Document 1083erZJ7zKZ37Rgz4DppBvzZ

EXHIBIT DUP-2061 CtTAtUtHCD lOj E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company pucowpowatcd Wilmington, Delaware 1 9898 SAFETY. HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS January 30, 1985 WILLIAM E. NEELD, JR. ,'M.D. DIRECTOR, MEDICAL DIVISION CHAMBERS WORKS DEEPWATER, NJ 08023 X-RAY REPORTS DATED JANUARY 18, 1985 Your memo about asbestos related x-ray reports has been referred to me. Olin Allen will discuss your very pertinent concern with his group. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. MEDICAL DIVISION R. Keith Whiting, MJ Manager, Medical Services Section DUP 0948054 RKW:brs Bette' Things for Better Living DU 039005 =-r _C" S' ~*fr- E. I. du Pont rs & Company CHAMMR8 WORKS DEEPWATER. NEW JKRREY 0M23 January 18, 1985 B. Wn..G-tilpoppor, ERD - N-11,400 Wilmington (W) ----------- Will 0$^r S(3p*AK-t* 5CA(B ^ RECEIVED t JAN 2 31985 toWw.Q^pipp^ ^ X-RAY REPORTS FROM DU PONT-RETAINED RADIOLOGISTS CW Medical only reacts (or does not react) to the reports from Du Pont radiologists, regardless what chest x-ray readings are reported as by non-Du Pont radiologists, in suspected asbestos exposure cases. When the Du Pont radiologist places the infamous stamped description on our x-ray reading card, that case is entered into the CW Asbestos System. If nothing else, this protocol yields a consistency in the handling of asbestos cases. In cases where additional oblique views dto-net-confirm the original suspicions suggested by the Pfr cN#t vie**,. I believe these negative findings should be so daaprlbedin the x-ray report back to CW Medical. That derij|^k%*ho<al,d suffice in making it unnecessary to place the Infamous stamp" on the chart. The attached copy of a CW x-ray reading report presents a problem when 2 dissimilar descriptions are entered at the same entry location. By following the dates on the x-ray reading card, beginning 10/9/84, you can reconstruct what occurred here. The recall was to clarify an uncertainty observed on the PA view. The oblique views failed to demonstrate the changes the read^EtJjjH&^y^yg^ain of in the PA view - these negative nhserva4jjHB|H^Miyfcen in at 10/18/84. Simultaneously, the infamouf^^Bffi^^xised next to the written report. Trying to explal^^dting reports to an agitated worker is not Could youHl^r^t^ the Radiology groujif and encourage them to try to maintain cllfeistency in reporting. Williaa E, NeeId, Jjh* M.D. Director , : Medical <RNiIon >*?**.> - ;WEN/saw Attach. 330N better things eor better living .. . through chcmist*y DUP 0948055 DU 039006 tarpretation ^5 - r-b/Jtg i on_______ r gnlficant Finding* ____ terpretation . _X-Ray No. _NQ. -SI GHlEiCANLCHANGT --------Md~fc-PetefS, M.D.-------- . M.D. Date. "SEP 10 198? .Tech. . Emp. O ual RecheckD Injury gnificant Fi nd ing* . *.erpretaton_______ NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE" McH, Peters. M.D. ------- ---------M.D. Date SP f] Q ^------- Tech.. Emp. CD 12 Annu Special EZ2 HcJeckiZ] Injury Please do both oVMc-'5 tost- cloural thlc-r-aningI_ DUP 0948056