpful to mesothelioma victimd and their familiesThe death rate from asbestos-related cancer among women living near a former Kubota Corp. factory here that made asbestos products was 54 times higher than the estimated death rate under population movement statistics, researchers have found.
Nara Medical University Prof. Norio Kurumatani and Shinji Kumagai, a senior researcher at the Osaka Prefectural Institute of Public Health, uncovered the high death rate from mesothelioma, a type of cancer caused by asbestos, in a joint epidemiological survey.
"We have not seen such a large and concentrated outbreak of mesothelioma, even on an international scale," one of the researchers said.
The researchers said it was likely there had been a high concentration of asbestos in the air around Kuboto's now defunct Kanzaki factory. They are set to report the finding at a meeting of the Japan Society for Occupational Health in Sendai on May 9.
In the survey, the researchers investigated people who had been living near the plant between 1957 and 1975, when it was using highly toxic blue asbestos, and analyzed data for 86 mesothelioma patients from the area who had no history of working with asbestos. Seventy-six of the patients have already died.
The estimated death rate between 1995 and 1999 for women who lived within a 300-meter radius of the factory, based on the mesothelioma death rate under vital population statistics, was 0.055 people. However, in actual fact three people died, bringing the death rate to a level 54.1 times higher than the estimate, researchers found.
Previous data released by Kurumatani and other researchers said that women who lived within a 500-meter radius of the factory faced 18 times the normal risk. Compared to that figure, the latest one is three times higher, indicating that people living close to the factory had a much higher chance of contracting mesothelioma.
The death rate for men who lived within a 300-meter radius of the plant was 11.7 times higher than the estimate during the period. Between 2000 and 2005, the death rate for men living within 300 meters of the factory was 17.8 times higher than the estimate, and for women it was 23.1 times higher. For those who lived between 300 and 600 meters away, the figures were 5 times higher for men and 10.8 times higher for women.
The reason the death rates for men were lower was that a higher percentage of men who died from work-related mesothelioma were included in vital population statistics that formed the basis for comparisons. Because of this, researchers said the rate for women was likely a more accurate reflection the effect the factory had on residents. (Mainichi)

Paradise lost, thank goodness

2006-03-10T10:20:00.000-05:00

Plaintiffs attorneys used think that multi-million verdicts from Madison County juries were a lock. But the Anita O'Connell case is the latest evidence that this so-called plaintiffs paradise is becoming paradise lost.
A jury on Wednesday refused to give O'Connell, an 84-year-old woman dying of mesothelioma, any money in her asbestos case.
It's the second big fat zero. In a case tried in June, a widow whose husband died of mesothelioma also got nothing.
But it is a dramatic departure from the past. In asbestos trials held between 2000 and 2003, the judgments were $16 million, $34.1 million and $250 million.
Maybe jurors are fed up with people who don't live in Madison County -- O'Connell and the widow both were from Northern Illinois -- traipsing here in search of big judgments.
Maybe they are tired of dubious legal claims. The widow was suing GE, even though it didn't even make the product that contained the asbestos. O'Connell said she got the fatal lung cancer from laundering her son's clothes in the late 1960s and '70s after he used a compound that contained asbestos. Even if that sounded possible, testimony called into question whether the family business had even used the product.
Maybe they are embarrassed by their court's reputation as among the worst in the nation.
Whatever the reasons, it's great if plaintiffs attorneys now have to wonder what a Madison County jury will do. If the county isn't on their list the next time they go venue shopping, all the better.

Workers' disease meeting

2006-03-10T10:19:00.000-05:00

A DEDICATED group of campaigners is fighting for the rights of victims of mesothelioma, better known as asbestos disease.
There are around 1,800 cases of the illness reported in Britain each year. This number is growing and will not peak for several years, because the disease develops at least 10 years after exposure to asbestos and sometimes as long as 40 or even 50 years after exposure.
The Cheshire Asbestos Victims Support group, based in Runcorn, has been supporting victims of asbestos disease and their families since 1992.
The not-for-profit support organisation is staffed by volunteers, most of whom are victims of asbestos disease themselves.
The group owns a respite care caravan in Rhyl, North Wales, where sufferers and their families are able to have respite holidays at the group's five star caravan bought in 1999 with charitable donations.
Group member Doreen Dellaway said: 'We need to create an awareness of this disease and to campaign for adequate research and treatment for those who have and will be unfortunate enough to be diagnosed with mesothelioma.'
Mesothelioma is a relatively rare form of cancer characterised by pain, weight loss and night sweats. Most victims die within 18 months of being diagnosed.
The disease responds poorly to surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy.
The only known cause of mesothelioma is unprotected exposure to asbestos fibres, in approximately 95% of cases.
Compensation in mesothelioma cases very often depends upon tracing the relevant employer or their insurers.
The most common exposure to asbestos is in the workplace. In January of this year, Runcorn man Clifford Thornhill was diagnosed with disease.
Mr Thornhill's mesothelioma has been caused by exposure to asbestos at work with the Manchester Ship Canal Company, based at their Old Quay yard in Runcorn off Mersey Road.
He worked as a fitter's labourer for the company between 1962 and 1985. Mr Thornhill said: 'More should be done to let people know how dangerous asbestos is.
'As part of my job I had to strip asbestos lagging off pipework in the engine rooms on the old steamer tug boats on the canal.
'It was a dirty job and the asbestos dust and debris got all over the place as I worked.
'I had no idea asbestos was dangerous - no-one warned us we were putting our health at risk.
On Monday, the British Lung Foundation organised several events around the country to raise awareness about the disease as part of Action Mesothelioma Day.
The Cheshire Support Group held a meeting at Runcorn Town Hall.
Speakers included the mayor of Halton, Peter Lloyd-Jones, Dr John Williams, consultant physician, and Elaine Sergeant, specialist lung cancer nurse, both from Halton Hospital, and Diana Fos from Thompsons solicitors.
Family and friends of sufferers of mesothelioma also gave their accounts of coping with the killer disease.
For more information about the Cheshire Asbestos Victims Support Group, ring 01928 576641 or e-mail enquiries@cavsg.co.uk

Most Recent Information and News About Mesothelioma On New Site

2006-03-10T10:16:00.000-05:00

A new site launched by TidbitMedia.com (http://www.tidbitmedia.com) this week gives readers a new resource for an extensive variety of in-depth news and info associated with mesothelioma. The site, called AllMesotheliomaNews.com, can be viewed by following this link: http://www.allmesotheliomanews.com and will be updated daily with the freshest and most interesting morsels of mesothelioma news and updates. Articles will be put up with headlines and a concise blurb about what the article is associated with. This will be a convenient means for those who want to learn more about what mesothelioma is or those who just want to get further information regarding legal help in an easy-to-read arrangement. The site will be a valuable source for users who want to read the most recent mesothelioma news and updates in an efficient manner. The Web site's convenient layout will save readers valuable time without watering down the informational content. If a reader is only interested in reading articles associated with specific legal issues and advice, or any other related subjects, they can use the helpful search bar to look for those specific articles on the site. The simplicity of the articles and the capability to search the site for specific information will enable readers to save time whenever they want to read the latest information concerning mesothelioma. This enables them to spend more time checking other sites, find legal assistance, or do anything else they want to spend their newfound extra time on. AllMesotheliomaNews.com was created by TidbitMedia.com to conveniently meet readers with mesothelioma news and information presented in a format they want to read it. Articles are up for viewing on the site. For more information please contact pr@tidbitmedia.com

Increase in mesothelioma cases prompts call for checks

2006-03-10T10:15:00.000-05:00

The Asbestos Diseases Society is urging anyone who has lived in or visited the town of Wittenoom in Western Australia's north-west to be checked by a doctor after an increase in the number of people being diagnosed with mesothelioma.
The society says nine people, mostly the children of those who worked in the town's asbestos mine, have been diagnosed with the incurable disease since last October.
Society president Robert Vojakovic says the mine closed in 1966 but a lot of people in their 40s are only now discovering they have the disease because of its long latency period.
"Being the mid 60s or maybe early 60s and now 40 years hence you know will be one of the most dangerous periods in time of people developing disease," he said.
The Health Department says it is aware that mesothelioma is being diagnosed in adults who lived in Wittenoom as children.
The department says it maintains a register to monitor cases of the disease in the community.

Balloons fly for asbestos group

2006-03-10T10:14:00.001-05:00

Balloons fly for asbestos group Published on 27/02/2006
WIDOWS of shipyard workers who died from the deadly asbestos cancer mesothelioma watched as dozens of balloons soared heavenwards to launch a new support group today.Barrow Asbestos Related Disease Support (BARDS) will hold monthly sessions to help victims of asbestos-related diseases and their families. Dr Helen Clayson, clinical director of St Mary’s Hospice, has conducted a study into asbestos related diseases in Furness.Launching the group, she said: “Barrow has the highest incidence of mesothelioma in men in England per head of population, so it is the most risky place because of the shipyard.“We are looking forward to providing a comprehensive service for victims and relatives in the near future.”Today’s ceremony took place outside the new St Mary’s Hospice Day Centre in Hartington Street, which opens soon.

TAKING ACTION OVER CANCER

2006-03-10T10:12:00.000-05:00

A man dying from asbestos-related cancer was due to visit Downing Street today (MON) to raise awareness of the killer disease.Michael Wells, from Market Harborough, suffers from mesothelioma, a chest cancer which develops up to 40 years after exposure to asbestos. He was exposed to asbestos while working in the plumbing industry in the 1960s.The 54-year-old is among more than 13,000 people who have signed a petition organised by the British Lung Foundation to mark Action Mesothelioma Day today.Michael's wife, Christine, is travelling to London with him to present the petition.She said: "If you tell people about it, they don't know what it is and they have never heard of it."There is compensation, but you have to fight for it and you have to fight for everything that you get."If you mention breast cancer to people, it is something everybody knows about, but when you mention mesothelioma, nobody knows."The most annoying thing is, all this could have been avoided."Last week, the Leicester Mercury told how the disease was set to claim hundreds of lives in Leicestershire. Doctors at Glenfield Hospital, the national centre for treatment of the disease, treated seven Leicestershire people for mesothelioma in 1993.This year, they expect to treat more than 60.The British Lung Foundation campaign is being backed by asbestos support groups, individuals with mesothelioma, doctors and solicitors.The aim is to get better care and treatment, improved protection for employees and more funding for research.Donna Castle from the British Lung Foundation said: "Nobody can say it, nobody has ever heard of it and they don't know it is caused by asbestos."She said: "If you live in a house built before 1980, you could be exposed to asbestos."What we are concerned about is that if people who are not aware of the potential danger start doing DIY in their houses, they could expose themselves and get mesothelioma in 50 years. It is generally a poor prognosis once the diagnosis comes through."Jan Orton's husband Eric installed insulation throughout the 1960s, but only became ill more than 30 years later.He died, aged 71, in 2003.Mrs Orton, who lives off Aylestone Road, Leicester, said: "There must be no end of people affected by this disease."People were ignorant about how dangerous asbestos was."

Mesothelioma Search Engine To Consolidate Medical and Legal Information

2006-02-27T10:00:00.000-05:00

On the one-year anniversary of the launch of their Vioxx Search Engine, Nielsen Technical Services today announced the launch of their Mesothelioma Search Engine.Niche search engines or vertical search engines have increased in popularity, but the time and expense of creating and maintaining a search engine for a highly vertical segment of an available search audience is generally not a good investment financially. When asked about the financial viability of such a site, owner Chris Nielsen said, "We have some interested parties that would like to be associated with us and are exploring those options, but will not compromise our values for the sake of making a buck. The massive amount of money the asbestos and mesothelioma lawyers are spending have resulted in a feeding frenzy which has spawned thousands of sites and millions of pages of fluff, trash, and recycled content. I admit our site is expected to carry ads at some point, but that is not the reason for creating the site."Nielsen was then asked the reason for creating such a site. "I just could not find a central source to go for information where sites were not bidding or competitively optimizing for position and search engine ranking. Search engines are fighting to maintain relevancy but they are having problems. Many 'scraper sites' are only looking to get visitors that will click on ads to reach real content. If you try a search for 'mesothelioma' it should be clear what the problem is."As with their Vioxx medical and legal search engine, Mesothelioma Search Engine will carry no paid search engine results or paid inclusion of sites. The site has a form for visitors to suggest sites. The list of sites included in the index is posted on the site and available for download, a feature not offered by other search engines.The company is indexing selected sites for those looking for more information such as patients, researchers, families, doctors, pharmacists, students, and those in the legal profession. This site is offered as a public service for those looking for information related to medical and legal information on mesothelioma lung cancer, or asbestos lung cancer for which there is no cure and is caused by exposure to asbestos fibers or asbestos dust. About Nielsen Technical ServicesThe company is based in Minneapolis, Minnesota and has been providing computer and software services since 1988. The Internet has transformed the company from a hardware services company into Internet consulting and specializes in search engine optimization. The company is a founding member of SEOBy.org

Asbestos-tainted Montana town seeks aid

2006-02-27T09:51:00.000-05:00

In one sense, Les Skramstad is almost jealous of his late neighbor in Libby, Mont. At least that man's death from cancerous mesothelioma came quickly, he said. Skramstad is dying of asbestosis, which feels like slow, constant suffocation.
"It's pretty doggone painful," he said.
Also challenging, Skramstad said, is watching Congress struggle with legislation that could provide some compensation for all of those sickened by asbestos poisoning in the town of about 2,500 people.
Asbestos released into the air from the now-closed W.R. Grace and Co. vermiculite mine just down the road is blamed by some health authorities for killing about 200 people and sickening one of every eight residents. Skramstad worked at the mine in the late 1950s and early 1960s.
Last year, a federal grand jury indicted Grace and some of its executives, saying the company knew it was poisoning people. Grace denies criminal wrongdoing.
On Feb. 14, the bill creating a $140 billion trust fund for asbestos victims - with the money supplied largely by defendant companies and their insurers - stalled in Congress after some conservative senators feared the cost would eventually be passed on to taxpayers.
The legislation included a provision specifically for Libby residents that would pay those who can prove they have asbestos-related diseases up to $1.1 million each.
As Congress has stopped and started on the bill several times, Skramstad and others who are dying of asbestos poisoning say many in Washington don't understand Libby's plight.
Of the 150 people he worked with four decades ago, only five are alive, Skramstad said.
"It's going to kill us, every one of us," he said. "It's just a matter of time. ... This is a lot more serious than a lot of people realize."
The vermiculite mine provided material for various household products, fireproofing and insulation. It was the best job in town, keeping Libby residents employed for decades. But it also blew tremolite asbestos - a particularly hazardous form of the mineral - all over town.
The long, needlelike asbestos tremolite fibers can easily become embedded in human lungs and cause asbestosis, often fatal, or mesothelioma, a rare, fast-moving cancer that attacks the lining of the lungs.
Montana's two senators, Democrat Max Baucus and Republican Conrad Burns, have worked to convince the Senate about Libby's dire situation. But Baucus, who wrote the legislation, said some lawmakers can't visualize the problem - unlike more publicized tragedies like Hurricane Katrina that play out for television.
"Libby is off the beaten track and it's not as visible to the cameras, but the tragedy is just as bad if not worse because it lingers on for so long," Baucus said.
Some senators, including John Cornyn, R-Texas, object to the benefit because they believe it would be unfair to people elsewhere who may have been exposed to asbestos. That dissent threatens to kill the bill.
Most Libby residents publicly support the legislation but worry about what will happen if the provision is watered down to the point that it seriously diminishes help for those who are sick.
For example, Baucus and Burns have so far been unable to add medical criteria called the "diffusion capacity test," which measures the lungs' efficiency to pass oxygen into the bloodstream and helps diagnose victims of tremolite asbestos disease commonly found in Libby. Doctors there say 40 percent of those who are sick may not be found eligible without the test.
Burns said they have to work with other members to get the best legislation possible.
"I have people in Libby who are going to die before their case even gets to court," he said, adding that any court settlements probably wouldn't be enough.
For now, many residents are struggling with medical bills. Some have filed for bankruptcy because of the financial strain. In September, a health administrator for Grace, which operates under bankruptcy protection, wrote hundreds of Libby residents that they no longer have asbestos-related disease or may not be as sick as they thought.
Tanis Hernandez, outreach coordinator for Libby's Center for Asbestos Related Disease, said many of those who are sick can no longer work, further threatening their finances.
Hernandez, whose job includes helping sickened residents deal with legal problems and counseling dying patients, said the town has lost its innocence. Because Grace was the best employer in town, many people put their faith in the company to take care of them.
"Our trust has been damaged," she said.
What many people don't realize, she added, is that Libby's particular disease is different and requires a different solution.
"It's kind of an invisible disease," she said. "Unless you know someone really well, you might not know how sick they are."
As for Skramstad, his wife and two of his grown children have also been diagnosed with asbestos-related diseases, likely a result of the dust he brought home on his clothes and shoes every night. Because the diseases can take years to develop, he fears his other children will be next.
"I am in terror of it every day," he said. "It's a hard cross for me to carry around. I went to work there and I carried that stuff back to my wife and kids."
Skramstad's wife, Norita, said so many people are dying, some town residents are thinking of replacing a growing collection of makeshift crosses with a more permanent memorial.

Mesothelioma Search Engine to Consolidate Medical and Legal Information

2006-02-27T09:45:00.000-05:00

On the one-year anniversary of the launch of their Vioxx Search Engine (www.vioxx-search-engine.com), Nielsen Technical Services today announced the launch of their Mesothelioma Search Engine (www.mesothelioma-search-engine.com).Niche search engines or vertical search engines have increased in popularity, but the time and expense of creating and maintaining a search engine for a highly vertical segment of an available search audience is generally not a good investment financially. When asked about the financial viability of such a site, owner Chris Nielsen said, “We have some interested parties that would like to be associated with us and are exploring those options, but will not compromise our values for the sake of making a buck. The massive amount of money the asbestos and mesothelioma lawyers are spending have resulted in a feeding frenzy which has spawned thousands of sites and millions of pages of fluff, trash, and recycled content. I admit our site is expected to carry ads at some point, but that is not the reason for creating the site.”Nielsen was then asked the reason for creating such a site. “I just could not find a central source to go for information where sites were not bidding or competitively optimizing for position and search engine ranking. Search engines are fighting to maintain relevancy but they are having problems. Many ‘scraper sites’ are only looking to get visitors that will click on ads to reach real content. If you try a search for ‘mesothelioma’ it should be clear what the problem is.”As with their Vioxx medical and legal search engine, Mesothelioma Search Engine will carry no paid search engine results or paid inclusion of sites. The site has a form for visitors to suggest sites. The list of sites included in the index is posted on the site and available for download, a feature not offered by other search engines.The company is indexing selected sites for those looking for more information such as patients, researchers, families, doctors, pharmacists, students, and those in the legal profession. This site is offered as a public service for those looking for information related to medical and legal information on mesothelioma lung cancer, or asbestos lung cancer for which there is no cure and is caused by exposure to asbestos fibers or asbestos dust. About Nielsen Technical ServicesThe company is based in Minneapolis, Minnesota and has been providing computer and software services since 1988. The Internet has transformed the company from a hardware services company into Internet consulting and specializes in search engine optimization.

Bondex and Georgia Pacific begin defense in asbestos case

2006-02-27T09:43:00.000-05:00

Jeff HebrankWhen Georgia-Pacific and Bondex International get their chance to defend themselves in a Madison County asbestos trial next week they'll introduce some unusual evidence.A metacognition specialist is expected to testify that it is highly unlikely that a person can remember the brand name of a product used 40 years ago. And, a pulmonologist will state that in 80 percent of mesothelioma cases involving women, the cause is unknown. In the other cases, cause is attributed to working in a trade. In the court's first asbestos trial this year, 84-year-old plaintiff Anita O'Connell claims the defendants were negligent for injuries she received from asbestos fibers that became airborne while she shook out her husband's and sons' work clothes before washing them between 1966 and 1970. Michael O'Connell, Anita's son, testified that joint compound produced by Georgia Pacific and Bondex was responsible for causing his mother's illness.Michael O'Connell contradicted his mother's testimony when he stated that after a days work, his brothers would come home covered white as snowmen. In a deposition, Anita O'Connell stated that she didn't really think that there was much dust, and even if there was, she didn't think she breathed it.In court, Michael O'Connell stated that he would often see Georgia Pacific and Bondex joint compound in his father's shop. However, he admitted he also saw other products as well. Anita's husband, George O'Connell, owned Bel-Aire plastering in Burbank, Ill. -- an important aspect in the case because plasterers do not use joint compound, drywallers do. But due to the Lipke Rule, it is highly unlikely that presiding Circuit Judge Daniel Stack will let the defendants present evidence that there were many asbestos-containing plastering products that could be responsible for O'Connell's exposure.In the last week, O'Connell's attorney Chris Panatier of Baron & Budd in Texas has called on witnesses who've testitfied that all asbestos is dangerous. He is expected to deliver closing arguments on Monday.Panatier called former U.S. assistant surgeon general deputy director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Richard Lemen, Ph.D., to illustrate the difference between chrysotile asbestos and amphibole asbestos.Lemen also is the co-chair of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization's Science Advisory Board.Pathologist James Robb, M.D., who was an expert witness in a Louisiana case in which a jury awarded $12.8 million to a man who also has outlived the life expectancy of a person diagnosed with mesothelioma, also testified for the plaintiff.During opening statements, Georgia Pacific defense attorney Mark Phillips of Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough in South Carolina, asserted that short fiber chrysotile asbestos was used in its joint compound and it was purchased from companies like Johns Manville.Phillips told the jurors that chrysotile can be expelled from the body by coughing or sneezing while amphibole asbestos stays in the lungs.Jeff Hebrank of the Burroughs Firm in Edwardsville, lead attorney in the case for both companies, and Phillips, plan to call several experts.Gerald Kerby, M.D., board certified in internal medicine and pulmonary medicine, is expected to testify that short fiber chrysotile does not cause mesothelioma and that no joint compound could have caused the disease. He will also state that the cause of mesothelioma in most women is idiopathic, or unknown. Kerby will testify that if asbestos in joint compound caused mesothelioma, there would be an epidemic in mesothelioma cases due to the amount of people working in the drywall business decades ago.In May 2005, Kerby was a witness for Hebrank and Phillips in a separate asbestos trial in which Georgia Pacific was victorious. Hebrank and Phillips also are expected to call James Rock, Ph.D, who is a certified industrial hygienist from Texas A&M University. Rock is expected to testify that even if Anita O'Connell was exposed to asbestos in joint compound there was not enough to cause her illness.A human memory expert, Charles Weaver, III, Ph.D. from Baylor University, will testify about metamemory and metacognition, the relationship between what individuals know and what they believe they know.Weaver will state that it is unlikely that Michael O'Connell can remember the brand name of a product his father used 40 years ago.The case is expected to go to the jury late Wednesday or early Thursday.

Asbestos anguish

2006-02-24T11:48:00.000-05:00

Asbestos-related deaths in the North have reached a new five-year high, Daily Ireland can reveal.During 2004, the last year for which statistics are available, 65 people died of asbestosis and mesothelioma – the highest figure recorded since the late 1990s.The 2004 death toll represents a 15 per cent increase on asbestos-related deaths for the previous year, 2003, when 55 were recorded, and a 33 per cent increase on deaths for 2000, when 43 occurred.News of the sharp rise in asbestos-related deaths come as Belfast residents prepare to stage a mass protest next week outside the site of a proposed asbestos dump.Grove Services Group (GSG) wants to establish an asbestos storage plant on Kennedy Way in the west of the city, just yards from a large housing estate, nursery school and business park.The residents’ protest will take place next Wednesday.In sensitive company documentation obtained by Daily Ireland before Christmas, GSG admit that there is a high risk of residents living near the dump breathing in cancer-causing asbestos fibres.There is also a high risk of asbestos escaping from bags being transported to the dump, and a medium risk of the deadly dust escaping during manual handling by plant workers. Despite this, GSG’s plans for the site have won planning permission.The Department of the Environment (DOE) has also granted planning permission for the development of an asbestos dump at Crosshill Quarry, Co Antrim, despite bitter opposition from residents.At the end of 2004, residents of Killala, Co Mayo, held a protest march against the opening of a €10 million (£6.88 million) asbestos recycling plant in the area.With the asbestos issue set to come to the fore again this week, a Belfast solicitor who specialises in asbestos-related cases, spoke of the horrendous way in which victims die.Michael Hollywood of Higgins, Hollywood and Deazley, told Daily Ireland there is no safe level of exposure.He said: “Mesothelioma is an appalling condition and it is horrifying to watch someone die from this disease.“In many cases people can die within a few months of diagnosis, the misery visited upon victims of mesothelioma cannot be over-emphasised. There is no cure for the disease, you can only get treatment to try and reduce the pain.”

'Love cannot just stop'

2006-02-24T11:46:00.000-05:00

BLOOMFIELD HILLS - Mirella Panozzo vividly recalls the last few years of her husband's life.
She remembers sadly how Carl's 6-foot, 175-pound frame dwindled to just skin and bones and how cancer took his right lung and left him in excruciating pain just before his death Aug. 25, 2003. He died at age 62, three years after he was diagnosed with mesothelioma.
But the Bloomfield Hills woman says one thing never changed, even after his death.
"Love cannot just stop," she says.
"I remember, at the very beginning, someone told us there are many cases when cancer hits someone in the family - a husband or wife - there's a divorce because it's too much and one of them can't take it. With us, it was different.
"We got closer."
So, to honor her husband of 25 years this Valentine's Day, she's trying to make the public more aware of the cancer that claimed his life.
She said she's trying to raise money for mesothelioma research "and doesn't want people to be sad" about the suffering and loss of her husband.
"The sickness is what it is," she said.
Panozzo, mother of two adult sons, said she's also trying to inform the public that mesothelioma is caused by breathing in asbestos. She especially fears for the health of first responders after the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers in New York City who might face the same deadly fate as her husband.
"The government needs to focus on finding treatments and cures for mesothelioma," said Panozzo, whose husband worked at General Motors Corp.
"There are thousands and thousands of people we need to think about" in regard to getting the fatal illness, said Panozzo. "I want the government to recognize that.
"On Sept. 11, there was asbestos from those buildings in the air. Thousands were breathing that. Doctors need to hurry up and find a cure because many, many might die."
Panozzo said her husband worked as a carpenter at the Warren Tech Center and also at a GM facility in Framington, Mass.
She wants people to give on Valentine's Day, and not just to their sweethearts.
"I want people to have hope that this disease can be cured," she said. "Open your heart this Valentine's Day and donate" to the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation in Santa Barbara, Calif., so researchers can find treatments and a possible cure for the disease.
"There is hope," she said. "If you don't have hope, you die before you die.
"My husband had faith and hope in God until the last month. When the pain is so strong, you only want something that makes you not feel the pain."
She witnessed her husband's agony in his final days as pain-killing medication lost its effectiveness.
She also noted the cost of being seriously ill.
"If you don't have good insurance, you're talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars" in medical bills.
When her husband was diagnosed, she said the doctor told them "to go home and enjoy life until you die."
Now, she said, they're finding out there is hope. She said a drug, Alimta, gave her husband a few extra months.
"Those were pretty good times," she said.
Panozzo remembers the day in August 2003 when there was a power outage and the machine that helped provide Carl with oxygen quit working.
"I called the Karmanos Center to get help," she said, "but it was impossible (for them) to do anything because they had so many others to help.
"On very short notice, however, all the neighbors came down to our home. One had a generator and brought it here. We needed gasoline to run it. Then my son said, 'Mom, Mom, look out the window' and all the neighbors were walking toward our house with gallons of gasoline so my husband could breathe.
"I will never forget that. So now, I'm trying to get people to donate for research so this deadly disease will be cured."

JustMeso.com offers a plethora of information on treatment options for mesothelioma.

2006-02-24T11:45:00.000-05:00

Mesothelioma, the deadly disease that has been at the forefront of global medical and legal research for the last decade, is becoming increasingly susceptible to advanced treatment options. While the disease is not yet curable, if caught very early there are a wide range of rather divergent medical treatment options which have had substantial success in limiting the harmful effects of malignant mesothelioma.While there are a number of treatment options available, often there is a great deal of unknown information regarding what the procedures available are and how they work. To that end, JustMeso.com ( http://www.JustMeso.com ) has provided comprehensive information about the disease, its causes, and now the treatment options available to those diagnosed at its website.The site explains in great detail the many traditional and new treatments available to those diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, such as surgical solutions, radiation, and chemotherapy. JustMeso.com breaks down each category into its component procedures as well as providing information on the extent of a procedure, its level of invasiveness, as well as an analysis of the costs and benefits of each specific procedure. This analysis includes summaries of information on the effectiveness and the scope of the effectiveness of a particular treatment option. Combined, the information compiled by JustMeso.com in their treatment options section ( http://www.justmeso.com/treatment/ ), provides those diagnosed as well as their loved ones with a comprehensive resource from which they can attain a deeper understanding of the diseases as well as assess either own situation in light of the present treatment options available. This information can prove valuable insofar as it will give individuals an excellent overview of the options available to them. Through this information, individuals affected by mesothelioma can make more educated decisions about their own situation as well as be better situated to provide support for others. Of course, none of the information on JustMeso should be taken as medical advice, and a person should always consult their physician before taking treatment.JustMeso.com ( http://www.JustMeso.com ) is based in the United States. It was created with the intent of providing a single resource for individuals seeking information about malignant mesothelioma. If you have questions regarding information in this press release contact the company listed below. I-Newswire.com is a press release service and not the author of this press release. The information that is on or available through this site is for informational purposes only and speaks only as of the particular date or dates of that information. As some companies / PR Agencies submit their press releases once per week/month or quarter, make sure check the official company website for accurate release dates as our site displays the I-Newswire.com distribution date only. We do not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of information on or available through this site, and we are not responsible for inaccuracies or omissions in that information or for actions taken in reliance on that information.

Asbestos Settlement Blocked in Senate

2006-02-24T11:44:00.000-05:00

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--Legislation to create a $140 billion industry-funded asbestos-injury trust fund was sent back to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday evening after proponents failed to muster the 60 votes they needed to overcome a procedural hurdle.
The bill's proponents say the defeat was only temporary. The one senator to miss the vote is on their side. And Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., already is considering bringing the bill back to the Senate floor.
But even if Frist wins the vote the second time around, further hurdles remain, and senators who may have backed him on the procedural vote may oppose him as the measure gets closer to passage from the Senate floor.
The twist is just the latest for a bill long since thought dead that simply refuses to die.
The measure would create a trust funded by contributions from companies with asbestos injury liabilities and their insurers. The trust would also seize the assets of private asbestos injury trusts. Workers with asbestos-related injuries would be paid set amounts depending on the severity of their injuries, up to $1.1 million for victims suffering from mesothelioma. In exchange for funding the trust, business and their insurers would be excused from any future liability for any asbestos-related injury claim.
Most Democrats and many Republicans oppose the bill, but the author, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., simply refuses to quit.
The vote Tuesday was on waiving certain budget rules to allow the bill to progress. Specter needed the OK of 60 of 100 senators, a tough sell on a controversial bill.
The outcome was uncertain to the end, teetering at 59 to 40 for minutes as senators waited to see how Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, would vote.
But Inouye, who was home tending to his sick wife, never arrived.
Frist eventually changed his vote, bringing the final tally to 58 to 41 and maintaining a lifeline for the measure.
Under Senate rules, a senator voting on the side that prevails - in this case the side asking that budget rules not be waived - can ask that the vote be reconsidered.
Specter said later that Inouye had said he would have voted to waive the budget rules, giving the bill the 60 votes it would need to survive another day.
"As John Paul Jones said, 'we have just begun to fight'," Specter said.
Lobbyists from all interests watched the bill's progress nervously all day.
The bill's demise would be a huge financial loss to dozens of companies with asbestos liabilities such as Owens Corning (OWC), USG Corp. (USG), and W.R. Grace & Co. (GRA).
According to the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, 10 asbestos companies including Owens Corning, USG, and W.R. Grace would have see their future liabilities fall from an estimated $25.9 billion to $5.6 billion under the legislation.
Another eight companies - Fortune 500 businesses that used asbestos in their production - were also expected to reap substantial savings under the bill, according to Public Citizen.
These companies include Dow Chemical Co. (DOW) - which faces asbestos claims through its wholly owned subsidiary Union Carbide - General Electric Co. (GE), Ford Motor Co. (F), General Motors Corp. (GM), Georgia-Pacific Corp. (GP), Honeywell International Inc. (HON), Pfizer Inc. (PFE) and Viacom Inc. (VIA), according to Public Citizen.
Honeywell International faces asbestos liabilities through its former brick and cement-making unit, the North American Refractories Co. Pfizer faces asbestos liabilities through its subsidiary Quigley Co., while Viacom bought into the asbestos issue by purchasing CBS, which in turn owned Westinghouse.
A specific list of who would have won and by how much is impossible to write, said Public Citizen legislative council Jillian Aldebron, because the bill's sponsors refused to release a confidential list of companies with potential asbestos liabilities.
Those benefitting from defeat of the bill would include small and mid-sized companies that would have seen their asbestos liabilities increase, and defendant company insurers.
Asbestos is a mineral used in flame-resistant insulation in the automotive, construction and defense industries. It has been linked to a number of lung diseases, including a particularly virulent form of lung cancer, mesothelioma.
More than 730,000 people in the United States filed compensation claims for asbestos-related injuries from the early 1970s through the end of 2002, according to the RAND Corp. Those claims have cost businesses and their insurers more than $70 billion. About 40% of that money has gone to asbestos victims, while defendant and plaintiff legal expenses consumed roughly equal halves of the remainder.
Claims on the fund are expected to come quickly, while the bulk of contributions to the fund would be paid gradually over years. As a result, the fund would need to borrow from the federal government to remain solvent, and therefore was vulnerable to certain budget rules.
"People think this is some technical jargon," said Sen. John Ensign, R-Ariz. But the budget rules were put in place "to make sure that the Senate carefully weigh whether or not we are putting undue burdens and obligations on future Congresses and generations of Americans."
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said Ensign and others were "using the mantle of fiscal responsibility as an excuse not to legislate."
The bill states that the trust fund's manager couldn't borrow more than could be paid back and that over the fund's lifetime all money borrowed, plus interest, would be repaid.
Bill co-author Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., told fellow senators that by voting against the bill, "you are telling thousands upon thousands of victims 'You are on your own and probably have no chance of recovering the recovery you'd have here (under the bill).'"
Public Citizen's Aldebron said the bill's defeat "means that asbestos victims will get their day in court."
Employees injured by asbestos exposure can still sue for damages as could consumers, residents near asbestos operations and others who would have been precluded from making any claims under the bill, Aldebron said.

Lessons in Japan's Asbestosis Time Bomb

2006-02-24T11:42:00.000-05:00

TOKYO , Feb 15 (IPS) - As a child, Yoshiharu Sawada, now 77 years old, would visit his mother at the local asbestos factory where she worked and wait till she finished her shift so they could walk home together. But, today, says Sawada, a frail, soft-spoken man, those happy memories have turned into a terribly tragedy. Sawada was diagnosed with pleurisy ten years ago and suffers horribly from long bouts of coughing that leave him numbed with pain. ''I never realised those happy days had actually laid the foundation for my disease because nobody told us that asbestos is deadly,'' he explained to IPS. Sawada, whose mother died of a lung disease 17 years ago, can hardly breathe and was forced to give up his occupation as a shopkeeper. He relies on heavy and costly medication and a small pension that barely covers his living expenses. Several times over the past few years, he has been hospitalised for procedures to remove water in his lungs, a condition doctors say could be related to the intake of deadly asbestos particles that he was exposed to as a child. Prolonged exposure to asbestos dust often results in a condition, broadly known as asbestosis, in which victims suffer from shortness of breath and become prone to several forms of lung disease including pleurisy and lung cancer--especially of a specific type called mesothelioma. ‘'I remember how the factory where my mother worked was full of asbestos particles. I could hardly see her working because the air was so thick with white asbestos dust,'' he explains in his little home in Kumamoto, 1,200 km west of Tokyo. Asbestos, a material once hailed as a wonder substance because of its cheapness and its resistance to fire and heat, has been used as a raw material in over 3,000 products according to some experts here. But, Japan's unregulated use of asbestos in the seventies and eighties is now being linked to thousands of deaths and cancer cases among middle-aged workers who had been exposed to the deadly ‘mineral fibre' in their factories or in buildings. Says Hiroyuki Kawamoto, director of the Kanagawa Asbestos Centre: ''The latest asbestos scandal has shocked the public because it shows once again, how the government's priority was protecting the health of corporations over the health of the people. There are now more than 200 people who seek our assistance here for compensation''. Indeed, investigations have squarely blamed the government and shown that despite international medical evidence in the seventies that proved the connection between asbestos -- a form of stone -- and lung cancer, the health ministry did nothing to stop its usage in Japan. As a result, almost 800 deaths attributed to mesothelioma were reported among middle-aged workers in 2003 -- a figure that activists say is only the beginning because asbestos is " a silent time bomb" given the long years it takes for the disease to develop after exposure. The scandal forced the government to pass a special compensation package with asbestos companies for sufferers and victims last month. Payments also include around 1,000 US dollars per month for people, an amount that is that is less than half of regular workers' compensation. But the package does not cover people like Sawada who do not have mesothelioma or have not worked with asbestos directly. This is a situation that is being challenged by activists who see the new law as an attempt by the government to avoid accepting blame. Prof. Ken Takahashi, at the University of Occupational and Environmental Health in KitaKyushu, predicts an asbestos related epidemic in Japan as workers begin to grow old and start falling ill. He estimates that around 2,440 people a year will die of mesothelioma between 2035 and 2039. ''The compensation law was quickly passed to deal with an emerging grave problem in Japan,'' he says, pointing out it was an important landmark in the fight to force the government to take responsibility, despite the lack of concrete support. With backing from the International Labour Organisation, experts and activists have joined hands with sufferers to demand better protection standards which they say is important not only for Japan but also for most countries in Asia where asbestos is yet to be banned. Takahashi, a participant in the Global Asbestos Congress 2004, points out that the threat is large given the relentless pursuit of market economy expansion in developing Asia and that Japan provides important lessons for many governments. ''The tragedy in Japan acts as a crucial example for Asia. It's best to limit the usage of asbestos in countries that have still not banned the product. Japan can also help with better health check systems in Asia,'' said Takahashi, indicating how smaller asbestos companies in Japan have gone bankrupt from paying out workers' compensations. (END/2006)

Getting aid to asbestos victims / Govt has tough row to plow in identifying diseases to blame

2006-02-24T11:41:00.000-05:00

Makoto Mitsui Yomiuri Shimbun Staff Writer
Following the enactment earlier this month of a law that provides financial support for victims of asbestos-linked diseases, the government now needs to establish standards to identify those eligible for financial aid.
The law provides for compensation for people who contracted such diseases while living near factories using asbestos, and for family members of employees at such factories, who are not covered by workers compensation. The government also will give 3 million yen in condolence money to the families of those who died of asbestos-linked diseases. In addition, victims of such diseases will have their medical bills covered and be entitled to benefits of 100,000 yen per month.
The government aims to establish the standards by the end of next month, and start accepting applications for compensation. However, it is unclear whether the system will provide compensation for all sufferers of asbestos-linked diseases.
Before establishing official recognition standards, a committee established by the Environment Ministry and the Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry drew up a list of medical criteria on Feb. 2. According to the criteria, mesothelioma sufferers will be eligible for relief, as more than 90 percent of mesothelioma patients are thought to have contracted the disease through exposure to asbestos.
But when it comes to lung cancer patients, it is much harder to make a decision. Out of the 60,000 people who die of lung cancer annually, only 1 percent to 3 percent of deaths are believed caused by asbestos. Identifying such cases is difficult because many other factors, such as smoking, can cause lung cancer.
The committee concluded that lung cancer cases in which the pleura, or membrane, was partially thickened and the lung tissues had become hardened could be considered as asbestos-induced.
However, a member of the committee said, "There are cases when hardened lung tissue is not obvious, even when the disease occurred from asbestos," which indicates that the committee's standards could fail to cover all victims. But relaxing the standards would be expensive, as it would throw open the gates to people who contracted lung cancer from causes other than asbestos.
The government has a hard task ahead of it in ensuring that all victims of asbestos-linked diseases get compensation, while at the same time ensuring that those not entitled to compensation are excluded.
One committee member, Prof. Koki Inai of Hiroshima University, said, "When it's hard to tell whether the lung tissue is hardened or not, it's important to be flexible and take into consideration whether the patient had lived in an environment with asbestos exposure."
Initially, the only victims likely to be covered under the new law are those with mesothelial tumors or lung cancer. Those with asbestos-induced pleural effusion are covered by workers' compensation and are not subject to the new law.
An Environment Ministry official explained, "There are no reports of asbestos-induced pleural effusion in general environments unless a person has been exposed to asbestos at work."
But some experts disagree with this statement. One said: "We can't tell if there are patients with asbestos-induced pleural effusion in a general environment. Perhaps we should do detailed research around asbestos-related factories, such as in Amagasaki in Hyogo Prefecture."
Without checking a person's work history, it is hard to say whether he or she is suffering from an asbestos-induced disease. If the government is to add undocumented patients to the list of beneficiaries, it will face difficulties in developing the standards.
Organizations of asbestos victims had claimed that the new relief plan is less favorable to victims compared to industrial accident compensation, which includes benefits for missed work or pensions for bereaved family members.
It is, however, a step forward in providing compensation to people who lived near factories using asbestos or families of these factory workers, considering that until now such people were not eligible for benefits.
The government must make a thorough investigation into industry-related diseases, including lung cancer, with the aim of identifying and providing to cover all victims of asbestos-linked diseases.
===
Number of victims unknown
Asbestos-related diseases became a big issue in June after it was disclosed that people who lived near a factory operated by machinery manufacturer Kubota Corp. in Amagasaki had mesothelioma. Following the revelation, it was learned that people living near asbestos-related factories in Saga and Nara prefectures also had the disease.
However, the disease seems limited to people living near such factories, as there have not been many reports of people living in other environments contracting asbestos-linked disease.
Of mesothelioma sufferers, 70 percent to 80 percent of them contracted the disease from exposure to asbestos at work. However, only 10 percent of them are recognized as victims of occupational accidents.
Prof. Iwao Uchiyama of Kyoto University Graduate School said, "We need to find out how many people contracted the disease in a general environment, by looking at the result of epidemiologic investigations conducted by the government."
It takes 30 to 40 years after exposure to asbestos until the symptoms of a mesothelial tumor become noticeable. This means that those who inhaled asbestos in the early 1970s will now present symptoms of asbestos-related diseases.
Imports of asbestos peaked around the 1970s, but in 1975 the government started to take preventive measures, such as banning the use of sprayed asbestos.
It is unknown how many people will develop asbestos-related diseases. An Environment Ministry official said, "The number of future patients depends on how effective the preventive measures were."

JustMeso.com offers a plethora of information on treatment options for mesothelioma.

2006-02-17T09:31:00.000-05:00

(I-Newswire) - Mesothelioma, the deadly disease that has been at the forefront of global medical and legal research for the last decade, is becoming increasingly susceptible to advanced treatment options. While the disease is not yet curable, if caught very early there are a wide range of rather divergent medical treatment options which have had substantial success in limiting the harmful effects of malignant mesothelioma.While there are a number of treatment options available, often there is a great deal of unknown information regarding what the procedures available are and how they work. To that end, JustMeso.com ( http://www.JustMeso.com ) has provided comprehensive information about the disease, its causes, and now the treatment options available to those diagnosed at its website.The site explains in great detail the many traditional and new treatments available to those diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, such as surgical solutions, radiation, and chemotherapy. JustMeso.com breaks down each category into its component procedures as well as providing information on the extent of a procedure, its level of invasiveness, as well as an analysis of the costs and benefits of each specific procedure. This analysis includes summaries of information on the effectiveness and the scope of the effectiveness of a particular treatment option. Combined, the information compiled by JustMeso.com in their treatment options section ( http://www.justmeso.com/treatment/ ), provides those diagnosed as well as their loved ones with a comprehensive resource from which they can attain a deeper understanding of the diseases as well as assess either own situation in light of the present treatment options available. This information can prove valuable insofar as it will give individuals an excellent overview of the options available to them. Through this information, individuals affected by mesothelioma can make more educated decisions about their own situation as well as be better situated to provide support for others. Of course, none of the information on JustMeso should be taken as medical advice, and a person should always consult their physician before taking treatment.JustMeso.com ( http://www.JustMeso.com ) is based in the United States. It was created with the intent of providing a single resource for individuals seeking information about malignant mesothelioma.

Asbestos Settlement Blocked in Senate

2006-02-17T09:30:00.000-05:00

Lessons in Japan's Asbestosis Time Bomb

2006-02-17T09:29:00.001-05:00

Getting aid to asbestos victims / Govt has tough row to plow in identifying diseases to blame

2006-02-17T09:29:00.000-05:00

Please provide any information you think may be helpful to mesothelioma victimd and their familiesMakoto Mitsui Yomiuri Shimbun Staff Writer
Following the enactment earlier this month of a law that provides financial support for victims of asbestos-linked diseases, the government now needs to establish standards to identify those eligible for financial aid.
The law provides for compensation for people who contracted such diseases while living near factories using asbestos, and for family members of employees at such factories, who are not covered by workers compensation. The government also will give 3 million yen in condolence money to the families of those who died of asbestos-linked diseases. In addition, victims of such diseases will have their medical bills covered and be entitled to benefits of 100,000 yen per month.
The government aims to establish the standards by the end of next month, and start accepting applications for compensation. However, it is unclear whether the system will provide compensation for all sufferers of asbestos-linked diseases.
Before establishing official recognition standards, a committee established by the Environment Ministry and the Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry drew up a list of medical criteria on Feb. 2. According to the criteria, mesothelioma sufferers will be eligible for relief, as more than 90 percent of mesothelioma patients are thought to have contracted the disease through exposure to asbestos.
But when it comes to lung cancer patients, it is much harder to make a decision. Out of the 60,000 people who die of lung cancer annually, only 1 percent to 3 percent of deaths are believed caused by asbestos. Identifying such cases is difficult because many other factors, such as smoking, can cause lung cancer.
The committee concluded that lung cancer cases in which the pleura, or membrane, was partially thickened and the lung tissues had become hardened could be considered as asbestos-induced.
However, a member of the committee said, "There are cases when hardened lung tissue is not obvious, even when the disease occurred from asbestos," which indicates that the committee's standards could fail to cover all victims. But relaxing the standards would be expensive, as it would throw open the gates to people who contracted lung cancer from causes other than asbestos.
The government has a hard task ahead of it in ensuring that all victims of asbestos-linked diseases get compensation, while at the same time ensuring that those not entitled to compensation are excluded.
One committee member, Prof. Koki Inai of Hiroshima University, said, "When it's hard to tell whether the lung tissue is hardened or not, it's important to be flexible and take into consideration whether the patient had lived in an environment with asbestos exposure."
Initially, the only victims likely to be covered under the new law are those with mesothelial tumors or lung cancer. Those with asbestos-induced pleural effusion are covered by workers' compensation and are not subject to the new law.
An Environment Ministry official explained, "There are no reports of asbestos-induced pleural effusion in general environments unless a person has been exposed to asbestos at work."
But some experts disagree with this statement. One said: "We can't tell if there are patients with asbestos-induced pleural effusion in a general environment. Perhaps we should do detailed research around asbestos-related factories, such as in Amagasaki in Hyogo Prefecture."
Without checking a person's work history, it is hard to say whether he or she is suffering from an asbestos-induced disease. If the government is to add undocumented patients to the list of beneficiaries, it will face difficulties in developing the standards.
Organizations of asbestos victims had claimed that the new relief plan is less favorable to victims compared to industrial accident compensation, which includes benefits for missed work or pensions for bereaved family members.
It is, however, a step forward in providing compensation to people who lived near factories using asbestos or families of these factory workers, considering that until now such people were not eligible for benefits.
The government must make a thorough investigation into industry-related diseases, including lung cancer, with the aim of identifying and providing to cover all victims of asbestos-linked diseases.
===
Number of victims unknown
Asbestos-related diseases became a big issue in June after it was disclosed that people who lived near a factory operated by machinery manufacturer Kubota Corp. in Amagasaki had mesothelioma. Following the revelation, it was learned that people living near asbestos-related factories in Saga and Nara prefectures also had the disease.
However, the disease seems limited to people living near such factories, as there have not been many reports of people living in other environments contracting asbestos-linked disease.
Of mesothelioma sufferers, 70 percent to 80 percent of them contracted the disease from exposure to asbestos at work. However, only 10 percent of them are recognized as victims of occupational accidents.
Prof. Iwao Uchiyama of Kyoto University Graduate School said, "We need to find out how many people contracted the disease in a general environment, by looking at the result of epidemiologic investigations conducted by the government."
It takes 30 to 40 years after exposure to asbestos until the symptoms of a mesothelial tumor become noticeable. This means that those who inhaled asbestos in the early 1970s will now present symptoms of asbestos-related diseases.
Imports of asbestos peaked around the 1970s, but in 1975 the government started to take preventive measures, such as banning the use of sprayed asbestos.
It is unknown how many people will develop asbestos-related diseases. An Environment Ministry official said, "The number of future patients depends on how effective the preventive measures were."

Asbestos anguish

2006-02-13T09:13:00.000-05:00

'Love cannot just stop'

2006-02-13T09:12:00.000-05:00

Mirella Panozzo vividly recalls the last few years of her husband's life.
Advertisement
");
//-->
She remembers sadly how Carl's 6-foot, 175-pound frame dwindled to just skin and bones and how cancer took his right lung and left him in excruciating pain just before his death Aug. 25, 2003. He died at age 62, three years after he was diagnosed with mesothelioma.
But the Bloomfield Hills woman says one thing never changed, even after his death.
"Love cannot just stop," she says.
"I remember, at the very beginning, someone told us there are many cases when cancer hits someone in the family - a husband or wife - there's a divorce because it's too much and one of them can't take it. With us, it was different.
"We got closer."
So, to honor her husband of 25 years this Valentine's Day, she's trying to make the public more aware of the cancer that claimed his life.
She said she's trying to raise money for mesothelioma research "and doesn't want people to be sad" about the suffering and loss of her husband.
"The sickness is what it is," she said.
Panozzo, mother of two adult sons, said she's also trying to inform the public that mesothelioma is caused by breathing in asbestos. She especially fears for the health of first responders after the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers in New York City who might face the same deadly fate as her husband.
"The government needs to focus on finding treatments and cures for mesothelioma," said Panozzo, whose husband worked at General Motors Corp.
"There are thousands and thousands of people we need to think about" in regard to getting the fatal illness, said Panozzo. "I want the government to recognize that.
"On Sept. 11, there was asbestos from those buildings in the air. Thousands were breathing that. Doctors need to hurry up and find a cure because many, many might die."
Panozzo said her husband worked as a carpenter at the Warren Tech Center and also at a GM facility in Framington, Mass.
She wants people to give on Valentine's Day, and not just to their sweethearts.
"I want people to have hope that this disease can be cured," she said. "Open your heart this Valentine's Day and donate" to the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation in Santa Barbara, Calif., so researchers can find treatments and a possible cure for the disease.
"There is hope," she said. "If you don't have hope, you die before you die.
"My husband had faith and hope in God until the last month. When the pain is so strong, you only want something that makes you not feel the pain."
She witnessed her husband's agony in his final days as pain-killing medication lost its effectiveness.
She also noted the cost of being seriously ill.
"If you don't have good insurance, you're talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars" in medical bills.
When her husband was diagnosed, she said the doctor told them "to go home and enjoy life until you die."
Now, she said, they're finding out there is hope. She said a drug, Alimta, gave her husband a few extra months.
"Those were pretty good times," she said.
Panozzo remembers the day in August 2003 when there was a power outage and the machine that helped provide Carl with oxygen quit working.
"I called the Karmanos Center to get help," she said, "but it was impossible (for them) to do anything because they had so many others to help.
"On very short notice, however, all the neighbors came down to our home. One had a generator and brought it here. We needed gasoline to run it. Then my son said, 'Mom, Mom, look out the window' and all the neighbors were walking toward our house with gallons of gasoline so my husband could breathe.
"I will never forget that. So now, I'm trying to get people to donate for research so this deadly disease will be cured."

Victims oppose asbestos bill

2006-02-10T09:24:00.000-05:00

Colorado asbestos victims and their families on Tuesday called on U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar to vote against an asbestos compensation bill, calling it a "bailout" for major corporations.
The bill, which Congress could vote on as early as today, calls for creation of a $140 billion fund to compensate victims of asbestos-related illnesses. The trust fund would be financed by asbestos companies and managed by an administrator housed at the U.S. Department of Labor.
Critics contend the trust fund is less than what's needed to compensate all current and future victims, while releasing companies that use asbestos from accountability.
Supporters, on the other hand, have said the measure will eliminate lengthy and costly court litigation, while ensuring that money goes directly to victims.
Salazar, a Colorado Democrat, has not said how he will vote on the legislation but expressed strong concerns Tuesday, saying it could set up a system that "has the potential to bust the federal treasury."
"Our commitment to fiscal discipline should not simply be rhetorical," Salazar said in a news release. "While I believe we need a federal solution to this issue, I will not support a program that has the high potential of bankrupting our government any further."
Asbestos is a group of silicate minerals used in many industrial processes.
Asbestos fibers, which easily are inhaled, can cause numerous health problems, including a fatal and incurable cancer called mesothelioma. Asbestos fibers also can attack the lungs without causing cancer.
Deanie Pate, of Denver, said her 65-year-old father, who worked in a steel mill and in the construction industry for more than 38 years, was diagnosed with mesothelioma in November 2004. Doctors told her family he had three to six months to live.
"He's lost 60 pounds. I can easily pick him up," Pate said, adding that doctors advised him to get a lung and his diaphragm removed to prolong his life.
His health, however, continues to diminish, she said. Two weeks ago, he suffered a heart attack.
"He was such a healthy man. Now, they've told us to call a hospice in less than six months."
The asbestos compensation bill does not guarantee a just compensation to the large number of people who have been affected by asbestos or those who will be affected in the future, said Bill Vandenberg, program director for the Colorado Progressive Coalition.
In Colorado, some 75 percent of school buildings have asbestos, he said.
According to EWG Action Fund, an environmental working group, more than 80,000 tons of ore have been transported from Montana to plants in Denver where attic insulation and other products that create asbestos-contaminated dusts were produced.
The passage of the bill "will hurt real people," Vandenberg said.
U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard, a Colorado Republican, backs the bill.
Supporters say passage of the bill will create a trust fund that will allow for timely payments to those who need the money most - victims, not their lawyers.
"Although the bill under consideration in the Senate is not perfect, it is a welcome step toward addressing the broken system that has been sabotaged by fraudulent claims and plagued by lengthy delays and outrageous lawyers' fees," Allard said in a statement.
According to a 2005 RAND Institute for Civil Justice study, claimants have received about 42 percent of awards in asbestos litigation; the rest has gone to lawsuit costs and attorneys' fees.
Carolyn Benton, of Greeley, who lost her husband to an illness that has no known cause other than asbestos, said the issue is not money, but holding companies accountable.
"Last week it was my husband. Next week it could be your family member," she said with a quivering voice as other asbestos victims held handmade signs that read: "Salazar stand with Coloradans, not Corporations."
About a dozen people representing a variety of organizations, including the Sierra Club and AFL-CIO, attended the rally.

mesothelioma-attorney-case.com endorses kennedy statement on asbestos legislation.

2006-02-10T09:23:00.000-05:00

Senator Edward Kennedy issued a key statement regarding Bill S.852 the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2005. Kennedy's statements coincide with our previous opinion regarding the pending bill.The real crisis regarding asbestos exposure in the workplace is not potential litigation but the number of victims who contract the deadly disease Mesothelioma.Supporters of the bill propose to set up a $140 billion dollar asbestos compensation fund, but it is doubtful if even an all out effort this week will bring the bill to a vote on the floor of the US Senate. As Kennedy states victims suing the companies who exposed their loved ones to this disease did not create the costs. The costs, which include lost productivity, medical, care, along with payments to provide basic living needs for family members who died years before their time.A shifting of financial burden to the victims and their families is, according to Kennedy unacceptable. Kennedy recognizes the efforts by Senators Specter and Leahy who are in favor of passage of the bill. That said it has several fundamental flaws, which make it an unreasonable solution to the pending crisis. Kennedy states our first obligation is to do no harm. Argument that there are certain inadequacies regarding how current asbestos litigation is handled should not be the major thrust toward passage of this bill.Government intervention is the concern voiced across the nation by potential victims of this deadly disease. If the fund were to liquidate over time all potential damages would be in question. What rights would victims have in a legal setting to seek compensation from the offending companies?Individuals concerned about their risks of legal passage of Bill S.852 can use the www.mesothelioma-attorney-case.comLegal Information page ( http://www.mesothelioma-attorney-case.com/legalissues.html ) to better understand the ramifications of the legal act. To gain more knowledge regarding the use of asbestos and the contraction of the disease see our research of Asbestos page ( http://www.mesothelioma-attorney-case.com/research.html ). www.mesothelioma-attorney-case.com is based in the United States. Visit http://www.mesothelioma-attorney-case.com to learn more.

Mesothelioma Medical Experts Oppose Asbestos Trust Fund, Saying FAIR Act Hurts More than Helps

2006-02-10T09:22:00.000-05:00

The Doctor-Patient Alliance forResponsible Asbestos Policy today repeated its call on the U.S. Senate to curefatal flaws in the proposed Asbestos Trust Fund bill (SB 852). Last July, the nationwide group of 34 doctors who treat mesotheliomapatients urged the U.S. Senate to remove the "one-size-fits-all" cap on awardsand install a due process hearing, at which patients could prove their specialmedical and financial hardship damages and have their award tailoredaccordingly. The claims review system would be modeled after the 9/11 VictimsCompensation Fund. In addition, the Doctor-Patient Alliance asked for assurances that dyingmesothelioma patients would be fairly compensated during their shortened lifespan. The detailed letter was sent to all 100 U.S. Senators. "We are disappointed that our suggestions were ignored," said Dr. HarveyPass, Chief of Thoracic Surgery at New York University Medical School. "Thisbill presented an historic opportunity to enact legitimate reforms that woulddirectly benefit present and future meso patients. Regrettably, the billactually hurts more than helps meso patients." "The $1.1 million cap is insufficient to meet the medical, hospital,travel, lodging and other costs of mesothelioma patients who pursue the besttreatments, which include surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, or a combinationof therapies," said Dr. Robert Cameron, Chief of Thoracic Surgery at UCLAMedical School. "The inflexible cap fails to address the ongoing medical costsof patients who survive long enough to outlive the median survival time butwho remain disabled and unable to earn a living. The bill ends updiscriminating against the early stage, usually younger, patients whose life-long medical costs are certain to exceed their award. "Mesothelioma must be treated as a chronic disease that requires alifetime of care and treatment," said Dr. Cameron. "The costs of stayingalive will far surpass the bill's arbitrary cap. Worse, some patients maydecide against expensive novel treatments to stockpile the meager'compensation' for their family." In addition, the Alliance argues that any awards should be made while themoney can be effectively invested in life-extending cures. "I doubt very muchthat the new bureaucracy will be up and running within my life time," predictsDr. Bret Williams, age 52, a two year meso survivor who has incurred over$600,000 in medical bills. "It will take at least two years for the newfederal agency to start paying out claims, while the median survival formesothelioma patients is about nine months." Dr. Williams, who has resolved his third-party civil claim, noted thatmost states have laws that allow in extremis meso patients to obtainpreferential trial settings. For example, in Colorado and California, courtsare required to set hardship meso cases for trial within 120 days. "I don'tbuy the rhetoric that an untested, under funded and at this point non-existentfederal agency will pay out fair compensation faster than the court system,"said Dr. Williams. The Doctor-Patient Alliance has concerns that the bill will undulyrestrict access to the Fund based on industry-friendly exposure criteria. "TheBill provides only for those with prolonged, occupational exposure. Itexcludes those with neighborhood exposure, or exposure only in schools orhomes or while doing 'shade tree mechanic' work. It completely knocks out thefirst responders to the World Trade Center collapse," said Dr. Williams. "My family would not have been compensated under the Trust Fund, since Iwas exposed while doing sporadic home repairs and while working withvermiculite potting soil," noted Dr. Williams. "The U.S. Senate should correct these serious flaws or start over," saidDr. Pass. "Our government must do better when it comes to federal compensationinitiatives. Recent studies of similar programs, like the Black Lung fund,make me skeptical that the asbestos trust fund will work. The motives may havebeen noble, but every federal compensation program to date has been marred bymuch higher costs, more claims than predicted, serious delays in meeting thedemand and long intervals between the date the bill became law and the day thegovernment started writing checks." "I have a message for Dr. Frist," said Dr. Williams. "We belong to aprivileged profession. Years ago, we dedicated ourselves to healing the sick,to caring for people from all occupations. It's been said that politics is'medicine on a grand scale.' The principles guiding patient care should informyour decisions today. Let's ban asbestos. Let's fund research on effectivetreatments to stave off the asbestos health crisis. But let's not bail outindustry at the expense of victims. Dr. Frist, do no harm." For more information, see http://www.drpatientalliance.org .

Battle over asbestos lawsuit bill heats up

2006-02-10T09:20:00.000-05:00

Backers of legislation to end the nation's flood of asbestos injury suits call it a desperately needed cure to a broken court system that is bankrupting businesses and getting too little money to the truly ill.
But opponents say the bill is nothing more than a "corporate bailout" that would save defendant companies tens of billions of dollars and leave thousands of sick people empty-handed.
Lobbying and shrill rhetoric have intensified on both sides of the controversial proposal with the bill due to come up on the Senate floor beginning this week for as much as two weeks of debate. The measure would take away victims' rights to sue and compensate them over the next 30 years through a $140 billion, privately financed trust fund.
More than 700,000 asbestos victims have filed suits against companies that made or sold such asbestos-containing products as insulation, roofing materials and fire retardant sprays. But much of the awarded in court settlements and jury awards has gone to lawyers' fees and claimants who are not yet seriously ill.
With Republicans fearing they will lose seats in next fall's mid-term elections, some supporters see this as the last, best chance for congressional passage of legislation that has taken years to negotiate among businesses, insurers, labor unions and trial lawyers.
"If this bill goes down, I think there is not going to be another bill," said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Stakeholders include trade workers exposed on the job to tiny asbestos fibers and families who have lived near and breathed dust from plants that processed asbestos-tainted material like vermiculite.
Visiting 3M in Maplewood, Minn., last week, President Bush appealed to Congress to act on the measure, a top priority of some of the biggest companies in America. That company has faced more than 400,000 suits alleging defects in its disposable respirators.
"It's time to send a clear message to investors and markets and employees that we've got to have a legal system in regards to asbestos that's fair to those who have actually been harmed, and reasonable for those who need to pay," Bush said.
But on the Senate floor, fights are expected on myriad issues, including the adequacy of the funding and protections for victims whose asbestos exposures were not job-related.
Supporters of the bill include major insurance companies and corporate giants such as General Electric Co., General Motors Corp. and Pfizer, Inc., but fissures have developed between big and small businesses and among insurers; the American Insurance Association recently registered its opposition. Most, but not all labor unions oppose the bill, though the AFL-CIO favors the trust fund concept. Disease victims are divided.
The chief opponent, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America representing attorneys specializing in asbestos litigation, has mounted a multi-pronged effort to kill it.
The massive bill would set a compensation scale for as many as 2 million more workers projected to contract asbestos-related diseases, paying $25,000 to those with mild breathing impairments and $1.1 million to victims of a rare and deadly form of cancer known as mesothelioma.
It also would cover people exposed because a family member brought the deadly dust home on his clothes. And it could wind up covering people if they eventually contract asbestos illnesses as a result of breathing contaminated dust in New York in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, said a Senate aide who has worked on the measure.
Few argue that the current system has been inequitable and less than efficient. The RAND Corp.'s Institute for Civil Justice estimates that 730,000 asbestos-related claims were filed through 2002, costing $70 billion - 60 percent of it going to defense and plaintiffs' attorneys. A sizeable share of the victims' money has gone to claimants with minor lung impairments. RAND also points to 77 corporate bankruptcies stemming from soaring asbestos liabilities, though they include firms that sold asbestos products despite knowing of their potential harm.
Meantime, while many people dying or dead of mesothelioma have won multimillion-dollar court settlements and jury awards, others have collected little or no compensation.
Critics of the bill note that bankrupt drywall industry giant USG Corp. just negotiated an asbestos settlement under which it would pay $900 million to the trust fund over three decades if the bill passes, or $4 billion into its own asbestos trust fund if the measure fails. Backers say those figures distort the true picture, because attorneys' fees represent a big share of the negotiated settlement, and USG's outlays would be offset by insurance recoveries.
A Democratic filibuster in the spring of 2004 killed a proposal for a $124 billion asbestos trust fund.
The latest bill cleared the Judiciary Committee last year by a 13-5 vote. Its chief sponsors, Specter and Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the panel's ranking Democrat, are confident they have enough votes to stop a filibuster attempt expected from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., but are uncertain if they have enough to support to win passage.
Specter and Leahy trumpeted a list of 155 groups supporting the bill last week, including businesses, insurers, victims and military veterans.
But five victims' groups, some with trial lawyers' funding, sent the two senators a letter expressing strong opposition.
Christine Lowery, 52, of New Ulm, Minn., whose husband Frank worked in construction for 30 years and died of mesothelioma two years ago, flew to Washington last week with one of her sons at the behest of her Texas-based lawyers. She said she would visit several senators, to voice her opposition.
Before he died, she said, "I promised my husband I'd fight the companies that made him sick."

Pageant winner selects personal cause

2006-02-10T09:17:00.000-05:00

SALEM -- World Peace?
Nah.
Pass.
Asbestos awareness?
Now you're talking.
In an era of beauty queens and pageant winners inevitably running on a platform of world peace or other overly utopian ideals, Sarah Biddle, the 2006 Miss Salem County, has chosen a platform that separates her from the pack.
"My platform is 'Breath of Hope,'" said Biddle. "It's a program designed to raise awareness about Mesothelioma, a cancer caused by over-exposure to asbestos."
Biddle resisted the urge to choose something more well known, and instead focus on something that had affected her life and something that would bring attention to a relatively unknown problem in Salem County.
Biddle's grandfather, Ike Kline, owned a prominent heating and plumbing business in Salem County. Because of overexposure to asbestos on the job, Kline contracted Mesothelioma and died in November 2003.
Biddle wants people to know she will use the title of Miss Salem County 2006 to bring awareness to a disease that many people have never even heard of in the Salem community.
"I wanted to take the title I have and actually use it for something," said Biddle. "I want people to come away with information about the symptoms of Mesothelioma and the tests they can have done to detect it."
Biddle has organized a benefit dinner in April for the memory of her grandfather. All proceeds from the event will be donated to the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation, of which Biddle is a volunteer.
"Hopefully a few local businesses and business owners will give their support to the benefit dinner," said Biddle.
Biddle will compete in the Miss New Jersey pageant from June 13 to 17 in Ocean City. She will compete against 32 other pageant winners.
The winner will be crowned Miss New Jersey and go on to compete for the title of Miss America 2007.

Victim's Family Opposes Asbestos Bill

2006-02-06T09:32:00.001-05:00

A bill that changes how victims of asbestos are compensated will soon be voted on in the U.S. Senate, but one local family is already saying "no."
The Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act would ban asbestos victims and their families from suing companies that manufactured asbestos. Instead, they would be compensated from a national trust fund.
Supporters of the bill say the system would get money to victims quicker and cut down on the high legal expenses of the current system.
But not everyone believes the new system would be the best way, and they're worried about losing their rights.
It's been less than a year since Ellen Greene's father passed away. "My dad, Frank Beesaw, was a World War Two veteran, a Marine. He was very proud of that. He served in the South Pacific."
"He had family that loved him. everybody loved 'Uncle Frank,'" his daughter said.
He died at the of 79 from asbestos exposure. Three months before his death he was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a cancer caused by asbestos, something he was exposed to during his many years of working at a paper mill.
"He survived four years at war under hostile fire, and came home to be poisoned by going to work in his own country," Greene said.
Now she and her family are fighting the federal bill that would change how victims of asbestos are compensated. "This bill takes away our right to pursue legal action," action she says is about more than just the money.
"It minimizes my father as an individual, and it allows them to make an anonymous, write an anonymous check to a fund."
"I want to be able to face them on behalf of my father and say this was wrong."
The bill's sponsors say they will bring it to the Senate floor sometime next week, and if it passes it will go to President Bush's desk.

Asbestos victims oppose trust-fund plan

2006-02-06T09:32:00.000-05:00

Several local asbestos victims and their families are urging senators to vote this week against a proposed federal asbestos trust fund, which they describe as a corporate bailout that would leave victims without help.
Debate on the legislation is set to begin Monday. The bill would remove damage claims of workers and others injured by exposure to asbestos from the courts, sending them instead to a privately financed $140 billion trust fund for adjudication and payment.
"It's a misguided idea. There are no provisions at this time who would pay into the fund and how the payouts would happen," said Ellen Greene of De Pere, whose father, Frank Besaw, a Green Bay paper mill worker, died last year of a cancer linked to asbestos exposure.
She met last week with representatives of Democratic Sens. Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin.
If Senate bill 852 passes, compensation claims would have to start all over, Greene said.
"Compensation is only part of the issue. I think we deserve our day in court to hold people accountable for their actions," Greene said.
Gary Allen, director of the Northeast Wisconsin Building and Construction Trades, and a former asbestos worker, urged Kohl to vote against the bill.
Allen said he could attest to the unfairness of trying to get compensation for an asbestos injury through large group programs.
Years ago Allen signed on to a group program with a legal firm that was supposed to litigate claims.
"The only one that was fairly compensated was the legal firm," Allen said in a letter to Kohl.
The bill calls for nine levels of compensation, depending on the seriousness of a claimant's condition. Payments would range from $25,000 for breathing impairment to $1.1 million for mesothelioma victims. Medical monitoring is provided for people who have been exposed to asbestos but show no symptoms.
Besaw, an employee at Northern Paper Mills in Green Bay, from 1946 to 1968 and at James River in Oregon from 1968 to 1987, worked with asbestos insulation used to cover the paper machines, turbines, and pipes. He also handled asbestos blocks and cements. He died at 79 of mesothelioma.
Wisconsin Citizen Action, which became involved through organized labor unions, also opposed the bill.
The bill also has been attacked by insurers and some of the businesses that would be compelled to pay for the trust, which argue that the funding burden is unfairly distributed and that the bill does not assure closure of the issue, The Washington Post reported.

Former railroad worker files asbestos lawsuit

2006-02-03T09:54:00.000-05:00

CHARLESTON - A former railroad worker and his wife have filed a lawsuit claiming he was exposed to asbestos during his nearly 40 years on the job.Thomas Jackson Black and Patricia A. Black filed the suit Jan. 12 in Kanawha Circuit Court. In the suit, filed by Charleston attorney James A. McKowen of James F. Humphreys & Associates, Black says he worked for the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company, which later became part of CSX Transportation Inc., from 1951 to 1960 and from 1967 to 1995.On that job, he claims, he was exposed to asbestos dust and fibers in the course of his duties as a laborer and crane operator. This exposure, he says, cause him to suffer severe and permanent injuries, including mesothelioma.Seven defendants are listed in the eight-count suit. The defendants are CSX Transportation Inc., Certainteed Corporation, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Owens-Illinois; Rapid American Corporation; Union Carbide and Vimasco Corporation.Black says C&O and later CSX didn't provide a safe place to work, didn't provide proper safety equipment, didn't warn its employees of the dangers of asbestos and didn't tell them how to safely use or remove asbestos. He says the other companies provided asbestos and asbestos-containing materials that he encountered on the job and didn't explain the dangers of asbestos and sold products that were not fit for use.He also sues Metropolitan Life for conspiracy, citing the 1934 study backed by Met Life and Johns-Manville Corp. in which Dr. Anthony Lanza of Met Life didn't say asbestos exposure could be fatal. Black seeks joint and several compensatory and punitive damages to be determined by the court as well as other relief.He requests a jury trial.Also listed as plaintiff's attorneys are John Guerry III and William E. Applegate IV of Motley Rice LLC, a South Carolina-based practice. Its Web site says it is of the nation's largest plaintiff litigation firms and that it first gained widespread national recognition for its success in representing persons injured by the asbestos industry.The case has been assigned to a visiting judge.

'Affordable' USG asbestos plan

2006-02-03T09:53:00.000-05:00

USG Corp. announced a unique asbestos-liability settlement Monday that could let the Chicago-based wallboard manufacturer emerge from bankruptcy by fall, repay its debtors in full, and resolve all current and future personal-injury asbestos claims against it.
The plan includes $1.8 billion in backing for the plan from value-fund guru Warren Buffett and his company, Berkshire Hathaway, which owns 15 percent of USG's stock.
"This is a very important day in our 103-year history," said USG CEO William C. Foote, calling the proposal a "watershed," "a win for all constituencies" and "fair, fast, final and affordable."
USG and its three major operating subsidiaries filed for bankruptcy protection June 25, 2001, to put an end to growing costs of fighting lawsuits filed by people who claimed to have been sickened by exposure to asbestos in USG's plasters and joint compounds.
In the settlement plan, USG would set up its own trust fund to pay people sickened by asbestos exposure and those making future claims.
The fund would cost USG as little as $900 million or as much as $3.95 billion, depending on whether Congress creates a national trust fund to handle all such asbestos-exposure cases.
What propelled USG to settle now? Foote told the Sun-Times that three factors played a part:
*Most importantly, the company's financial health -- it posted record 2005 sales Monday -- will enable USG to emerge from bankruptcy in sound financial shape, and with no more debt than it had when it filed for bankruptcy.
*A judge approved on Jan. 17 a similar asbestos settlement for Babcock & Wilcox, which once used asbestos to insulate boilers, establishing a model for USG's plan.
*Finally, Bankruptcy Court Judge Joy Flowers Conti ruled last summer that USG lawyers could randomly survey the people who had claimed they had suffered asbestos exposure, seeking details on when, how and under what circumstances they'd been exposed to USG's products. The possibility that fraudulent claims could be exposed made claimants' lawyers more willing to accept USG's offer rather than pursue litigation.
"We reached a cataclysmic moment," Foote said.
The USG settlement plan, which requires approval of federal and bankruptcy court judges, is crafted so shareholders keep their ownership of USG, and gives USG the advantages of tax breaks, support from Berkshire Hathaway and new, but possibly investment-grade, long-term debt.
Key provisions include:
*USG would create its own trust fund to pay people who claim to have become sick from asbestos exposure to USG's products. The set-up would let USG substitute its own trust-fund payment for 27 years of payments into a national asbestos trust fund. The USG trust fund would cover people who claim to have been exposed to asbestos at USG, its subsidiaries and at A.P. Green Refractories Co., a former subsidiary of U.S. Gypsum Co. that made and sold cement and blocks.
USG has maintained that it would pay the claims of people who truly suffer from asbestos exposure, but said it never mined or made asbestos, and stopped selling it nearly 30 years ago. USG had 150,000 asbestos-related claims pending when it filed for bankruptcy.
*USG would pay no more than $900 million into its asbestos-victims' trust fund if Congress passes a bill in the current session to create the $140 billion national fund to compensate asbestos-exposure victims. The president must sign the bill before it becomes law. USG would fold its trust fund into the national fund.
Foote will be in Washington, D.C., this week to lobby for the bill's passage. The Senate is scheduled to start debating the issue on Feb. 6.
*If Congress fails to create the national trust fund, USG would cough up $3.95 billion, including $1.6 billion in existing cash-on-hand; $1.8 billion from a new offering of equity to shareholders; up to $1.1 billion in tax refunds from paying into its own trust fund, and $1 billion in debt proceeds.
*To raise $1.8 billion to start the USG trust fund and to help pay creditors, USG will offer its shareholders an unusual deal, mostly seen in Europe. The deal offers shareholders one new share of USG stock for each share they already own for $40 a share -- well under USG's closing price on Friday of $79.85.
Berkshire Hathaway has agreed to put into escrow $1.8 billion to guarantee that all shares will be redeemed, even if that means Berkshire Hathaway ends up owning a bigger share of USG than it does now. If shareholders exercise their rights, their stakes in USG will remain undiluted.
The agreement has won the support of committees that represent people who have been sickened by asbestos exposure, future asbestos claimants, unsecured creditors and equity security holders.
The only holdout is the committee that represents people who claim property damage from asbestos exposure, and USG is in talks with them.
Jeff Cooper, an attorney in Downstate East Alton, who represents up to 500 people in the USG case who claim they suffer from a deadly lung cancer called mesothelioma because of asbestos exposure, said he believes the settlement plan is fair.
"I commend USG for coming to the right resolution," said Cooper, managing partner at Simmons Cooper law firm.
Cooper and other representatives for the asbestos sufferers criticized the proposed national trust fund. Public Citizen, a watchdog group, called it "a backdoor attempt to erase billions of dollars in corporate liability for asbestos exposure."
USG took a pre-tax charge of $3.1 billion, and an after-tax charge of $1.9 billion, or $43.39 per share, in the fourth quarter to cover the asbestos settlement plan.
As a result, USG posed a net loss in 2005 of $1.4 billion.
Excluding the charges, USG's fourth-quarter net earnings nearly doubled, to $165 million, or $3.70, propelled by a strong housing and commercial construction market that offset rising energy costs.
Sales in the fourth quarter grew 14 percent from a year ago, to $1.3 billion, while full-year sales hit a record $5.1 billion.
USG officials hope to start funding the USG trust fund by July and start paying asbestos victims and creditors shortly after.

Companies move for judgment, dismissal

2006-02-03T09:51:00.000-05:00

Doug Satterfield wants to keep fighting for his daughter, the late Amanda Satterfield, who died as a result of an asbestos-related disease.
Doug Satterfield appeared in Blount County Circuit Court Monday along with family and friends for a hearing in which ALCOA Inc. sought dismissal of her lawsuit against the company.
Doug Satterfield's exposure to asbestos dust as a company employee and, later, his daughter's exposure to it, resulted in her death, according to a suit filed by Amanda Satterfield two years ago.
He is acting as representative for the estate of his deceased daughter.
Referring to his daughter's illness and death, the 51-year-old Blount County father said, ``It's still pretty fresh. It's tough watching your daughter die of disease caused by asbestos.''
She was 25 years old.
But the law doesn't recognize a ``duty of care in `clothing exposure''' cases, attorneys for ALCOA argued in a motion filed Jan. 23, 2006.
Amanda Satterfield died Jan. 1, 2005, after a long battle with mesothelioma, a rare cancer related to asbestos exposure.
Amanda Satterfield filed a lawsuit against ALCOA Inc. and Breeding Insulation Co. Inc., of Nashville, on Dec. 8, 2003. In the suit, she alleged her father, Doug Satterfield, wasn't warned of the dangers of asbestos by ALCOA.
``Amanda Satterfield was exposed to harmful asbestos dust and fibers from the day of her birth from her father's use of asbestos products and inadvertent introduction of dust and fibers into their home and personal environments,'' she alleged in the 2003 suit, initially filed in Knox County Circuit Court.
Doug Satterfield said Monday that he hauled asbestos for ALCOA, starting his career with the company in 1973. He served in the military from 1975 to 1978 and returned to work at ALCOA. He said Monday he is still an employee of the plant, but is temporarily disabled. ALCOA, he said, doesn't want the case to go to trial.
``If they're right, why not let it go to court? Why are they afraid?'' he said. ``We're not afraid.''
ALCOA spokeswoman Melissa Copelan said the company filed the motion Monday and is awaiting the outcome.
Blount County Circuit Court Judge W. Dale Young heard the motion Monday but did not rule on the matter.
In the opening paragraphs of the motion for judgment, attorneys for ALCOA contend, ``Tennessee has never recognized a duty of care in `clothing exposure' premises cases. This is a case of first impression which is important to the proper development of Tennessee law. ..
``Legislatures, courts, and even grand juries across the nation are saying `no' to the expansion of litigation based on occupational exposures,'' attorneys at Knoxville firm Hunton and Williams LLP wrote.
The plaintiffs failed to show that Amanda Satterfield's ``injury was a reasonably foreseeable probability,'' and her premature birth in 1979 and her death were not ``reasonably foreseen'' by ALCOA, according to ALCOA's motion for judgment.
``Nor has plaintiff alleged facts which indicate that ALCOA could foresee that mesothelioma, a rare and debilitating illness, could strike a non-employee at such a young age who had never set foot on an ALCOA premises,'' according to the company's suit.
Amanda Satterfield's initial lawsuit sought $10 million in compensatory and $10 million in punitive damages.
This case isn't about money, said Doug Satterfield.
``How many people will have to go through what we went through?'' he said Monday. ``It's not about money. It's about what's right. It's about justice. She didn't choose to die from this.''

Mesothelioma Help

Eli Lilly Said to Play Down Risk of Top Pill - New York Times

Unhealthy outlook for industry?

BR doctor finds his gifts of flowers, prayers returning to him since illness

Asbestos is something we can do something about

CTU Launches Campaign for Asbestos Victims

Anger over withdrawal of asbestos drug

Asbestos-case widow seeks help

More asbestos stories in the news March 2006

New asbestos removal laws proposed

Heating firm took my health

US tunnel workers face mesothelioma risk

Family, friends rally around Encinitas woman

Increased Risk of Mesothelioma from Environmental Exposure to Volcanic Mineral (Erionite) Even Greater than that Associated with Asbestos – Study

Asbestos support group backs interstate moves

Alfacell Corporation Reports Second Quarter 2006 Financial Results and Key Developments

Asbestos Workers Union Joins New Medical Foundation's Quest for Cure of Asbestos and Benzene-Related Cancers

Asbestos-affected apply for relief

Length of time using Vioxx seen key in Merck trial

Short-term bills' interest mixed

Merck disclosed Vioxx heart risks, court told

Vioxx long-term use trial underway in New Jersey

Merck Sued by Doctor Who Prescribed Vioxx, Had Own Heart Attack

Vioxx Trial Underway in Merck's Home State

Fresh scrutiny after asbestos presentations

Give us back the £152k you got for husband's death

Mired in asbestos

Emergency workers face asbestos threat

Thousands sign up to urge action over 'cruel' disease

Ringing out a death warning

DID SCHOOL ASBESTOS KILL HEAD?

Dying asbestos victims fear new court challenge will slash payouts

ASBESTOS-RELATED CANCER COMPENSATION CASE OPENS

Rally salutes victims of the ‘hidden killer’

Asbestos-related deaths 54 higher than estimate for women living near Kubota factory

Paradise lost, thank goodness

Workers' disease meeting

Most Recent Information and News About Mesothelioma On New Site

Increase in mesothelioma cases prompts call for checks

Balloons fly for asbestos group

TAKING ACTION OVER CANCER

Mesothelioma Search Engine To Consolidate Medical and Legal Information

Asbestos-tainted Montana town seeks aid

Mesothelioma Search Engine to Consolidate Medical and Legal Information

Bondex and Georgia Pacific begin defense in asbestos case

Asbestos anguish

'Love cannot just stop'

JustMeso.com offers a plethora of information on treatment options for mesothelioma.

Asbestos Settlement Blocked in Senate

Lessons in Japan's Asbestosis Time Bomb

Getting aid to asbestos victims / Govt has tough row to plow in identifying diseases to blame

JustMeso.com offers a plethora of information on treatment options for mesothelioma.

Asbestos Settlement Blocked in Senate

Lessons in Japan's Asbestosis Time Bomb

Getting aid to asbestos victims / Govt has tough row to plow in identifying diseases to blame

Asbestos anguish

'Love cannot just stop'

Victims oppose asbestos bill

mesothelioma-attorney-case.com endorses kennedy statement on asbestos legislation.

Mesothelioma Medical Experts Oppose Asbestos Trust Fund, Saying FAIR Act Hurts More than Helps

Battle over asbestos lawsuit bill heats up

Pageant winner selects personal cause

Victim's Family Opposes Asbestos Bill

Asbestos victims oppose trust-fund plan

Former railroad worker files asbestos lawsuit

'Affordable' USG asbestos plan

Companies move for judgment, dismissal