Document 4aYwxyXO7jDrNMvL7xDVO0oKx

FILE NAME: Insulators Workers' Comp Claims (IWC) DATE: 1952 DOC#: IWC018 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Claimant - Rothwell, Richard J. B A LTIM O R E, MO. NEW YO RK. N. Y . CLARKSBURG, VA. j TULSA. O KLA. ` st. L outs, m o . CH ICA G O . IL L . LOS AN G ELES, CAL. ATLANTA. OAT A L E X A N D E R & ALEXATM D E R IN C O R P O R A T E D INSURANCE AVERAGE ADJUSTERS CO N SU LTIN G A C TU A R IES 3 0 3 ST . P A U L P L A C E , B A LTIM O R E 2 , MD. TELEPHONE MULBERRY B-I40 B E LL SYSTEM T ELET Y P E BA S 8 t CA B LE ADDRESS A LEXBLUE** Mr. William L. Hughes, Manager Insurance Department Armstrong Cork Company Lancaster, Pennsylvania February 2, 1955 Dear Sir: Travelers Policy No. RUB 20it72U2 Please note disposition made of the follomng claim: Date of Accident: Claimant: Location: 022Richard J. Rothwell South Huntington Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts Claim No,: Disposition: B7131799 $225. Expense Remarks: E Very truly yours, ALEXANDER & ALEXANDER, INC. LOSS DEPARTMENT / - / 'r / t M T t? We are at taching here to /copy of. letter ,from The Travelers, - ------ -'----decision on subject case. <v ocument on the, subje ct af/C--- THE TRAVELERS Armstrong c ork Co. Hancock Street So. Braintree, Mass. April 30, 1 9 ^ Address all replies to: Claim Department, The Travelers lk7-ll4.9 Milk St., Boston 9, Mass. and refer to file B-7131799 p Armstrong ork Co. re: Richard Rothwell Gentlemen: ,, Please find attached a photostat of the single member decision on the above captioned matter. This was requested by one of the assoc' iates some time ago. You might be interested to know that on appeal of this decision we also prevailed. At this date we do no know if this appeal has been appealed to the Superior Court. Very truly yours, C. W. King-, Jr. Adjuster ZsSKCi'X- "'^J - V - * * r'-'- - V ' i j--. ' ^L.-<. v:;n ^- /-w -/r? '*} > - - - . >*'r**-~-' ~rri :Soti>GlI (6C0?Ci) 5>, > ; f * T**>' -- T V---.--V _ . - v, <' '.7 ?" a ,**- fc- Vi*' >2..'; -7*, S/.;V-^"-',ti'*-: . f t ''starting to gat irritable and h never `as''Irritable, that was: a .ohangeg./'':-' :vaad he was tired-and we, :not'eating'good',' he just did not look good.,/; j ;that.is 'ell .1 oun veil you iobjection noted "by Travelre to the r>;.** -Zt\*--/V' 'statement 3he Just did not look good5, exception is saved) 0 When'he 'crake hose'frjfe\?ort Kent they ware living, in Wilmington'and. her husband,''4 nV -. *. to-Dr.:teraic Fagan of Clark' Street, Wilmington* They ,were not living .in/ , torcli. e&.fce. r 1*'.. wbrsed for the. Armst- rong C"*ork** C/ Vo.eib wpva n y .Her-.^hjuj esbo an^d saw e?*vy * v /`-ths doctor either on the 22nd of February or the day before, it was in ; '.Ithat, Tioin.itj ,Aeked if D r ? Fagan' oontlnuad .to be her husband fs dootbr:- . 1 until-the tlx"? he wont to-the iiassaefeusetta General-Hospital/ witness* .' '"replied,' not in entirety, no. At'one tine fc.j'/wiW.Dr Bftvard Kogan o f .& ;'.*. 1;'/.'lyndhurat,Street .Dorchester.. He > a w his In' Hay.'- Asked, had he been under :ithe' oare of l^r. ;fragau. frp^.Febroai^r until Ray,, wltaass replied, aore pr ; `.'lass, -X mean the doctor'iaanKfe"'a ciouple of tines' to the "house and he went to. / the office "a coupld of tiaeslAskedi:d.0 you know why'your husband left the / ^'ettplby of the Armstrong: Cork:Conpany Kobication noted by Travelers, ' 4was. with Dr. 'Hogan* Following that, oonaultsttoii liith Dr.' Hogan her husband stopped work "at the Armstrong "Cork Coapaay* 'Then. at. soma tiae ha went : under, ftihWfeli ncar.e( rovff the lMiaasssaiaicfhl'unsneaittttsH General Hrlon^s-pnii-ftca.l!*.*, A friend-, G&eoorrcg-ee . - Boyl&n/ J r , referred hia to the Kaosaohusetts G*eneral Hospital0 She believes he firut went to the Massachusetts General Hospital on June 23 i 1952. ; ; V - .-.'.= Counsel for th olaiRiant offered, the record of Massachusetts . 7 General Hospital for this records Counsel for the Travelers objected to its admission' in its entirety/ speoifioally objecting to the history:- . and any diagnosis based oa the history, his exception Is caved; counsel for Utica objected to the adisieslon of thin reoord, his exception is -. ' ,?usrod- .The r.voorG of 'Asssaohuse1 1 o General Sospitai - Unit #776205 ~ aads Tiarv-or this reoord by referonoo and .isay-b found m ^ t h e Board file. Counsel fdr Travelore r-rquested hiB exosption b saved* to his . : request for some part of this reoord to .b delotsdo - . : 5 .1 . . TO COUKSSL 'fOH T H E UTICA: She did say her husband was up in Hsine during Daoeubor 1951, January ah d February 1952o Her husband caas hoas'Weshington'B Birthday and she is not sure whether he then returned to Fort Iien$,, Asked, you think he case hoise on W a s h i n g t o n ^ Birthday and - then did not return to Fort K a n t ,witness replied, I d o n H think b o . Her huabancl did oowe for Chri^tvas and th next tiso after that^.was on. or noouc 'wT.shir.gto.u'o S i r t y p which, was in Fobru^ry Of n e r 1oini kno'fledg siu door nit. know unit his condition, xmn In January 1952o Asked, a n d when you tolu. i\s a little vrliile ago that you noticed ha got short of breath ill January 1932 that -vaE not as rasult of any nereoys.1 observations which you had v.ade, '.fitneae replied, I was not there in January. Asked^ v` that Is what, you told us,witness replied, the only tiae I would hove seen hia was. when hs left aftar How Xears ,If she said previously that 'fhe first noti^sd ha was getting out of breath in January 1952 that is not so as she did net see. .hi thnr. Asked, and your saeaory now is that you hava ' no oloar rcooj.lcotion.sa to ;*hen you first noticed hi getting out at ors&ti so to fcpaekj- xviuiiese replied^ that is oar root/ Her husoand came houe' in ; : ' Ueoeabsr 1951 & few days.before Christmas. She would not say he started to looe insight \n -Uc?os5*bor She did testify that^ clearing of the- throe,.'.- ^ started iui Deoeeiber 19 50 ." Aaked if that sseaed to get progressively"worse ^ ` aa tin went on or repaired tho'sam, witness replied, got .worse* 'Bofor*:;': ?: her-'husband worked for ths A*W Bancroft Conpany he worked .for. t h # f . - ;.How England Insulation Cowp-vny^ Ho was,doing the"'saae type of .work thero7 ; Thnt la the work she has deaoribed her. She-.thinks he. worked at-.,the Kew. : ; IV.England- Inxiulation Coispany quite a while0 .It "must have been over two years* ysHer-hfesband,went 'to .^ork.for the' A.W. Banoroft,Ooagpany dlreofcly..-;aftextleaylr 1*f.x. <t^/hlh'/baployHeht'at How England Insulation Company. There "was .no ;^yof /xp'eriod "or;anything' of that inaturo* Ho went to, work, for'tha Bahorbft? Coispahy / w i t h i n ^ i-oek after bis leaving'the Hew England Ineulatlbn.Cqsgjday*\A^?^.? ii./^eLqr'y'6^' .recall/for 'whoa'he 'worked.bafore he/workod._fcr,_the JTin' Rothwell (deo! f'nmriiny' td'iraasfl*'replied-'thr was a 'whole H a t of the*, I1 oooould ^ ! d o S u ^ w ;l I'oovaa giva t o w all. Beiore ha not -give then in oraer, x u.<j.u ,, ri_, ^ _-w* ^.n^ir^/s fnt* th Inculati ; * * `for to. a Efiiand CdiEDaiiy of . ;'N.eww* EEnnggllaantdo * & ' t r a ^ t i t o . O , ^ - . f Kto *"**> ' ''HJtSnhltr S t o n i 's* lifatica"he'did toe' aaoa type TOrj! " ""i,`i?, .il"dSSSSbea hare this corning; that was His trade, m o t h e r orda,^He tod b a ' ^ P ^ rtiSiiirai"ttot"toid'e"iuri^'toet^ torrled.llf. too. durlng^Se depression During the depression^he was out ,f K0^ f.wTt/tla' Ttoy^ere Carried Deoetoer 25, 1930. Her husband, he resuued working again at.the type of work she ` i n the`p&por thatth Mr.Bancroft f o r > h o her feuadand worked m d died* . 5; >> sSo understood that the Hr Bancroft for.whoa her husband worked had a ; '>*5-'snail-Bhop. Her'recollection Is that} the day her husband stopped working: ;- for the A.li. Bancroft Company he then started to work for the Armstrong Ceap&ny- the next day.sh did not have occasion to wash his clothes while /he was up Fort Kant, Her husband did not send then hone* Asked, and you v-.f donrt know of your own knowledge under what conditions he worked while sfc Fort Kent; witness replied, ust what he told a.When ah told this*' .acralng about the conditions under which her husband worked that was b o no thing her husband told hbr0 She did. not follow his around, t .. r-l-v..7"f;f. ''::\ TO COUNSEL FOR THE TRAVELERS :Her husband brought his overalls hose / . every two weeks for her to wneho She Is positive of that. He used to leave the overalls in his tool kit when he did not bring these hon. Asked, so f: `when you' testified this aornlng as to the oonditiea of his overallf$rou j only saw those overalls onoe &vry two weeks, ore or lass, witness replied, ye*c After her hue tend saw th doctor on February 21st r 22nd he wont baok if. ' to work for the Bancroft Coapany He oontinued to work for this company p i .: until Maroh 19* 1952. The next day he went to work for the Armstrong Cork f; . Company'Pros the tirse he saw the doctor in February 1952 Up until he saw jjL. /. ...'ko. doctor in April 1952 w h e n he stopped working, she observed that he was : ;.-// different, he was irritable, at tinca he was rot eating good, he was not : 5p sleeping good. Asked, anything else, witness replied, juBt w s b not feeling r/.ff good, he was not hiaself Asked, was he coaplaining to you about anything during the period f.ro-a February 21 or 22, 1952, wltnose replied, he cojapIf:In o f his cheste Asked, what did he oo&plain bout in M e chest, witness replied., one c o m i n g he got up and. went to the bathrooa and oae oaok holdlru his chest tightly, he sali fI can't breath, c a n 't brstha5 Asked, you testified he started to get out of breath in January 19 5 2s, witness replied., I aeant he found it harder to breath* Asked, what did you harv$ about hi* during that period fron February 21 to April 25th, anything else,witness replied, I don't kncw0 Ackod, but that lath condition you observed hla to be in fro February 1952 until April 25, 19 5 2, witness replied, yes. Prior to that she had n>t seen hla for substantially two oaths. Asked, and youfre sure tnla was the oondltion ha was In froa February 22nd to April 25, . witness replied, yes0 Asked, no question about It at all, witness replledEno 92 HARRIET ,1. HARDY, oalled and questioned by counsel for ^ . . - o - , ''^ Is. l*.: -J _ - v I elala&nt, testified her professional address - 0eaGrti- Hospli!,.Kedioal Depertsant of H.I.i. in Gaabridge phys5 oian and, lioeoased to praofclo asilo in in the CCooaannoonnwweeaalltthh disea: 'any position with regard to that speoialty,witness yes, I have charge of the" occupational aedical ollnio and a t ' H J , ! I aa assistant radical director in oharga of the occupational aedical sarvi' :/Asked if in that'field her. work is primarily one of treating patients or primarily one of resacroh^ jsitness replied, ft's a__combinat ion of both, those iff eatures: la oonnaotlon with hor specialty she deals with diseases of. the deo^-.ent In'this caso was'&/patient of- bars"`"at Hasoachusaits .'-^ hsrof ficaoiAt: that '' .'hiitory^ chef sspalvadj f f r ^ f v /'.-'fiff/* /-/f :''V.'-iy"!" :'f<;;.>? '/ .iif,i- V ' , r - . - rp M o ^ rrebordsi, he kept working for three week* In'spite of this: ooughi he was told' to '.stay home by his faaily physiolan who said hehad -'P;J\7- thegrippe, then began to have severe pain in the left shoulder blade- -, worse in the morning, better when he moved around, much worse at nig ht, ~7>V there1wag ;increase In cough and abput this time he. began to be aware of . - ^V'-iaoroasing' shortness of breath,he dated that, as about March 1 , 1952, it was i -V-r so troublesome that he had to do something about it, about April 1 ,1 9 5 2 went "t o i l s 'physioian i p V D o r o h e s t e r , Edward^Hogan#ad ^^haj *alk4 with hia* She got her history from the patient She got the history and '}:< j'then did the physloal and then talked with Dr* Hogan. The patient gave .M .v * * her the history of Dr. Hogan telling him after his xrays that his lung had oollapaed(counsel for Traveler# objected to this being admitted, his 'exception Is saved - counsel for Utica also objected to this being admitted-and his exception la saved.) Her history, continues that froa this period of, time in April 1 9 5 2 .the. patient; had been taking pen!pillin Iron and ,sulpha drugs he had soae. constipation*..and a burning ?: ^ ' ^ '"Beasatiqn in the left armpit,"he reported a weight loss of 16 pounds -V, s'; [ft'^ slnoe January,?a shortness'of^breath that he noted beginning in Maroh and i 3 :?^ !Vlas'4getting worse when`seen d.ijTune, hi* appetite was fair, the aedioal [ ^ history that he gave insofar as it w b laportant was that he had bronchitis t 8 years ago, he had had slight sinus infeotion with Bomb coughing hut...--:',.-; ` nothing severe enough to keep hia out of his work, he had xrays taken froa \V;i:.time to tlae in coaaunlty surveys and he was never told therewas anything ;trrig, his father was thought to have tuberculosis, that diagnosis was ! ^ not clear, the patient gave it to witness and she put down a question I 'nark affcer it, the an saoked bottyk pipe and cigarettes,averaging about a r."' pack a day until his present illness, his occupational history was that I he began wooing in a store as a olerk while "still at school and he did Y errands at Boston boating Hospital for two years while still at school l ' and during the summers he was a shipper at Pilgrim Press Coapany, he stated i that about.29 years ago, whan he was about 17, he worked off ana on, } sometimes with his grandfather and with a number of companies, at what he l ' called a heat and frost insulator and his desorlpition of that Job watf f that he received asbestos boards, its souroe depending on the ooapany \ .with,whichrha was working(in answer to counsel for Travelers* question fviv. as, tb what period of developntent she is now talking about witneSs .'/fi";'I she is" talking about the history he gave*her covering 29 years. ) Be gave* iV i;/ hoi description of any specifio boards, asbestos boards', he gave n.'v > description of his trade of heat and frost insulator His particular : , 7/ Job was to cut and saw the aitbeBtos board* to fit pipes and boilers as- // needed for insulation. Witness did a-physloal examination at the time,Asked ' tVl'f she followed hi$ while he was in the hospital during his various admissions, witness replied, with the exoeption of his admission In July whoa I was, away on ay holiday, she followed hia la June and her jissoolat V L tOUOh he returned to the hospital after that she followed him. After his death an autopsy was performed, She had a chance to read the autopay protocol and the different autopsy material. Having in mind her entire contact with this case she presently has an opinion as. to what the :;' diagnosis of this man* b illness was., She did testify that she followed this man throughout his entire period of hospitalization, that she reviewed the autopsy proootol and saw some of the'pathological material in connection with the autopsy. In addition she is familiar with the hospital record itself*v ?-;r7. 7 * J*- \-.Iv v ' '..S TO THB COMMISSIONER: she did examine this man. Her first -, u oe^sinaficm.w a s ;;on June 23> 1952 when she discovered the man had a - ' -7-:..-.;- oollap of hia"left 1owe* lung. he obviously had lost-`weight*^ .following he had cheat xr&ys which she viewed with the roentgenologist ^^^^C;'disoovered that he not only bad the "collapse of his left, lower lung*-'.! S : >^ys?.rayB-rl ;the..right :thir bakl \?. F.-i^^bfr:t,s^ findings "he'roahfleaddV-.his hospltalizatibn for. dignostie^ -c' >"1-'+:iS';-5v: S '?K -.i.;.*x S i f e f l . ^ . T , * - V & P * .< .^V * -s * , - * , t - * v * * * , > * \ *.t 5 n.* V ?> vfV:-;.'-5t` "I;* \`i i\ * i- i t JLVV^* ^ !w^;i V ?*'*lf-i'4i^*'**'!* 71 i - - < Kv > '7\.nr'-' - 3 . f - V -- - -*x r j * v iv --.V j Sothiii (doo1d ) ,->. , i i S i : ! f i M f r s t e i :fe -4- *-- --*'Iv**:<.-;:-_* .i_*7? - ;. i 'Z 'l'r t-i a. km 'nAwt' #4fvi*a*e..; v '|*4+frli^> T V; were they Ja usat- Kerely a suggestion bn, her part,witness replied I supvervised them to the extent, of being the senior offloor.who is doing \ A * `r the reoomending, there were other doctors around, The results of those v%:i studies were nade available tocher Based on the history she -received*, ''>^1,,;^:-V the*physical"exaaination she conducted, the diagnostic material;;-;v / which was iaade available to her, she arrived at a diagnosis in this case. Her. diagnosis was oaroinoaa of the lung and asbestos is o^l/C^F/rf^, .A; r.-. ,--4 '* f. c .VT'*>*''^v /^*i -Ct'` :i*';v I. ;r.;iv> 1 u-: *t:->*-*,>'*,**.>'t.^ 'V'2 *>f'*<ir*`'v^*- v-'1*' -TO COUNSEL FOR THE CLAIMANT: Asked after she reached the dl&$* ;f.v-A . "s*' iiosis she has j\t testified to, did she have any further oontact c- ,i<.'>.; with the iaan during -his period of hospitalization, witness replied, yes, i- didV This further contaot was that, she went to see hi very, often while'he.was l n r.the hospital,'^tobnsulted with other >hysloians>bottt;g the oourse of treatment onoe the diagnosis was ade and followed his ^oaee to the :tlme of his death, she iwas rot a witness at the autopsy : .' .`but followed but tery dAffully ;what those bindings were.rShe heMelf | - p e r s o i o a l l y -lewed'soBe of.the autopsy oaterial. She personaHjryt :* . 4 ^y , viewed a slide of the lung. In the oourse of her nedloal training she ; vt;' ^'*1. : i ; * / * ~t` r.'- - i'.C* has had ocoas ion to..receive^ training in' the field of pathology. Asked; to'tell what that training was, witness replied, she had the usual ^ v amount of pathology as an undergraduate, weaning she took leotures. . land so on, then when Bhe was Hdusq offloor at Philadelphia General' 'Hospital she had Intensive training In pathology which involved.^ ^ doing a great asount of autopsies, then she took one semester In*the 'department of pathology in Cornell University making an intensive V . study of certain pathological problems, since that time it's been > e r privilege to gesoolate with Dr* Traoy Mallory in pathological ^ studies of occupational diseases* Asked, do you feel that^ you are qualified to view these pathological slides of Hr. Rothwell?s lung tissue(objection noted by counsel for Travelers and Utioa, their : exception is noted) witness replied,yes Asked to tell what the slides ;>evealed( objection anted and exoeption eared for eounsel t o t Travelers and Utioa), witness replied, showed what Is known as pulmonary - v fibrosis, meaning, soar tissue and reaction around the bronbhlal tubes, large gray oells which are usually associated with the presence of foreign material, I saw what are known as asbestos bodies aoi I saw cells of malignancy(counsel for Travelers objected to the testimony about the"as&estos bodies and his exoeptlon is saved). Asked to describe the asbestos bodies for the purpose of the record., witness replied,the asbestos bodies as seen lijthiB man's lung are shaped bodies thht take an iron stain whioh means they look yellowish under the ulcrosoope, they vary in length and oontour and^Lre unique with t he inhalation of certain silicates of which asbestoe-'ls one (counsel for Travelers objeoted to this testimony'being admitted* his' i exception is saved) theBe attestos bodies are bits of asbestos fibers surrounded with blood pigment whioh have clung to the asbestos bodies during their loqg presence in the small bronohlniea which is the\ small part of the bronchial tree, their shape varies, depending on the length of the asbestos fibers and the length of time it's been in the bronchia tree. Aaied,do you now have an opinion, based upon the contact you had with this oaae na you haTe testified, as to what the diagnosis is in the case, witness replied* yes(objeotlon noted for counsel for Travelsrm and Utica and their exception\ b saved)- Her present opinion :is. that, this wan died of Irronohogenio carcinoma, secondary to. -, . ^asbestosIsc Asked, have you an opinion as to the relationship ,.r ,, - ; ;"of;the 'asbestosis. and his/work..'as pipe'coverer(objeotlon .'noted by V?- / /, coiins>l>'for Utica and Travelers I question allowed, their'.exception 'is.;-.' '-i^Tsaved'j witness replied, I said' 'yes1 I had an opinion, ay answer 1.0 if fiaaga-'-ojvthe'-.length' of tiiue' that this patient' .worked In the.'industry;.:;'^ T ' ' -r ! v'' lnvolvlnv expOBiire to fine asbestos fibers during the cuttir-' a - -^ hvi\-;Z> asbestos boards, the length of tlae I .would like -to/.,emphasize m&: *** ' 4 t ? i i ^ ? l^ & ^ o f ^ e t a * 9 ' i O f t OoBpany/ tliat:, 'i-r^+*o& klufaB to that, witness replied, no, Asked,,wnax aojr i vr:'?ii'.: - ^ `sSteaeSti'to your Peyi bus':answer with reference t6 - *-'.r ^a. 2ivi?fthe asbestos bodies to which he was exposed while in the eaplojr . ^ ^ zkf 4 ^ * S f t C e s p a n y i witness replied, the answer u w * i*Pl fs\. V r^irSioiuse of 'the finding of the asbestos In the l^ngiit tod to t^one :' get.there,, th^re could be any number of i x % f s ^ o e h t r '-bill'bebauSe^bf `the quantity of Shea and the.character of , . iS?|^-7th^'%ich:'i^ve;des.oribea;'toy o u , earlier; ;.as _eyidenoe of th% asbestos^,/ "^V^'ijbdioa it^eeaa rreasonable,`and oertainly, an extra number of r ? ^ ^ o h i i l * t h a b l u n g set "ujr a. reaction during the periodj^.have Just been ;. ^ ^ ^ d e s o r i h t a g t o `sej meaning 3*years prior to. his deftthC.coimsel J-H?1?Jy,'A `i ^ & b b l ' e o t e d ? # t h V ?'q^ehtipa;.ai^^tower,,and.they^are,.admitted, de bene*) Asked, -did'-you deceive*enough information from this man to form an opinion as r , ?o"wSeWie? " not h^hKa.euntalriea any additional Injury to hlB.lmig. . ^ - ^ L n g the period from March 20,;1952: to April 25 ,. 1952, witness. Tilled., ^ 1 *_*/--'-tkrsV'.ito I? have1nLo_s_ukcth. 4t.h1i*4ng.,;'<S!h>(e Adnoaeas rn>rot+t: WhaVvAe (ennonUufgfhh lIlnlffOoZr*m&aattIioonn Oonn tthhaatt,O ... . * %-an' kJ-'Asked I n 'a previous answer you, testified that the k^nohogenio oaroinoma ^secondary to'asbestosis, will you give us your reasons for that ,. 'statement^witness replied, ay.reasons are based on experience and study,, 'experience of other oases of Individuals who have asbestosis and have - died'of bronchogenic oarolnoaa,precisely with the same olinioal facts and pU aO thologiX cV a4lA study W ** **VV^ as Mr *W H- - o--t- h- --we--ll, and when I s--peak . of stud_ y I refer > r-tTo myv kr*nowl-ed.ge of _li__t_e_r_a_t_u_re .pil.u..s" travelling 4imn "EuHrSo,paenfaln-d;t;^ 'i . ' 'Tbe. i. ng' at Saranac synposl uk/ ia n Ootober a _ j . _ v _ __ 1952 s r t w ^ aJ*t whioh .V* t a I * 4*t4ima e 1 the whole \ :subject of asbestosis and oanoer of the lung was reviewed. She has had - . 'experiaho'with individual oases of asbestosis and bronohogenio^oaroinoma other than that of Mr. Hothwell. Asked to tell what her experience haa. ; , 'been in these other "oases, witness replied, precisely the same - a ' . V . long, history^ of'exposure; tp asbestos. Asked, do you have an opinion as to k;"the,mechanism whereby the asbestosis is; causally related to the bronohogenl ^ ^ A " f^rolhba,' witness replied,' yes.In her. opinion the asbestos fiber which : rit''small enough to reach the bronchioles is not big enough to really plug i and what happens is that during inspiration and expiration the asbestos ;fiber swings back and forth and acts as a neoh anioal irritant and we know . . : other aeohanloal irritants that have, produced malignancy, that Is the , ! basis for the opinion that the asbestosis caused the bronchogenic carcinoma* , . . . . TO COUNSEL FOR THE UTlCA Asked, you d o n 't want to tell S . . you know what causes oanoer, witness replied, in some instances, i would - ,\ - be glad to, we have a pretty blear evidence in regard to pipe smokers, etc* ' Asked, people found, there^may- be a greater incidence of oanoer among pipe smokers but that is Just one of the faotors whioh you have found in v your studies, witness replied, yes, but if he did not smoke the pipe . he would not get the cancer, that is all. Asked* 1b it true that you alBO find cancer of the lung emong people who don't smoke at all, witness > replied, yes* Asked, it{* also true you find cancer of the lungrsong "IVv/'people for whoa you did not discover in the history of their occupation _ : b r .background' or anything ,eleo that the lung->had been irritated in any . . "way whatsoever,; witness replied, because `we can't find it does hot mean It ::k^?`-I does_rot.exlst^ .They have found, oanoer of the lung in suoh oases0 it is ` true-'that'""her 'theory. thatv irritants, producelaali^iaaoy does .not. follow;^; n '^yi^j'tuxiUgh. in all oases* At .the time of this nan's, first adalBsloh to PheTiv .\ ^:|':hb3pl^al'''s)ie :did not. form the opinion that he .had a8bstb8lS^;^e..wafi;"btt . . t h a V y e a r J u n e '&x*: he i a ^ b r 'o m p e :.as;: ^ - - - y *- r " . * *t' * ; ' ;.vV- ^ ^ : i---:i^\k^T^-:;::: " & i'- #;* ^ * . *- ? . * i v >' * i *i " w ^| * - * > - ^ j f z * ` - * ' ' * ' ' i - -i' ' V * .t 7 v ' -v* . . ' * \- f ` y ' . *? % *,' * *h - 14y '-.*' ,,j'-' * v v* * '. , - :* V * * - ?;. * ; ; ; -\i ;- * .^ T -; * .,i * - Eothwell (doo'di;,, ' -r.;./.;4 <v. ..i; t.y-'f\:t;Svr;-r; `.i ' !-. '?'./.f-f'v|; ' m m - M :-,; / K :1k n w*. 11:|>14}i - i -14f:i4l ? "tiiaa*?Asked, was thereone prepared and as part of the hospital vwitaees replied, there aust be.Asked, weren*t you in olmrgeofMB^case* :tbtat wo6uld be hel-p4fiu.lP, uI.w"a*tin charge of ,the. occult i O ^ J w d i c a ^ l i ^ o , I recoaaend these oases foradaiasion for diagnostic * ^ y wb.u.tv they k o roinn tkhfel ward as'a regular patient andd. I donn''t ''bbooss the JoO,#-- - , I go Around'and help work the oaae out but it's not ay^tlaate^responsibilit about what is written on thechart aad what is done to th patloeat, that is Just the aeohanisa of the hospital. She saw the an in her office on C June 2i. He was later adaitted to the hospital He_was adaitted to the :p ^ hospital w i t h a tentative diagnosis, that,is th,way At is[ done, she flees - ; oa thereoord that it. states 'asbestosis* with a question hark. She has r' i th'brlglnal:of'th hospital reoord Asked, and do you find in the I original reoord"this notation under July 2hd which reads, 'first Massachusetts General Hospital/record ,or this 46-year old white aal who; enters; with >;rdiagnosis of "poBslbl oarcinoiaa of lung*,'' Witness replied; -yes*- p- question'aark`stands for'"possible^fquestionAhl'e -Asked, at the tiae of ' .":his 'daission to the hospital,' is, there iiny reference in the hospital i ^ record'of any aebestosis that you oan seei witness replied, on Jdly 3 *195? vi it says history is ooapatible with a dlagnosis'of asbestosls'- these are v "'hot ay notes. Asked, what I'a trying to get Is this,< who would put that `first questionable diagnosis that, was inserted there upon adnission, would f:that be soaething that would ooae fro* your record as result of your ; . 'examining and studying hla om June 23rd, witness replied,no,'M Just .' explained to you, the adainistratlon has nothing to do with *e, that is is^ortaat', there are teohalolans, researchers and xray wen, I don't: :V C > dictate opinions to the*. Asked, so if I understand you you're not ' reponsible for any of the opinions expressed in the record i t s e l f ' witness replied, l; oertainly a* not. She studied the record oarefully* Asked if there is any part of the:record she disagrees With,,witness ; v ^ replied, it would be awfully"queer if there were not but 1 don't see that ; entrs^into *y dpiiiipa She has reviewed the record0 There is no ; ^ tr^taen%:.for-the disease of aBbesioslSo It is'a. progressive disease . * Without...ady treatment'known to her0 Asked, what would be the effect of -ri l[*.^nuaerou^3tray8v;on an individual's ohest with reference to this oondltlon v'lof asbeBtosis, would it aggravate It, witness replied, you're talking about th'diagnosis or therapeutlo radiation. The therapeutic radiation was . given in this oase for the treataent of cancer. The record shows this , man did receive therapeutlo radiationio He reoelved quite a nuaber of these. She thinks he began to have this on his second adnission - he had a lot of xrays taken at the outpatient department. Asked, it's a fact,is it not, , that therapeutic xray treataent would be detriaental to hi* insofar as t h e asbestosis condition is concerned, witness replied, n, I don^t think one; can draw any suoh conclusion. Sh* does- rot believe that, in fact counsel gave her an idea in that shrinkage of the tlsUe might do sose good. The therapeutlo xraying was done, to 'knock' out the oatioor oells, shrink the tissue and sake the man sore confortable but no one has the-slightest 10 of treating with the idea of curing hia, it was slnply a case of putting off his day of death. Asked, so if the record itself indicates that the' hospital was treating this i*an for oancer fro* the day of his first adaissloi that is so, witness replied, as soon as the diagnosis was wade* Asked, that ' .';ma aade -on the first adnission,witness replied, I think that was nade about July 10th. Asked, wouldn't therapeutlo xrays oause an IncreaBsd ...fibrosis of the liing,witness replied, that would depend on how nuch of the vlung was 'exposed to the radiation, usually this Is fairly localized t; - treataent,' oare "being taken rot.to give general radiation, 1 could tatkvlt Vo / over with the radiation; nan- if you want ae to. (Shedoes know if one gate ,t : " - radiation'pn^th lung as"a' whole } i*^She .: ''wHer'.'th-B^n'attuba^ -x. iv ' 1 / RothweIX (doc 'd); i 4X t- * . i [ r^vr* 0 4r-. t ' * ' %' i 1r.-^V -V| f:\ -j I s i W ' yu''ve!$e* wl&* you5with* r|fe r k o 'to,,the history that you.-// received from hltf as to the eaployseat over the years,witness replied# donH'think these are satis factory;:; they, are ay wrltter^orlbbled.notes* --V she' has n> dates, In that, .she was trying, to get a description of,his , work as heat and frost insulator Asked if she wrote down all she got^^L^^; ^ W i t n e s s ^replied/ one does not do all that,\there fire a good many things- ^ A "that'a *an like this tells me that are not. written down, preolkely I have 1 /"W'hot/got down here the exact days when he worked for;thi`s ooapaannyrtniat, /.jtX-.,^UVcmaysbaHnJfy,-*/.nA-u,sa.koejd /.w h^a n y!o u first' a. ex"aa_mJ--IlSn----ea--dthl--s--I -a-nyou AwMe-r-eTf''Ai,tr,omtaIimnnatt'ee4jmrested in /// <fixing liability on a particular,Individual insomuch as you were lnmaking a * aiaknosisjwitness replied,' yes. Asked, and it would he important la making* diagnosis to determine how long the Individual had been e sployed at s partiul&r joh witness replied,: it do^sjaotVse relevant when you hav .?'sV`/ a history that is' so X o h g ,in tlae of ex3^sur^V"She has; roted that he worked.r in a stdre after" sohool: ih'!his early youth/.Then while still in school he t o t the Boston Floating Hospital. He worked at Pilgrim $j^^ressias"'s"hipper: also/ Hefworkd:thereintoutj a year Her. next notation is : that he worked at Waverly Heating for.; one year.1 Following: that he did: rX'-.v' * >' - r-.--..-. ' ! f <-t*v.*"St a*'ason work, he ;WorkQ& off `and on with his' grandfather in this cement .work/- He/tfcSn started at what; he oalled heat `.'and. frost; insulating iinl did it off > //.ViTand^On for about 30 years,'- he out and' sawed asbestos board .to, fit .pipes//.,: ^ l r o tiers/'etos She was Interested In this 3 Q'years*\ employment in._this///// particular trade. Asked insofar as what he did while working for a period ;of 151months for one eaployer or two years for another eaployer at the > particular time when you received this, history you were not too Interested ^ In finding out the,,detalls of that,witness replied, that's right Asked, v * .and* nowhere In the record does it lndloate how much asbestos he oame In oon- S`V taoi with while In the employ of the Bancroft Company and nowhere in the / / / : record .does -It indicate the oal'lber of the asbestos while working for the ////Bancroft .Company, witness replied, yes Working with asbestos requires - ' 'one. to have proper ventilation or the wearing of a mask and then it oan be /s-'V,:rd o n e / Insofar as her records are oonoerned she doesn't know whehter /. while ,wor*ahg for the Bancroft Company he was out in the open or in a con- fined space, what toe situation was with reference to ventilation. She y ; saw_this patient, during his _last admission to the hospital -- the. last I.:-..!* / ^ part, of Noyeaver and first part o f Deoeaber. She was not the so-called : att'enaing physician'at that tlwe; the an was on the ward She had nothing Jto do' with the preparation of the death certificate; that was done by the house officer She had nothing to do with the preparation of the final diagnosisa The diagnosis of asbestosis throughout the hospital record was questionable but that antedated the postmortem. That is true lhsofar as the hospital reoord 1b oonoerned.' ,, TO COUNSEL POE TRAVELEBSjOn looking at the slides following autopsy she observed some olub-shaped, brown-colored bits of fibers and because of their length and contour and duration in the bronchial tree of tl lung she concluded they were asbestos fibers. Asked if she had an opinion as to. whether they had been there a year or ten years,witness replied, no. Asked, they had certainly had been there longer than a year in your opinion witness replied,I don't think I g^v you aa opinion on time. Asked, the * fibers that caused the oanoer which produced the death had been there much longer than a year, that Is a fair statenent, witness replied, that sees. .certainly more than likely/Asked If In her oplniopihat Is true* witness ' I - > \ # r ^ rep^ lied,T X wish_ I eould _________ b_ o_ awfully flat-footea but I 'm certainly willing to along"with you on,that = CLAII'IANT: Asked, the diagnosis of asbestosis aaewere'" adaitted da bane be stricken fro* the xjeoord and Coaalsslonar ruled they he allowed' In until the entire.'record had. been shbaittedi '* '"VI '-i* ' " '-0,,. book whloh counsel has In hls hand* She found that In the pooket of th coat her husband wore to work.'Asked to look at the handwriting.. ' In that book and tell If she recognizes it, witness replied, yes. It Is : hner hnussobaainida''ss.9 --V -y-`K : - i' -A r 5v:V'^; :,: * .< - - . - . - O " , i , ^ii'i 1 -W-- -**' " - V ? / / * * -, ^w-- :?;*-'v,-:r-4-^s-t* o--Kr^- ~ -*' *= ; ^ V : , r '*-.? A T '-:!-:- -/ . U- C; Counsel for clalnant offered this Meaorandua Book for thls-v ^A reooi*d as an Exhibit,stating It Is*a work reoord kept by the decedent fro* Monday, Ootober 28,1951 through February 1 9 i 1952, that lh It the--* % - employee listed fro* day, toJday the work bhat he did, that It Is apparent this an had some sort of supervisory oapao1ty on this Job; counsel for ;* Utloa objected to'the adalsslbn of.this Meaorandua Book; Co*alssionerAiA ; `ruled the Meaorandua Book was' to be adaltted as an Exhibit and exception Ais saved for counsel-for i 'rtv5 ":'S.\ \, J HUGHES, oalled and questioned by counsel for blai'aant; > ' \ 'A' : J - testified he presently lives on Barry Street^ y Dorchester. Hie occupation 1b that of asbestos worker. He la a aeaber of the Heat ahd Frost Insulation Workers* Union. He has worked as asbestos worker about 35 years.(Counsel for blalaant stated he was offering A this aan as an expert witness on the trade of a heat and frost Insulator.) During this 35 years he has worked as Insulator on boilers,pipes,saoke flue and stacks. In doing this wdrk. he only had to *lx up the asbestos with . water- that was the only alxing he did* He has.done that work hiaself,- In.that trade he had oooaslonto out'cylinders of prepared Insulating aaterlals; He? haB done that work hiaself. He has blocked boilers,flueB and saok? stacks hinselfc (Counsellor olaiwant again stated he offers this aan as an expert witness on^the trade of asbestos worker and heat and frost Insulation aan.) Blocking'.a flue"was-'part of the Insulating Job. The sa*e ' aaterlal was not always used to bloqk a ;flue.1 There are,a .certain Halted nnaber of uaterlal* used for "blocking"a; flue. Asked, what are the aaterlals U s e d for blooking a flue1, witness "replied, 85 per oent Magnesia would be - one; air oell board would be another - this-is Just an asbestos paper; and applibatlbn of aagnesla'oeaent alone without blocking. Asked, in any of these three insulatlng materlals.that .you have Just aentloned is eebeato -7used,. witness > eplled,yeSoj.It;Is used In;,the, Kagnesla.^Eaohtof,;the-^sSlf: '7A' '"aaterlals was used speoifloaliyAin insulati%,`for ;heat;:'sayIngV;^eyralsor-^ ' vlfA^^nsed^ ah"asbestos, q.eaent$;Asked., if;a j)a;rtbii^r, type.b^ ^tHose^four^^nsuiatli^'^^berialB^^tn^ ?r*`l:^-Z''A'Bskeddl^';wwhhaatt.W;owupulldd'>e tthefhbiie^UmaAtarpices' , u h d^whriwnoh*uVlndu^-vunisiel&;tn oh*e j | f e l fKzV&g'itl 5>. h-' b:- >: k V/' i\V 1/^ T-' Y' r>+ P;.-' tradel>f a heat and frost Insulating Ban imd aBbestos'worker, is it the oub of that trade that the men on the Job aix this ashestOB cement as they need It.(objection by counsel for Utloaas being immaterial, question allowed) * ^witness'"replied, yes, He^ has'done thathimself* -JJ ;>,,;- . 5 j.; *7; <-s' r h & ? ' ' 4 ' t* ': - - > r.|T-r; ,T0 THE COHMISSIONER: Asked to tell what he aotually observed When this cement was! alxed,witness replied/ the dust naturally raises up When the'deaent .strikes the"'bbxivV.j>"p;/;^;/s:j4va|.?^v'^ff i H -- .?. " ar ,a. /.TTOO 'CCOOUUNSSEEL'L.FORB THEE.CLAIiMlAANNTT::.Block!incg a boiler Jlustt means applying the/inaxilatoh/ Tba^ is done In the saa"Wanner as blooking a flue When blooking;a.boiler you* generally insd;theinsulation direotly in oontac ^wlth the. boiler beoause no. air space was called for but in a flue they used an air spaae lath to give air space when blocking ltc The aray used the air spaoei Asked, you said in answer to a previous question that 90 per bent, of th tine the Kateiial used in blocking a flue was this asbestos cement>'would that same figure apply in blocking a boiler or would it be a different proportion, witness replied, no, it's the sane thing. He would say that 90 per cent of the time they used this asbestos oement to finish; in other casaB they used the asbestos oement to stick the blooking to the boiXer but that was not a general preotloe with every person* Asked to tell how he would go. about covering a steam pipe, witness replied, a steam pipe up to ten inches is generally stuck on with paste. The insulating material is generally Magnesia Asked, Is It loose material or does it come in the ` fora of cylinder, witness replied, no, ltf a a d ded Material. Asked to tell what he means ty that witness replied, it comes in a molded form up to ..approximately ten inches and then molded in segmental form from ten - lnohea on. He means it oomes pro-shaped They do have to out it to flt0 Asked, .01/the material that ytu used is there any label or other tag statin what the material Is oomposed of(objeetlon noted by oounsel for Utloa, question allowed and exception is Baved) witness replied,yes0 He ofaly knows of four oompanleB who manufacture this material - they are Bisbee Haterson, Johns-Manville, Phillip Carey, Everett Asbestos.Asked,is your strong today so you could tell us today what appears on the labels of the molded pipe ooverlng produoed by any of those four manufacturers (objection noted by oounsel for Utica, question allowed)^ witness replied, 85 per oent magnesia and that is all* Asked, does it sar anything there about what the other 15 per oent is there,witness replied. aeT8r stated to my knowledgeo Asked, what does the phrase 'oeaenting a a0)11?1*' towltaeBS replied*, that is simply finishing up the work Asked, what is the substance that is used in that operating, witness replied, asbestos cement* Asked, what is the phrase 'finishing fittings' mean^witnesB replied, putting on the asbestos cement and canvassing. it_ COUNSEL FOR TRAVELERS: He didn't know Mr. Rothwell very well* alot He was on the same job with him but never worked direotly with him He *aled directly with hlia bo he never saw what work he had been doing o f t h e dutloB on thl Job that are not dusty, wltnesf 8ay a really a dusty Job.Asked, you mean the mixing is dusty,witness replied, even the application Is dusty. Asked - material that 1. m thl. bag,than when U to the^aagnesia block lts dusty They put this bag material ^in a pail or tub and pour water on it* Then it's wet The mixing oan be d^ne Jja a^few minutes. Then the aen who are going to use that take some on .a ^jrtar -boar>d .or pail* They' use it tr--o-w-e-l These men .t.ak.e some in a buoket - * t rowel. One man can mix enough for 100 men. On > r there would 0 e ten aea* One man, in ohe hour, could mix - " *or dayv:> 0 tAe other dine sen could go to the tuo and get; a pail or buoket i > U of this material and take it to  till8 ^ ? ^ ^ ^ asbestos to your ^ * "T- .' .%<,,. 1 v . * V \ - _ ,, _' Jk M / t * ' j G U r*--'* e.. re^ ^ ^ m n mriHSBir'PC THE CLAinaxi. iwa uuv..*..w~* -** -w~"- V a r y `surface and hea you apply wet stuff, on the ,^ii^%-s\-aytro~u^re. going against ;^ a arf 8 state the asbestos oeaent was dry. surface, As a^ineral rule It was used as'a"finishing ;f v ^ - ^ U ' ^ r S r i ^ ^ n g * . - 1 *1 * . "tot 1 the ,^tol " terla^ thrt 1b ; ^ V at/wpiC i ' a `haii:dfi ce*ent.witness r eplled, that 1b y per cent - ^ i | 8 ^ ^ s i ^ A B k e ^ 18 'that la the fora of a; pre-oolded s e ^ a V orjeotlonger i r- V _ - 6 t . * f 1 'A-**"**"'c"***"*. . iffS'a o^tj^g ay difference where you were.Installing these abided is llk W t H h e ^ t e n t : of ;the: dust that would get.on you,;would soae BOOCUB,,, : - _-T^ a. -- aaa'H^'eafl nn rnmn r*rnra+-Blrthl v places be more dusty .than; othersjwltrtess replied, yes, on open construction %f-?-Vthe`re"'would bdaore wlnd-i That'would/ make jit more dusty* Asked,, how about ^ 5^ ^ 3.'hstailing" insulation on pipes' that are In the^celllng, between one k ^ ^: oelllng and the floor above(objeotion noted by counsel for Utica, question W iW * ~ * & a X t t e & de bene) witness replied; I don't think that q u e s t i o n Is put, ? S^%^v?qbri^otly/as; far, as we are concerned because between a celling Is not so, i;.?'4k!-k"'you're''not between a oelllng when you're applying that, you're open although It's between the oelllng when the Job Is completed, you're In the* open when you apply It. The floor above Is in plaoe. Asked, you're working above against a floor, witness replied,yes. Asked, is that work ore dusty than other work or Icsb dusty, witness replied,I think the answer would be Just about'the saaeo > \*i -vSf-U'1; V ' .-!* 7k k k k ;:'- i;-/r kk-vs-Jr / TO COUNSEL FOR THEUTICA: That depends on the conditions on the answers, thereare three parts o f the work that are dusty, one of it is the asbestos v you out the :; ;- .. .. _ ... . . . -- __ ,, ____,___ of the work that .. Is/dusty,witness replied/-as far as dusty, now as I understand^hat question to be Is the work dusty, yes, it's dusty but I won't say It's dusty for all materials* > : . TO THE COMMISSIONER: The work was dusty when he used their aatertal In alxlng or cutting o r upplylng* TO COUNSEL FOR TRAVELERS:Asked, on theBe jobs where you were applying or this material that you were cutting, there was a considerable dust that waB not as result of your materials, Is that true,witness piled, that is true, I said yesc Asked, la other words on boilers that you ight be working on there,nay be a thick coat of ordinary house or building dust, so-called, Is that right, witness, replied, yea* Asked, and on pipes that * 0V ? f ! 00v5rli?* f repairing there night likewise be thick coating of hous or building dust, witness replled^yeSo^ *Asked, and when you say th* lob ' was dusty you *ean In your operation you disturb*^ and knocked loose a lot, of this dust *a around there,witness replied/ no, in ay stateaent... Asked, '/"V ' i SAy ta hat_the procedure when you apply m'terial either to a boiler or ? ^ * e ;P^P.es ^ou *ight disturb the dust that was on these pipes, witness *v. . answer.would b a 'y e s 0 That would fly around Asked w h e n rou JIM ound0^He did say/ 90 per aaterlal comes with d o t h wrapped t s r l?i i i tS'SiSth S S ^ hSSt5l i ; ^ ^ ^ C ^ i ',3-v^r^- the ^larger work1or with: work up;t o .ten inches. Jmt/lf hd work | with laaterlai'V & tb ten" inches alt would Tse^oovered:wlth, clotli,witness >,// ^4 ^^^i5 :-r'eplied#;5 it "would he Thls/'wet Oeaentjwas^'applledA;to, a holler orwother / ; ^^j^ohieot with'-a. 'trowel;Ywhea that^wasldone^lt ^ as^appl|ed only,a Motion "r ^a^t lae :That bs-1_wei1r"do-es1not^&pply'4-X.W 4iynfsluullaotHinon,Onrht;ftVh'te* b>Voiiler V ffiirrst >i ua w i w ,**;,** .v ^___ _ _ ,, J,-h;the"Btufjryou;apply^dlreotly ^ to the boiler you put that on direotly with a trowel, and tjbat is wet, < <; fe-^yes/ After he puts t h e .blocks:pa, ?thep lie puts.oi^the,* et oeaento The : r 'SewO*:huiaiedvlC*t^ %t^iife?idkaa;/^ the boiler that you touch when you put on the ^ i ^ ^ 4 T'wbt'beenb'Withthet rowel'Is that part which becomes wet, you don't;^*::/;;. - v- i ^ '""-* witness replied, the wet cdment hits one part of ^ disturbs the dust that is on-there, They out P these molded fore with; a saw.Asked/ a m when you-out them with a saw u you^usually put then down on something And saw ddwh on them, witness r f ^ ^ P 'treplled,^!'would say no* to that question. That is usually done by laying down -<m a :flat surface and cutting'across itIt is done like on.a..//%, table 'arid out across. It cuts easily.Asked, and the;material that you f :^Vi7^Tout> is ^usually" covered with o loth/ up; to. ten: inches, witness replled,yesB iAfiked*'Vou don't know whether Mr.Rothwell used any material over ten P P [iP vP ; admitted ab pathologist) he has had the *:Opportunity to review the o Pi p - - reoord ofrMassachusetts General Hospital;*and the autopsy record 0 f the . V.J* Massachusetts Gnral'Hospital/ pathology departnent. He haB formed anfX< opinion as-to the oause of death In this`ease; In his opinion thlsir f sSS; oan*s death was caused by adenocarcinoma of the lung/- that was theP l|\ fe'.'.V*- .death with extension to the heart; pleura, diaphragm, erltoheal' tissue on the left, adrenals, kidneye and the lywph nodes, ^sked/was/there any other pathologioa^6ondltlon' this aan had whloh was a ^contributing factor, in his death (objection;noted; b'obtinsel for.Utloa, ,M/ *,>/tfW/*,-./*ru'*/'//$'i* ^ B except ion Vs'saved) witness replied, there were other contributing ; /. jr-<* -* factors .Asked, what ware they in order of 1portance, witness replied, this man had asbestosls with pulmonary fibrosis, congestion of the liver, Inflammation of the external surface of his heart,inflamaatlon of his rlgh lurg, externally/ and he had approximately a quarter Of fluid in his right ohestc Asked to tell'what theire 1b In the hospital reoPrd whloh leads him to the opinion this man had asbestosls, witness replied, in the wiorosooplt examination of his lung tissue the characteristic nodular shaped bodies the one sees In asbestosls were present, these are diagnostic of asbestosls Asked if he'has an opinion as to whether or not there is any causal relationship between the asbestosls and the oanoer fron whloh this man died,witness replied he has. His opinion la that due to the longstanding ohronlo lrritatlon,as result of the Inhalation of asbestos fibers, that thii v V '/ ; \ Is an adequate oause for the development of hib cancer whloh led to his des `Asked, did the. asbestosls Itself, apart " from its affect" In producing - the cancer, did the aabeBtoeiB itself play any part in his death at the time that he died.witness replied, I don't think so, no. Asked, I want you r-;- ^ to assuue that this employee worked t o r A . , Bancroft Company between - - December 1 7 ,> 9 5 0 and Kant 1?, 1952, that during that time he performed v*-''to*d^::\':and. fTOBt ^eulafcion worker ;pr asbestos v: /T^orker'as''It 'is^brdlnarlly described, that this work, and speolfioally^ :^ :: during th period from Ootober 2 8 ,; 1952 and.February 19/ 1932 included days> iSu . .. ............ .f^estb^bea^^X^ed 6nd^aw;bh>sbslos;,board/^tiat^W b A d ^ t b ^ o ^ ^ l P t ^ S K 'mg#TM?*? at.rUl. aB 11 .. bullla? Suat ahlph^ a jp* ^ b ttot tt k W o w teetlflal as fabt that bs ooughed, that the olotheB t, joo, JrnWi Inat nartices bM I want you to as*ua further that > . M S g : i j f l ' ^ ^ o p S H t o bMrttof a harsh, having oough h l o l O ^ ;:-v.':'-x' worse la th morning and productive of a ,snail amount of orownlsh sputum, that shortly'thereafter he noticed that on exertion he was short of breath 'ad had a sharp boring pain below the angle of his left shoulder blade, ft?w that lie was out of work fro* February 21 to February 2 9 ,1 9 5 2 and returned , v< orfrou t:-ob'^ i o K h >as doing away fro* home and was t rested for, what the dootor told him was grippe, that he then returned to work , Weeks "andVfliva2j^"oea8 ed work fr t he Bancroft Co*pany on March l ^ W z r-t-^ and went t 'Work for t he 'Arwstrong Company fro* March 2 0 , 1952 to April 2 5 , x-'f. ,v 19 5 thati$ $ .nbntiaud;tb do therWrk pf::a heat had frost Insulation .worker 'for tl ~Mstroxik Coi^)anyiT that he flmily stopped wor^ la April 1952 | r '^ * rfollowing consultation with2'a physlolan; because of these symptoas described '* ~beforeV:naroif'`slifertiMSSB;of'Ibreath.'oii exertion, pain, below his left : ;" -i V t r ^ shoulder and ooushii':now,faseuning -those faote to be true .as to his work *-'?' history and the msfcory of the onset of- his symptoms, do* you* have an opinion as to whether or not the work this man'was doing while in the eaploy of the <* V* V A.5V. Banoroft ooapany, that would be Deoember I7 ,1 9 5 0 to Maroh 19,1952, 5 ; was a^ausative factor in producing the"'asbestosis and bronchogenic > ? - carlnoa7walGh he died, witness replied,(oounsel for Utioa objected, questioi admitted de bene, his exceptions are saved) I do. It Is his opinion that soaetiae during 1951 this nan developed a Stallgnanoy of his lung as : secondary to his aBbestoels, the asbestosis was a faotor in causing the ^ malignancy to start, that is as far as he can go, Asked, do you have an opinion as to whether the inhalation of dust fro* insulating materials in "' his work during 1951 was a faotor, aggravating or preoipitating factor,\-J>: in the asbestosis and thereby of the oanoer(objection noted by counsel `. " for Utica,, his exception Is saved) witness replied, if he inhaled dust v containing asbestos during- the period o f time it would aggravate his ?;? ^ oonditlon^ Asked, do you; have an opinion as' to whether "or not his work - . fro* March 2 0 ,1 9 5 2 up to April 2 5 , 1952,for the ArmstrongCork Coapany, ;: ;- assuming that he Inhaled dust fro* Insulating materials at Ills work, ^ ?^ ; Inoluding asbestos, was a faotor in the asbestosis and oancer fro* which he died, witness replied. I have an opinion. It is his opinion that It did not play any role0 Asked to give Ida reason for that opinion,witness replied, because he had oarolnoaa prior to the tine and carcinoma was the oaus of the death. Asked, didn't the further Inhalation of the asbestos dust during the last six weeks play any part In the aggravating or worsening his condition witness replied, no, I don't think so Asked, did It play any part In pro- ducine the death at the time that he diedwitness replied, I don't think so0 TO COUNSEL FOR THE UTICA; Asked, you Bay that there was a long standing ohronlo irritation due to the inhaling of fibers which you say was an adequate cause for the oanoer,witness replied, that Is correct Asked, when you say longstanding ohrohlo irritation, can youtel^ds how ,* long, witness replied, I don't think anybody can tell you that; we do know that one,of the causative factors in the production of aalignanoy is a ohronlo irritating prooess, when that begins I don't think anybody can narrow it down as to a week or a onth, we know that oanoer takes a; oertain leagth of tl*e to develop, onoe It start it depends on the looation, it dependson whether It can be removed or a>b, this man's oanoer was too*. advanced, to remove, they took HI* to the Massachusetts Oeneral and attempted 1. to remove It and found they could not because of'the advanced stegec when his oanoer began I can't tell you because the line of demarcation between * - normal and abnormal no one ever sees, I don't think anyone can tell: Asked,- ^ S S * ! -> 2In0.-71?9 5 2 o .:or whether or not the oanoer had Its inoectlon prior to March,t that ;Sato, wtlaiess,I r e p i l i t s , " i n c e p t I o n /0 r/. r prior ;to 'l^^becas^^'t; was 'ftt dvtuwfed^diS^^ give;a'definitevdat on 'th* *i ,, 'L'.^Z\'s.-\ -* V V.-v ,a-v^ *'> > -v``r * * - - m .s-= t ! W m m i ' an worked'at the rssme job' subsequent''tVHaroh W 195^ :"upr : ^'' .^952, doinS the sane sort of thing that he had done betwhun tht Tperiod of December 195Q to March 2 0 .1952, do you h a v e ^ n hni f or not jthe'work subsequent to March 20.19 5 2 would be dfttri**tJ!*r if whet}: ;that it; w L 2^ o p ^ o n f r F i 2 t ' advanced, I; doubt the inhalation of^anfthfni* lsnafy wa* then far of M b jalignanoy. Asked, do you hav^an oolninn j ^ * aa ? 'iafc4 tl10 growth during that period of tine wa^ + **2? af. whether or not worklj oouaael *or iimveleri ^dobtS^ii h i u {b^eotloa noted by JaSff replied/ thereare?ce^ttlri^Mtient^ith"W?ifer ;lon) witness >'. i ^ their /ob and working S t i " t & * ^ obntin- ' ^ * v A o^pletely.'bbllabse: one# JL, di0>:there are other patients p irV :-,return, to work, 1 don't think^th have alignahojr and never ^ ^ a d v a n c e a e n t ^ o f naligiant dii*e ?ir of {a role in t ^ ' it-: V- ' v th lahal*tlon ofaasbestis a r i S f c f S S i dl^e5 ,f W f r t t la his systen,was it aaxravatod hv v a^-i*ahat disease had , opinion, witness repliid. I t h i S ^ w 2 by Jf asbestos dust, in your :period of possibly four or i h f o r ^ W t a f S 1'?*" ? ^ m " tte? for". his malignancy he might have J0?-- *18 flowing the beginning of , inhellag more of t r \ ^ h a little; b n " ^ , ? - ' : ;sajuinis'ia?s^1-su*ars > malignant oonditlon, the malianani? 8^! f ?ie ?a^6At^ 9 agents in his replied, ye*, Askedfbut M u S *" Asked. asbestoslIfifinMs w{or^*'a*rtteer^hhi?s/n8a^l.l1g8n'1&'no1y^sotna'tr^thMl'inlt*,,1l, bar a"^^aLgegrLaTMv?at.e?d0v*ergyr anunothebdy heeirey.r ' * somewhat,witness. replleaf ,io? U leht b a ^ b e S l ^ a t e d V2 - TO" COUNSEL 'POB m V E IJgH S-A llibl v^S f your opinion the man's work fnn -Asked^ did I understand you to say i ' c.> a. *: ,* ,, .s.. v*. dismissed, The motion w a B ^ ' J n uSle/ad^liementf 18110 ayala8t them be : 1952 - Unit Number ??8205i^*be made'nnrt i 5 ' v 7 " tops/ Heport of Deoember h s n a m a y b e f o u i d I n t h e ^ o j ^ r i i . " *!! r e o o f a ' ^ l Is d o n e b y ' " s s a :" 'S S S 2 S S A W ;x" _*r'_ v & r*in !E r '".11 ' I f ' t ^ JJ : T i i- .'.f'c rZ -P X ^ -v ` '- -5 ->* . 4. ` t -'XiiS&ir < ; : / * . Bothwall (dec!d) lU'MbL.i 2 D fiC .Xr,:0 S . ,.>d f dr<.-min* whother the employee suffered This hearing wsc i ^ u u ae , , ., _ri ,n tii> course of hi a eaplcyaent and, a personal Injury rtstna n.t >! ** u '" - .. to s*Id Injury lf so, whether his death wa> " '3 ' , ,, .. _ The olaiss ^.e or^^ht a -.- >,> inBurere - Utica hutual Casualty , ... A ,, Cospany which covered the A., w = - r.oapnny and Travelers Insurance 1 . - Coapany which covered tne Ar...o*.s - . n w Bancroft Coiepany froa The enplcyee worked fer the ^ " wre` * Deceaber 17, 1950 to Kerch 19, 1952 *ad ^ >TOrk*1 for th* AraBtrcn6 Cork Conpany iron March ?.0, 1952 to April 25, tS52. - There Is evidence In this reoora upon which I find that this 46-year old oeeedent. 1th a 29-yenr work history as an asbestos worker, . waB U8t w i oyed as a pipe -Ut,,r 4 heat and fret Insulator for the two nforenor.tloned companies . This work with the two'insured fir ; entailed the handling and Insinuation of asbestos in the covering of ' pipes and also as an Insulator against heat and frost, in various for- anri under various conditions^ There Is evidence upon which I find that the decedent's work exposed M . to the Inhalation of osbestos dust particles, I find he t did inhalo these particles It is also a fair and reasonable Inferenoe-and I so lnfer-that asbestosls Is a disease contacted only by people who are expend to the . inhalation of asbestos fibers m their work. It 1 oounon knowledge that persons who are not so exposed do not suffer fro. this progressive disease for which there 1b no known cure There is additional evidence that the eployee died on Decesber^ 1952 and the further evi,d,ence upaon *nlcohh I1 `f1 ind that death was due to bronohogenlo oarolnona, secondary to asbeatosls, I aooept and adopt the opinion of Dr. Harriet L. Hardy, under whose supervision the decedent was treated during his entire period of hospitalization and who had an opportunity*, review the entire autopsy protocol and who saw sene of the n a ^ f ^ t e r l a l In connection with the autopsy. Dr. Ha^y t e . t l f l e 4 - | ^ | ^ f - work the decedent ? ' i - U , ~ CO/ <0* fit/ cOJGV U '' ,Rothwell (dec -1d) performed as a pipe cutter end ho e>.rA froat insulator and the disease tha resulted In his death "fell in together".;, I accept said adopt the opinion of Dr Janes Stewart Rooney, a pathologist, who testified ''that Bowetinc during 1551 (when he was working for A W. Banoroft C'.wpfiny? this fan. developed a malignancy of hia lung as secondary to his asbestos! s.. thf- rhvsstoaJ.i '-as a factor in causing the malignancy to start w I find, therefore, that ihs asbestos dust which the employee Inhaled at his work resulted in asheBtosle, This, I find, constitutes a ,, personal Injury arising out of and in tha course of his employment. I find further that the asbestos in oaused a lung malignancy which resulted In his _ death on Decesber 3* 195%; The fibers that cause?':- the cancer which produced the death of the, eaployee had been in ecplcyoe' lungs auoh longer'than a year in the opinion of Dr. Hardy.. "That is a fair ate coneat, B Dr. Hardy testified, adding, "that seeas certainly *orc than likslj*P and I so find., This considered cedical opinion would certainly relieve the last insurer of any responsibility for the payment of ooapensation slnoe it was in the year of his death that the employee ocmenoed work for the seoond insured; This opinion, too, Is shared by Dr,- Rooney. He testified, and I so find, that "the *an`s work frea March 20 until the date he finally stopped work, such asbestos as he night have inhaled, if any, played no part in . either the aggravation or acceleration of the diseases nor did it bring about his death sooner than it otherwise would have occurred,," Dr. Rooney,who ?a prdainent in the field of pathology and whose - qualifications were admitted here, testified it is his opinion the cancer started "subsequent to 1 ?50 ,, * * * I would say probably 1951 fron the description of the canoer.15 I aocept and adopt Dr.Rooney8s opinion so * find. The decedent was in the employ of the A. W. Banoroft Coapany, the first Insured, throughout all 1951v I find, therefore, that the industrial injury which resulted in a lung canoer and caused the eaployee's death is causally related to his -19- ( bthwell idec1d ) eaployment with the A eW. Hanoi*o.'l Company, c.yered by the Utica Mutual Casualty Company, There 1b evidence In the record siwt the eaployee'e last working day was April 2f, 1952v Between the cefrwvMen of nis eeployaent and his death he was thre tinea coniine"; t-.r hospital and In addition to these three confinements rocei** i pa Lient care* There 1 b no evidence to tr.f, contrary and go I infer and find, that the employee Via3 totsxxly *noapau H a t e d for work between April 26,1952 wwrt December 2, 1952 due to the aforementioned compensable Industrial - Injury, namely lung canoer. The Utloa Mutual Casualty Coapany is direoted to pay total incapacity compensation for the above-mentioned period, - at the rate of ("30,00 a week, plus $15 .0 0 a week for dependency *in the total aua of $l42Q.?l;(Seb Atamion's Case, 265 Kass. 51) * The Utica Mutual Caoualty Company Is further direoted to pay i the claimant widow the sum of C2p ,00 weekly dependency coapensatlon, from Decenber 3, 1952 to date and continuing, subject to the provisions of the Act. The sun of 0905,-71 1b due to the filing date of this decision. . The Utloa Mutual Casualty Company Is also direoted to pay the olainant widow the suxa of $25,00 weekly dependency coapensatlon, for the care and support of five minor children in accordance with the.provision* of the Aot. The sum of $1132.14 is due in weekly conpensation benefit for the children to the filing date of this decision* The total sun due the claimant widow under this decision to the . filing date, Ootober 16, 1953, is $345B.56 whloh the Utica Mutual Casualty Coapany Is direoted to pay forthwith. . The Utica Mutual Casualty Conpany is elso direoted to pay the . V claimant widow the additional sun of --300,00 under Seotlon 33 of ^ke Act* The Utloa Mutual Casualty Cocpnny-is ordered to nake the payment of $500,00 to the State Treasury in accordance with Section 65N of the Act I find equity and Justice required the testimony of Doctors Hard I* and Rooney and they are each entitled to $50o00 under the provision* of Section 9A of the Act* kRothwell (deo!d) . The olui.it denied and dlealssc. the Travelers Insurance1 Coapany 10 hereby A v t U i - l o GOLDEN INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD <? \ > v\ ioi DEC 1M &\ 5 BECEIVBP g 6 Extern O'/ B A LTIM O R E, MD. NEW YORK. N. Y. CLARKSBURG. W. VA. TULSA, OKLA. T . LO U IS, MO. CH ICA G O , IL L . LOS AN GELES. CAL. A l e x a n d e r 8c A l e x a n d e r IN CORPORATED . ' INSURANCE AVERAGE ADJUSTERS C O N SU LTIN G A C TU A R IES 5 0 3 ST . P A U L P L A C E , B A LT IM O R E 2, MD. September 29th, 1953 TELEPHONE MULBERRY 8*SS40 B ELL SYSTEM T ELET Y P E BA 08S CA BLE ADDRESS "ALEXBLU E" Mr. E. M. Vegman, Manager Insurance & Real Estate Department Armstrong Cork Company Lancaster, Pennsylvania . Dear Mr. Vegman: Travelers* Policy RUB 2047242 Re: Richard Rothveil Wilmington, Mass. _________ Workmen* s Compensation We inquired of the Travelers* Boston Office as to the status of this case and they write us on September 22nd, 1953 that the hearing has been concluded and that they are presently awaiting the decision of the single member and when it is received, they will advise us the result. This infoxmation will be passed on to you when it is received here. . Very truly yours ALEXANDER & ALEXANDER, INC. S DEPARTMENT Mr! . R. Hunan, Building Material Division, Boston March 11, 1953 E, M. Vegaaa, Insurance and Real Estate Department, Lancaster Dear Tam* lou will recall that last Fall a j ^ , J ^ a r d . ^ S 9 t A of Wilmington, Massachusetts, was seeking comp ;fa US,f0^ f L alleged occupational disease supposedly contracted while working *&** us.. The matter was reported to the Travelers Insurance Company and they have reported to our agent as follows Please be advised that we have concluded our investigation of this claim and have advised the deceased* counsel that we do not feel that the deceased employment with our assured aggravated his pre-existing carcinoma of the left lung. The matter will be reached for a hearing shortly at our Department of Industrial Accidents, and we shall keep Mr. Kunan, Manager of the assured's Boston Office, acquainted with the progress of the claim. Ve keep you advised of any developments* EMVlAJP Copy to Mr. W. B. Hartman BALTIM ORE MD. NEW YORK. N. Y. CLA RKSBU R G . W V/ TULSA. OKLA. S T . LO U IS, MO. CH ICA G O . IL L . LOB A N G ELES, CAL. ALEXANDER & ALEXANDER IN CORPORATED . INSURANCE AVERAGE AD JUSTERS CO N SU LTIN G A C TU A R IES 8 0 3 ST . P A U L P L A C E , B A LTIM O R E 2, MD. March 5th, 1953 TELEPHONE MULBERRY 6 S 4 0 B ELL SYSTEM T ELET Y P E BA BBS* CA BLE ADDRESS `A L E X B L U E * * Mr. E. M. Wegman, Manager ^nsurance and Real Estate Department Armstrong Cork Company Lancaster, Pennsylvania Dear Mr. Vegman: Workmen's Compensation Policy RUB 20A72A2 Travelers lou advised us on September 17th, 1952 that Mr. Richard Rothwell of Wilmington, Mass, was seeking compensation'from the Arm strong Cork Company for an alleged occupational disease, supposedly contracted while working for yfur company. The matter was reported to the Travelers and on October 13th, 1952, we quoted letter which we received from them on the case. On February 27th, 1953, we followed up the matter with the Travelers and are now in receipt of a letter from them, reading: "Please be advised that we have concluded our investigation of this claim and have advised the deceased* s counsel that we do not feel that the deceased's employment with our assured a^grevated his pre-existing carcinoma of . left lung. The matter will be reached for a hearing shortly at our Department of Industrial Accidents, and we shall keep Mr. Nunan, manager of the assured's Boston Office, acquainted with the progress of.the claim". file. We thought you might wish this information for your Very truly yours ALEXANDER & ALEXANDER, INC. AR1MENT R BA LTIM O R E, MD. N E W Y O R K . N. Y. CLARKS BRO. W. VA. TULSA. OKLA. ST. LO U tS. MO. CH ICA G O . IL L . LOS AN O ELES. CAL. Alexander & Alexander IN C O R P O R A T E D INSURANCE AVERA GE A D JU STER S C O N SU LTIN G A C TU A R IES SQ 3 ST. P A U L P L A C E . B A LTIM O R E 2. MD. October 15th, 1952 TELEPHONS MULBERRY 6 3 4 0 B ELL SYSTEM T ELET YP E BA SI CA BLE ADDRESS A LEXBLU E" Mr. E. M. Wegman, Manager Insurance and Real Estate Department Armstrong Cork Company Lancaster, Pennsylvania Jr Dear Mr. Wegman: Workmen's Compensation Travelers Insurance Company Referring to your letter of September 17th in which you advised that Mr. Richard Bothwe^l of Wilmington, Mass, was seeking compensation from your Company for an alleged occupationaldisease, we have recently followed up this matter with the adjuster 'oT'the Travelers Insurance Company at Boston, and we now have his reply to our inquiry, reading: "We are making an investigation, however, when it is completed, we will be more than pleased to let you have a report of our findings. "We received an amended notice with regard to the date of injury in the claims from the employeeStS attorney, yesterday. It is well to note that in addition ` to the claim as against our assured, a claim has been made against A. W. Bancroft, another employer insured by the Utica Mutual Insurance Company." Just as soon as we receive the Travlers* further report, the information will be passed on to you. Very truly yours . ALEXANDER & ALEXANDER, INC. IS DEPARTMENT R BALTIM ORE MO. NEW YO RK. N. Y . CLARKSBU RG, W . VA. TULSA. OKLA. ST . LO U IS. MO. CH ICA G O . IL L . LOS AN O ELES, CAL. A lexander & Alexander IN C O R P O R A T E D INSURANCE AVERA GE A D JU STER S CO N SU LTIN G A C TU A R IES 5 0 3 ST. P A U L P L A C E . B A LTIM O R E 2, MD. September 22nd, 1952 TELEPHONE MULBERRY * 4 0 B ELL SYSTEM T ELET YP E BA 881 CA BLE ADDRESS " ALEXBLU E** Mr. E. M. Wegman, Manager Insurance and Real Estate Department Aim strong Cork Company Lancaster, Pennsylvania . Dear Mr. Wegman; Workmen* s Compensation Ve have for acknowledgment your letter of September 17th wherein you advise that Mr. Richard Rothwell of Wilmington, Mass, is making claim under the compensation coverage with the Travelers for an alleged occupational disease, supposedly contracted while working for your Company. We are writing the Travelers Insurance Company at Boston to let us know the result of their investigation of the case and just as soon as we have their report, we will pass the information on to you. very truly yours ALEXANDER & DEPARTMENT R September 17# 1952 Alexander & Alexander, lac* 50 3 Btt Paal Plao* Baltimore 2# Md a" u " " . Aam ifo 0 . g. Bubjaott Vorfcaan* Compensation ' jfeyralcr Insuranq* Comparar s M *" " - Paxy truly yours# mwtjup x n m t o m com oompasx S* M* Vage Manager, Insurance and Baal Estt* Departa*! ** 1 - ;tV,v 'A'` - .'* v,r~^&r:~'-. Confirming our telaphone .conversation "of ^ * date,we are enclosing herewith;copy of. the report 'made'" Elkina,Chief of Laboratory,Commonwealth of Massachusetts^ - Department .of Labor and Indnstriee,Division of Ooeunationa^Vh^V^Ui-;1-*'''' m sLS 5-sw. % *jJr" s ;J^>-" `i " "" Ji*y* - ..t';,..._ 'v - . :*-v*><"V.;.,, ,.`v '; ... - *vi--V,_ ` 'f \*r- *'''*_ ' - .-'?< Thomas H.!?unaif'^-^v^,v;. A i *# - ' /.****&**' , ~v "' ^ ^ i-v^f :r '*-**' ~ .'^.'^ '-'Y^ * ' ,' v '~ tiSfi? * '**4:-* .'-.'-'*V ---- .1-^.. , - y,/h -\* ^ ^ - . 1 V-- J l *. ' .r ' -V - r ' J -* * . ' ^ (>- . - ' . ' *; ''T ' ' T". - -; 1 . -11 v* A'- . ... ; * - > ' v 4-"'^ -V . - ' . ' \. '-- ". i .-"C" - . X" -i ' C b-^'- . ', \bf , ` ^r . ^ .*. , ` '7 -^'ij;.; , . -J ,:>-"v'"^- i, -V '>'-* ; 't -. 1 <'iu * .X *--1*^="**i. $ _ ,, ****SfiW. ,.` * ---' a,--jp^v < X \ , -..v r.-.rc * w -- '.*-. : - v *.-.:--?t*;v;Xbr />-*-***>" -. r "COPY" "COPY" THE COMMONWEALTH OP MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OP LABOR AND INDUSTRIES DIVISION OP OCCUPATIONAL HYGIENE 286 Congress Street, Boston 10 August 19, 1952 3-32 P S. Thorsen Company 45 1/2 L St. South Boston, Mass. Gentlemen On Aug. 8 our engineer, Mr. Elise Compronl, visited your operations at the Salem Willows Power Station In connec tion with a Study being made of exposure of workers to asbestos dust during piping and boiler installation. Enolosed is a copy of a report by Mr. Comproni in which the findings of this study are summarized. matter. We wish to thank you for your cooperation in this Very truly yours, HBExMM Hervey B* Elkins, . Chief of Laboratory * * R o th w e ll (d e c 'd ) WITNESS : Helen V. Rothwell Dr. Harriet L. Hardy John J. Hughes Dr. James Stewart Rooney TESTIMONY ON PAGE 2,3,4,5,12 5,6,7,8,9,10,11 12,13,14,15 15,16,17 ******************************************* R o th w e ll (d e c 'd ) REPORT OF EVIDENCE All the material evidence is reported herewith: The Utica Mutual Casualty Insurance Company is designated a the First Insurer and the Travelers Insurance Company is designated as the Second Insurer. ******************************************************** _ HELEN V. ROTHWELL, the claimant, questioned by her attorney is the widow of Richard J. Rothwell, they were married December 25 1930 ' at State of the Sea Church, East Boston. There are five children of this marriage under the age of 18 at present. Joyce was born January 13, 1938 Mildred was born May 31, 1939, James was born on August 8 , 1941 Harold ' was born December 29, 1942, and Theresa was born July 6 , 1948. Her husband last employer was the Armstrong Cork Company. She has not got the dates he worked for the Armstrong Cork Company. (IT WAS AGREED he worked there from March 20, 1952 to April 25, 1952). Asked if at any time while workinq for the company her husband told her the nature of his work, witness 9 replied yes. He told her he was a pipe cutter and heat and frost insulator and asbestos worker-- it was known under all those names. Prior to working for this employer, he worked for A. W. Bancroft Company. She knows he worked there over a year. (IT WAS AGREED he worked for this t e l W o n fi?m Decf?ber f7' f950 to March 19, 1952.) Asked, did your husband nature or ^ime that he worked for the A. W. Bancroft Company what the u-icf oupcsitii ?ih 5 ?ccu?atlon Yas? (objection noted by counsel for ves Askod j u r o r ' s exception is saved) witness replied, hP tniH the nature of his occupation there according to what H reglled/ l n s t a Pipe cutter, the same work he always d He had done that type of work before he worked for the A. W. Bancroft pprSacStaiclalllfya ?al?l the time"waenyweyreearmSarbreifedreexhacfelpthedaurinnegthewidetpnreessssRieopnlied, we were married 22 years, about 16 years. Asked, did he describe any'of the details on conditions of his work during the time that he worked for witn^s replied yeSmPr v .(obj??bion noted bY Utica, exception saved), k ? L Pl d ' yes* Asked' W l11 You tell us what your husband told von about the nature of his work that he did while in the employ of the A S Bancroft Company (objection noted by Utica-counsel for Utica stated ' * w2 iittnTeCsssrSassntto0ahhiisaneSmSpllnoymbe3netStwihSi"liet0 emCpl7 oeyredanbyythAi.n9W.whiBcanbcr^oeftdCeocmepdaennyt told ^ ? S !ept:LOn 1S sayed),witness replied, I know that sometimes the Y asbestos came around a cylinder form: they have to nnf 4. . . . ca.e loose and t h e y h a v e ^ o sort a Boiler and cover it with canvas and do the pipes. Asked, did he tell you anything at all about the condition or conditions under which he worked, witness replied, sometimes had to climb heights and stairs sometimes he worked under the ceilings, sometimes o n t ? . ,1 " " stairs, he worked in what he called tight co?n^rs Asked when he i" *35 tubing did he ever tell you whit it wal like whin he clt ft asbestos replied, he brought home some one time and I could see what*it fSf '>_ it was hard on the top, soft in the center and sort o? a ?S llke' cut it. Witness always did the family wash ^ h e t i f PwderY uhen yOU of his work clothes when he came home from work^ ^ condition observed about the condition of his work clotoel w h u l A. w. Bancroft Company, witness reol tvi ,,____ , for ^ tor the what that was, witness replied, I just had to take^i al^ays*11 As^ed to t e l 1 washed them and had to take thin outdoors and s S a L 5 efore 1 the stuff out of them in his pockets. Ihe Sad to shake loose a11 feathery stuff, this was in the pockets aSd in the c S ? s ^ The work shirts would be covered also it olnnrr 4- cuffs and 3ust all over. was the condition of your husband's flee and hinds w h l ^ h ^ S L e h l m ! ^ "hat work, was it clean or what, witness replied, just clean. The fi!ist ph^sica: -2 ~ (R o th w e ll (d e c 'd ) changes she noted in her husband's condition was he got out of breath She first noticed that around January 1952. Asked, and had you noticed any change in his physical condition before January 1952 from the condition tha he was m when you first got married, witness replied, yes, definitely! She noticed that he started to lose weight. He started to lose weiqht before Christmas, 1951. She had not noticed any change in his physical condition prior to that. Asked, nothing at all, witness replied, except hat t.clear hfs throat, he had a dryness in his throat, Asked to tell when she first noticed this clearing of the throat, and dryness of the throat on awakening in the morning, witness replied about a year or so. That was a year or so before December 1951. Her testimony is that the first physical change or symptom she noted in her husband was this clearing of his throat on awakening in the morninq lSsstanddthSethiid t h ? n ^ 03^v,tbe.second thing she noticed was the weight JJaannuuaarTMy 11995522. Sqhef knowsl wThere hter h?us*b*andShwarst wofrkbirnegatihn aJnadnutahriys 1w9a5s2 about it was at Fort Kent, Maine. She was not with him at that time. He came home for Washington's Birthday which was in February. Prior to that he was at Fort Kent and came home for Christmas. She saw him at ChrisLas and then over Washington's Birthday weekend. Asked, at the time you slw him over Washington s Birthday did he tell you anything about the condition of his health between those two dates, witness replied, (objected noted Utica to conversations, exception is saved), witness replied he 'aid Y and^oV^M^ Witness replied, he was sick at Fort Kent, he had been very sick ' S ^ h V h a l t0 ted by Utica and Travelers, exceptions are saved for- . a5 S i t i i r / I r l i * was was brought in this 2-1 ? rk Company sometime before any claim he was d o i L L Imp^v' o f f h e t P " th2" P at was the " "rk yes. Asked, and wtat^id he f e n v n P - P 9 Crk ??rapany' itness replied, worker Asked and did ha . ,, ^ ' W1^ness replied, he was an asbestos ^ n id * f s s 5? ? - T k s or fheSffsulf?ifgtin S i s p ? o j ? atefhfndROSUnaap - Her husband w a s h i n g was. Asked if h e f i ? d PioJ ?h foe? not knoV wkat the insulating * ? 2 **" i ? s r s s i E s s s t r s f s s i ei s ^ f ,, aon,t he lived'at hoiie. S d f ^ t e l i mtheeoonditiofff`his*?"3^ " 9 Crk Company p e f i f f f f ; or^ X i 0f fl^ kr;'kf c^ P ^ aahe ei?a" f r^ v h i m edurifg the -3 - R o th w e ll (dec'dO starting to get irritable and he never was irritable, that was a chancre thfth isWall xred aid1Tas nob aatin? good, he just did not look good, ' that is all I can tell you (objection noted by Travelers to the statement that he Dust did not look good, exception is saved) . when he came tomnr Gerl?5 P they were living in Wilmington and her husband went to Dr. Gerald Fagan of Clark Street, Wilmington. They were not livina in Dorchester when he worked for the Armstrong Cork Company. Her husband saw this doctor either on the 22nd of February or the day before, it was in unnt?ilr ^theentim&e he went toDit;heFMSa9sasnach?unsteitntUsedGetnoerbaelhHLosphiutsabland^wsitnZecsst l r replied, not in entirety, no. At some time he saw Dr? Edward Ho an of yndhurst Street, Dorchester. He saw him in May. Asked, had heneen under the care of Dr Fagan from February until May, witness rplt more or leso, i mean the doctor came a couple of times to fho , , the of fire e rmrG Q -F * ,pt tothe house, and he went to employ of the A?mstr?nc n?? V o k ' do you_know why your husband left the P y tne Armstrong Cork Company (objection noted by Travelers JfCfptJon.ls saved) witness replied, yes. Asked, at some time before your af5aJd st9PPed work at the Armstrong Cork Company did he have a con sultation m your presence with some physician, witness reDlied voc mv was with Dr Hogan. Following that consulatioA w i S D?. Hogn a2PEe?wWOrk at the Armstrong Cork Company. Then at s o * ttae he w e n f under the care of the Massachusetts General Hospital a fvima r Boylan, Jr., referred him to the Massachusetts General Hospital* i he first went to the Massachusetts General HbspiSl o S S S 2 ^ 1 9 M ? blle' Counsel for the claimant offered the record of Massachusetts II r S o l ? to for Utica objected ? r 2 h ? \ t o L ? i ? 3 ' toil ?e?ord?hiSe ^ I ^ 0n S Sel fa The record of Massachusetts General Hospital - Unit #778205- fV ad? art of this record by reference and may be: found n the Board s h r be s Fort ByouhS L k nheShe iShn0t SUre hfthe^r^urn^to then did not returnee Fot^eSt'CaTM f . home on Washington's Birthday and husband did come home for Chri<?tV ness replied, I don't think so. Her on or about S i g n ' s ? knowledge she do?? nS? S n TM and when you told us a little w h n breath inYJanuary ??52 ta was ? d the n<TXt time after that *as w h l c h "a? in February. Of her own WaS *n JanuarY 1952. Asked, ^ noticed he got short of which you made, witness replied I was S t ^ h f anypersonal observations that is what you told Sitoes replied t h f ? " Asked^ him was when he left after New Year'S t-p t e on? tlme 1 would have seen first noticed he was Settno S* -hS Said Previ^ s l y that she as she did not see him t h n 9 breJth ln January 1952 that is not so no clear recolle?Uo as ?S*whefyo; 8 ." "* you have so to speak, witness replied, that is i M r e c t ^ H L 1^ " 1 ?eting Ut o f 'breath December 1951 a few davs before rhri ~+. rrecb* Her husband came home in lose weight in Decembe? 1951 she d i d V not say he started to started in December 1950. I k k e d if I h J ? atlfytbat clearing of the throat as time went on or remained the same ?7 seemed to get progressively worse her husband worked for the A. W Banrof^?8 repled' got worse. Before New England Insulation Comnanv * nQ rof Company he worked for the That is the work she has described he?? Sh? t h f n k ^ tYPS f work there. England Insulation Company quite a while Sr? t h ?kf he worked at the New Her husband went to work for the A W Banoree+^o*1 bave been over two years, his employment at New England Insolation C m ? S v directly after leavir period or anything of that nature h p ?any' ,Tbere was no layoff within a week after his leaving the New E M a n / i f J.the Bancroft Company can you recall for whom he worked before 4- R o th w e ll (d e c 'd ) Insulation Company, witness replied there was a whole list of them, I could not give them in order, I don't know if I could give them all. Before he worked for the New England Insulation Company he worked for the Insulation Company of New Jersey. There he did the same type of work that he did for New England Insulation Company, A. W. Bancroft Company and Armstrong Compaq He may have worked for the Insulation Company of New Jersey about a year ' During her husband's lifetime he did the same type of work as she has described here this morning; that was his trade, in otherwords. He had been engaged steadily at that time during their married life except during the depression. During the depression he was out of work six years They were married December 25, 1930. Her husband was working at that time' Sometime in the early Thirty's he was out of a job. In the late Thirty's * he resumed working again at the type of work she has described. She read ou tae PaPer that Mr. Bancroft for whom her husband worked had died. She understood that the Mr. Bancroft for whom her husband worked had a small shop. Her recollection is that the day her husband stopped working for the A W. Bancroft Company he then started to work for theArmstrong Company the next day. She did not have occasion to wash his clothes while he was up Fort Kent. Her husband did not send them home. L k e d ? and y ^ don t know of your own knowledge under what conditions he worked while at Fort Kent witness replied, just what he told me. wen she to?d t M s m o r m n g about the conditions under which her husband worked that was some thing her husband told her. She did not follow him around. TO COUNSEL FOR THE TRAVELERS: Her husband brought his overalls home every two weeks for her to wash. She is positive of that! H oused to leav, the overalls in his tool kit when he did not bring them home Asked so when you testified this morning as to the condition o r h i s ^ e r a n s ^ o u ?esY SAfterherhusband s a S M T ? ' fW WeekS' more or less' witness Replied utnotiwlorkMarfcohr 1t9he Biqacn;c?roft Company. j He continued to wtoorrKk ?roorr tthoifs, cfompany until march iy, 1 9 5 2 . The next day he went to work for the Armstrong CorV Company. From the time he saw the doctor in February 1952 up until he saw different" ^ r A t a b l e ^ V ^ V Wrkir>3 ' ^ sleeping g o o d . ^ L S f S n y t i i n g TM f"?. r ^ t h ^ e S d ^ b r ^ r i l W: $5 ab h ^ ? L i i l CheS?- i n ^ t ^ c h e s t ^ ^ i n e s s ^ 131' hil chttogh?iylnhe saidt 'iPcandtWhnt to ^ bathroom a"d came^back holdir testified he Stotoed to if. c a n A breathe, can't b r e a t h e .Asked, you I meant he found it h a r d L ^ ^ b r M t h i ^ L k i d 73".3? , ^ 52' wi,tness replied, him during that period from February 21 to you observe about replied, I don't know. Asked, but that is the J o anythin9 else,witness to be in from February 1952 until A p r U 25 "nf ^ lon observed him Prior to that she had not seeS him for snhit.nMiiY t2eBS reph ed' DR. HARRIET L. HARDY, called and questioned by counsel for is Massachusetts General Hospital^Medica^Denj^t hef PJofessional and addre She is a physician and licensed tA Department_of M.I.T. in Cambridge of Massachusetts. Asked if she has a ,? medicine in the Commonwealth of medicine, witness replied s h e L L l a SpfCialty in the field Asked if she holds any position with regardPto tt ftudy of occupational dise replied, yes, I have charg! o? the o c c n T a l t o n l l t i l Sp?ci?fty' witness I am assistant medical director in c h s r L medlcal clinic and at M.I.T. Asked if in that field her work is primarily on2 c^pat*?nal medical servic primarily one of research, witness Replied Y it?i ff traatin? Patients or features, in connection with her soecialt-A o L / combination of both those chest. The decedent in this case was a n L i a 4. Wlth diseases of the General Hospital. She first saw him on jSne 23 1952^? h * Maa!achusetts time she received a history from him AskSd to'ti??2^ fnce. At that - t o ? : 3 "aesLi3d 'him by counulb for T r ^ J r . " w IT IT L -5 - R o th w e ll (d e c' d) personal records),he kept working for three weeks in spite of this cough, he was told to stay home by his family physician who said he had the grippe, then began to have severe pain in the left shoulder blade, worse in the morning, better when he moved around, much worse at night, there was increase in cough and about this time he began to be aware of increasing shortness of breath, he dated that as about March 1, 1952, it we so troublesome that he had to do something about it, about April 1, 1952 he went to his physician in Dorchester, Dr. Edward Hogan, and she has talk with him. She got her history from the patient. She got the history and then did the physical and then talked with Dr. Hogan. The patient gave her the history of Dr. Hogan telling him after his xrays that his lung had collapsed(counsel for Travelers objected to this being admitted, his exception is saved-counsel for Utica also objected to this being admitted and his exception is saved.) Her history continues that from this period of time in April 1952 the patient had been taking penicillin and iron and sulpha drugs,he had some constipation and a burning sensation in the left armpit, he reported a weight loss of 16 pounds since January, a shortness of breath that he noted beginning in March and was getting worse when seen in June, his appetite was fair, the medical history that he gave insofar as it was important was that he had bronchiti 8 years ago, he had had slight sinus infection with some coughing but nothing severe enough to keep him out of his work, he had xrays taken from time to time in community surveys and he was never told there was mything wrong, his father was thought to have tuberculosis, that diagnosis was not clear, the patient gave it to witness and she put down a question mark after it, the man smoked both a pipe and cigarettes, averaging about pack a day until his present illness, his occupational history was that he began working in a store as a clerk while still at school and he did errands at Boston Floating Hospital for two years while still at school and during the summers he was a shipper at Pilgrim Press Company, he state that about 29 years ago, when he was about 17, he worked off and on sometimes with his grandfather and with a number of companies, at what he called a heat and frost insulator and his description of that job was that he received asbestos boards, its source depending on the company with which he was working (in answer to counsel for Travelers question as to what period of development she is now talking about witness she is talking about the history he gave her covering 29 years.) He gave no description of his trade of heat and frost insulator. His particular job was to cut and saw the asbestos boards to fit pipes and boilers as needed for insulation. Witness did a physical examination at the time. As if she followed him while he was in the hospital during his various admissions, witness replied, with the exception of his admission in July when I was away on my holiday. She followed him in June and her associate kept in touch her. When he returned to the hospital after that she follow him. After his death an autopsy was performed. She had a chance to read autopsy protocol and the different autopsy material. Having in mind her entire contact with this case she presently has an opinion as to what the diagnosis of this man s illness was. She did testify that she followed this man throughout his entire period of hospitalization, that she reviewe the autopsy protocol and saw some of the pathological material in connection with the autopsy. In addition she is familiar with the hospital record itself. TO THE COMMISSION: She did examine this man. Her first examination was on June 23, 1952 when she discovered the man had a complete collapse of his left lower lung, he obviously had lost weight following he had chest xrays which she viewed with the roentgenologist and discovered that he not only had the collapse of his left lower lung but he had evidence of density by xrays in the lower right lung.On the bas of these findings she_recommended his hospitalization for diagnostic studies. He was hospitalized. These were made by her colleagues in the hospital at her suggestion, she was not there. Asked if she participated in some of them, witness replied, only to the extent of suggesting this The holiday came during this period and when she came back they went over the case together. Asked if she supervised or controlled those studies or -6 - R o th w e ll (d e c 'd ) were they just merely a suggestion on her part, witness replied I supervised them to the extent of being the senior officer who is doing tne recommending,thhre were other doctors around. The results of those studies were made available to her. Based on the history she received the physical examination she conducted, the diagnostic material ' which was made available to her, she arrived at a diagnosis in this case. Her diagnosis was carcinoma of the lung and asbestosis. , T0 COUNSEL F0R THE CLAIMANT: Asked after she reached the diaa nosis she has just testified to, did she have any further contact wrth the man during this period of hospitalization, witness replied, yes I did. This further contact was that she went to see him very often while he was in the hospital, consulted with other physicians about the course of treatment once the diagnosis was made and followed his case to the time of his death, she was not a witness at the autopsy but followed out very carefully what those findings were. She herself personally viewed some of the autopsy material. She personally viewed a slide of the lung. In the course of her medical training she has had occasion to receive training in the field of pathology. Asked to tell what the training was, witness replied, she had the usual amount of pathology as an undergraduate,meaning she took lectures and so on, then when she was house officer at Philadelphia General Hospital she had intensive training in pathology which involved doing a great amount of autopsies, then she took one semester in the department of pathology in Cornell University making an intensive study of certain pathological problems, since that time it's been =tra?riV1ie9e t0 a?sociate with Dr. Tracy Mallory in pathological of occupational diseases. Asked, do you feel that you are qualified to view these pathological slides of Mr. Rothwell's lung tissue (objection noted by counsel for Travelers and Utica, their5 riS^T:iHn r1S-nid) witness replied, yes. Asked to tell what the slides revealed (objection noted and exception saved for counsel for and Utica), witness replied, showed what is knoSn as pu?mona?y " fibrosis, meaning scar tissue and reaction around thePbronchial tubes f *2 9raY cells which are usually associated with the presence of ' 1 What are known as asbestos bodies anS ? saw aboit ?he asiS?SsYbidiesSel/ h TraVele^s objected to the testimony describe -hP 5 * drhlS excePtlon is saved). Asked to replied hi SsbestoS purpose of the record, witness K 5- asbestos bodies as seen m this man's lung are club- with^rhodlhSi taiS an iron stain which means they9look yellowish with the inhalation of certain silicates of which asbesto^ il inS exception^is S ' I h e s e ^ T V 0 tes mony b S n f ^ U t X his Saveilre *** tob:1" ti? noted fr coinleffor18 ^ ' albes?osisiS T k d ^ h f bTM " ch 9 ^ i=0"urcinomaf'reoIidaryS?ot plnion is involving exposure to fine asbestos libers S u r ^ f f L " ^ i^ustry sawing of asbestos boards, the length of time1 w o S l and the discovery of asbestos bodi =><; ir, i 1 and,, to emphasize relationship between exposure and the diseased^rocesq111^ ^ prove the 2 in S f d the^ hiS T k ** ^ you at any time during the period that =-~r -7 - R o th w e ll (d e c 'd ) tion as to his work for the A. W. Bancroft Company between December 17 195( and March 19, 1952, witness replied, he described to me his work with the Bancroft Company as we worked backwards into his early life history and he told me that his work at the Bancroft Company was precisely the same trade as I have earlier described to you. Asked, did he give you any information with regard to dust conditions in his work for the Bancroft Company, witness replied, nothing above the grinding and sawing which I have stated previous He did not produce any asbestos material to show how he conducted his work ' Asked, if she got any information from him as to whether or not the cutting .sawing of asbestos pipe covering produced any dust,witness replied, yes. He told witness that when he was cutting and sawing material that he had to fit on the pipe he often did it dry and had to use a grinding wheel of one sort or another or mechanical type of saw that he pumped with his foot or had some electrical equipment if it was a bigger company and at that txme there was a good deal of dust flying around about t h / a " ? ? L t was the kind of history she was trying to draw out of him (counsel for Travelers ob3ected, stating the question was asked with regard to his work at Bancroft company and if the answer is not confined to it ?hen he vrauld like i f taken out.) Asked if she got any specific information with regard to the Bancroft Company, witness replied, he talked abou^this at great length because except for this very brief employment at the Armstrong Company that was his most recent job, and in the discussion of the operatior it was obviously the Bancroft Company he was talking about, we talked S o J ? the character of the job and he told about the tim e s that he did not do the wet, sometimes this job was done wet. He did describe to her the operation of mixing the asbestos powder into a mud. Asked, did he describe ?ht ParStl0 oYi"9 been Performed while working between December 17 1950 and March 19,1952, witness replied, I have no sGch noie? Asked lid he 1952 and Ao t 2 ^ 1952 `did'ha Amstrong Cork Company b e t w e e n W c h 20, J g a r d n?oAS:fcharac" r ' o f tha? l ^ ^ e L ^ p U ^ ^ T Z T ^ f f , is that the most recent work was similar to his e a r l i e r I ,!lave s5 f f s s s" s s ? 11 ? r :F 1952fwitness ^^^^rch.19 Of the Armstrong1C ^ Z y b e t w ^ n ^ c S l o ? "? ^ " ^ ! ! ^ r dy o ^ ! r S t ^ t ^ h i S - ^ the length of time that he was e x o o S ^ ? ? d*sease and death were related to witness replied, yes. Asked do von 1S W?r^ as P*?*5 coverer, witness he received any additional ininS/io have an opinion as to whether or not the Bancroft Company between DecLer n , " I? a d ^ ^ o h f ^ l s f 15 workfor an opinion. Asked, do you have an ODinior.SUnf obaer}fation. I do have such ditional injury to his lungs while work-in ?S whether he received any ad- doing his work as you have testified to bltween 1952, witness replied. v p <? t . en Mafcn 20, 1952 and April 25, in regard to this additional injury to hil1?*1* to 9ive her opinion Bancroft Company, witness replied objectio n o t e d ^ WOrki^ / or the stating there was no specific informa?? ? fc ? hy counsel for the Utica, counsel's exception is saved) the history from wbat he did for this company including the Bancroft Compart gives s u C s t a n S i W3Y Sak Up Until and fine asbestos dust because o f ^ h e nature of f exPsure to ver; of the asbestos board for use as i n w l a H n n m + Pe?a^lons an<3 the preparing counsel for Utica and TrfveXrs ttei L c e f fobJecti" noted by 9 case very clearly indicates a long standing pcea *2 sav?>' the study of 1 Of asbestos fibers of varying s i z L in w ' depending on the presenc reaction around these b r S L l e s and what bronchioles with resultant pneumonia,when these little ift2? and "hat amounts to little patches of enough caliber to STi'li SSLiol 8- R o th w e ll (d e c 'd ) which resulted in reaction (counsel for Utica objected to the description of small caliber of asbestos' while working for his company, question and answer admitted de bene.) Asked, in answer to the previous^question about this man's exposure while in the employ of the Bancroft Company, that is to say for his employer between December 17, 1950 and March 19 1952 you did not tell us anything as to the size or caliber of the particulai asbestos fibers to which he was exposed, did you obtain any information from him as to that, witness replied, no. Asked, what do you base your statement to your previous answer with reference to the caliber and ^ ZL 0fT,the a^ e^tOS bodie? to which he was exposed while in the employ of the Bancroft Company, witness replied, the answer is very simplebecause of the finding of the asbestos in the lung, it had to be small enough to get there, there could be any number of them arriving at one exact moment, but because of the quantity of them and the character of them which I have described to you earlier as evidence of the asbestos bodies it seems reasonable and certainly an extra number of fibers reaching the lung set up a reaction during the period you have just been describing to m e , meaning 3 years prior to his death (counsel f i r Utica objected to the question and answer and they are admitted de bene ) A='ked ttoo \wnrethhelrr VorrVntootlnh^e had" sfuosrrtaiin1e0dS afnrymadtdhiit"iomnaanl toinjiuorSy TtaoThoifsf iln;nrrass ' niori?9hive nors u c h 1952 t0 April 25' 1 9 5 2 ' witness replied, Asked in a orev?nn?ing* She deS ?ob have enou9h information on that. n secondary to asbestosiaswe^1^ou testified that the bronchogenic carcinoma asbestosis, will you give us your reasons for that statement, witness replied, my reasons are based on experience and study died ;?nS o V ther Cases.of individuals who have asbestoses and have Y died of bronchogenic carcinoma, precisely with the same clinical facts and pathological study as Mr. Rothwell and when I speak of study I refer to my knowledge of literature plus travelling in Europe and being at Saranac symposium in October, 1952 at which time the wheie subject of asbestosis and cancer of the lung was reviewed. Ihehai had experience with individual cases of asbestosis and b r o n c W e n V i 5 . other than that of Mr. Rothwell. A s k e f t o ^ L t her e w e W e n o f i a S " been in these other cases, witness replied, precisely the same a long history of exposure to asbestos. Asked do same a the mechanism whereby the asbestosis*is causallv as t0 carcinoma, witness replied v i y f,elated to the bronchogenic is small knZngh It f e h I h e ^ n c M o U s asbe?tos > > hich J s a a r s u f S S S S ,- TO COUNSEL FOR THE UTICA: Asked, you don't want to you know what causes cancer witne^ r-oni ila < aon t Yant to tel1 us be glad to, we have a pretty clear evideJce in ?ecard ^ Stances' } wollld Asked, people found there may be a greater incidSno^ot P P smokers' etc* pipe smokers but that is -hi<?t one ot * ucxdence of cancer among _ your studies, witness replied, yes but i f ^ e ^ f d ^ 1? yS have found in he would not get the cancer ihatis all t j ? ,?o t .smoke the Pipe find cancer of the lung among people w t o 'don't^oke at t l T yU alS replied yes. asked, it's alsS true you find cance? I f J i b , wltness people for whom you did not discover in the histSrv o?f.i 9 amo?9 or background or anything else that the lung hid been i S S t e d T ^ 10" way whatsoever, witness replied, because we can't find iidoe. i any does not exist. They have found +.w h , fl. li: does not wean it true that her theory thJt - i a f the lun9 in such cases. It is through in all caseL at the *2" ^ follow hospital She did not form the opinion that ht h t / i k a*ission to the vacation during July of that vear nn Tuno `5-5^vd asbe?tosis She was on an outpatient,3he w L not conSnei to bed then 5 ^ " ice as the history she has stated. Mr. Rothwell was stiif it tw* sb received lfSh i f " t s s S t e d ^ ^ p ^ v " edntteUlL k i ASk1 ' " ShE * * - ^ n a t i o n that time, witness r e p S TM ^ ^ -9 - R o th w e ll (d e c 'd ) charged on July 18, 1952. She did not prepare a discharge diagnosis at tha time. Asked, was there one prepared and as part of the hospital record witness replied, there must be. Asked, weren't you in charge of his case witness replied, do you want to understand the administrative mechanism, ' that would be helpful. I am in charge of the occupational medical clinic, I recommend these cases for admission for diagnostic study and treatment but they go on the ward as a regular patient and I don't 'boss' the job, I go around and help work the case out but it's not my ultimate responsibil about what is written on the chart and what is done to the patient, that is just the mechanism of the hospital. She saw the man in her office on June 23. He was later admitted to the hospital. He was admitted to the hospital with a tentative diagnosis, that is the way it is done, she sees on the record that it states 'asbestosis' with a question mark. She has the original of the hospital record. Asked, and do you find in the original record this notation under July 2nd which reads 'first Massachuset General^Hospital record of this 46-year old white male who enters with diagnosis of "possible carcinoma of lung", witness replied, yes. The question mark stands for possible, questionable. Asked, at the time of his admission to the hospital, is there any reference in the hospital record of any asbestosis that you can see, witness replied, on July 3,1952 it says history is compatible with a diagnosis of asbestosis-these are not my notes. Asked, what I'm trying to get is this, who would put that first questionable diagnosis that was inserted there upon admission, would that be something that would come from your record as a result of your examining and studying him on June 23rd, witness replied, no, I just explained to you, the administration has nothing to do with me, that is important,^ there are technicians, researchers and xray men, I don't dictate opinions to them. Asked, so if I understand you, you're not responsible for any of the opinions expressed in the record itself, witness replied, I certainly am not. She studied the record carefully. Asked if there is any part of the record she disagrees with, witness replied it would be awfully queer if there were not, but I don't see that enters into my opinion. She has reviewed the record. There is no treatment for the disease of asbestosis. It is a progressive disease without any treatment known to her. Asked, what would be the effect of numerous xrays on an individual's chest with reference to this condition of asbestosis, would it aggravate it, witness replied, you're talkinq about the diagnosis or therapeutic radiation. He received quite a number of thes She thinks he began to have this on his second admission-- he had a lot of at.the outpatient department. Asked, it's a fact, is it not that therapeutic xray treatment would be detrimental to him insofar as the asbestosis condition is concerned, witness replied, no, I don't think one can draw any such conclusion. She does not believ^ t h i t in fact TthheentthheerrapSeSuktiiIc rxx?raaymg waisn done tohri'"kknoac9ke' ooutthetheticsasnuceermigcheltlsdo ssohmreinkgood oietreItinqa^ t h athet? L manfI"0re-COmi'?rta" e bUt " ne has the slightest i 1 iiss ssoo,f wwiittnnesssss ritegpdlIi^edj, as soon as t..he di,agnosims^waosf mhaidse firAsstkeaddmistshia aboutajulvniOth flASk admiss^ n i witness replied, I think that was mad4 fibrosis^of^the *lnnrr^6^ wou^ n ** therapeutic xrays cause an increased fibrosis of the lung, witness replied, that would depend on how much nf fhc lung was exposed to the radiation, usually this is fairly LSalized treatment, care being taken not to give general radiation I could talk it over with the radiation man if you want me to ghe /inco u ' c S i S m to produce any good result with asbestosis.^Thly o m T h l S S S r S 'first e l J S 'h ^ f ^ 0^ ^ lung, witness replied, there was no question but that is what this was. -1 0 - R o th w e ll (d e c 'd ) Asked, you have notes with you with reference to the history that you received from him as to the employment over the years, witness replied, I don't think these are satisfactory; they are my written scribbled notes. She has no dates in that, she was trying to get a description of his work as heat and frost insulator. Asked if she wrote down all she got witness replied, one does not do all that, there are a good many things that a man like this tells me that are not written down, precisely I have not got down here the exact days when he worked for this company and that company. Asked, when you first examined this man you were not interested in fixing liability on a particular individual insomuch as you were in making a diagnosis, witness replied, yes. Asked, and it would be important in making a diagnosis to determine how long the individual had been employed at A 30b/ y itne?s rfplied, it does not seem relevant when you have 1S S2 la.tlme f exposure. She has noted that he worked f after scho1 in hls early youth. Then while still in school he worked for two years for the Boston Floating Hospital. He worked at Pilgrim ltHhatl Shhel S wSohrlkPe7d a\taWl aSv -eryly SHeartii-ndgt5foerreonaebyUetara. yeFaorl*lowHienrgnetxhtatnohetatdiidon is mason work, he worked off and on with his grandfather in this cement work. He then started at what he called heat and frost insulating and did it off and on for about 30 years, he cut and sawed asbestos board to fit nines boilers, etc. She was interested in this 30 years' employment in thi^ ' ofriiCmiaihtr?de* Asked1insofar' what he did while Sorking for a period of 15 months for one employer or two years for another employer at the ir^findina recivd this history you were not too interested m finding out the details of that, witness replied, that's right Asked "d rV ? t'?e r?oord does i,: i^icate how'much asbestos h f c ^ i ^ n - record toes i t ^ S i S i ? " j10* ??.the Bancroft Company and nowhere in the record does it indicate the caliber of the asbestos while workina for the oneCtnfh Company' witness replied,yes. Working with asbestos requires done? r *5 of a and t h S ? f c a n be while working "for the Bancrof t l o S p a n y ^ I T a T t l T t n l V o t t n ' part of November and first part of December. She was not thfsoicailed attending physician at that time; the man was on the ward She had nothinn to do with the preparation of the death certificate- itot'was lone by S e 9 house officer. She had nothing to do with the preparation of the final diagnosis. The diagnosis of asbestosis throughout the hospital record was questionable but that antedated the postmortem That L fri1f ? d* as the hospital record is concerned. That is true insofar TO COUNSEL FOR TRAVELERS: On looking at the siidoc f.ii.,,' autopsy she observed some club-shaped, brown-colored bits of J??-lowin9 because of their length and contou? a^d duration In the a"d lung she concluded they were asbestos fibers. Asked if sh. tree ?f the as to whether they had been there a year or en years an opinion Asked, they had certainly been there longer 4.*., Y?arS' w *tness replied, no. witness replied I d n n r l0nger than a year m your opinion fibers that'caused S e L n c e f w i i ^ p i d u c S S e l e a Asked' the longer than a year, that is a fair death had been there much certainly more thfi likely? fsi?ad ?? ' wlin?ss replied, that seems replied, I wish 1 could be awfullydf i a t - f o o t e d h u f that.1? ?rue witness go along with you on that. y ted but 1 m certa m l y willing to which was place^on^the^hospital"^record o f ^ l l a s tdiagnSiS of asbest*is TO COUNSEL FOR THE UTICA- Askod ^ u ,, ^ , that you have "no opinion as to how long th4 a s b e s t o s ' t0 Say on the slides had been in his system, witness repuldf y j f I S S d ^ a n ^ S * ..course---_those would be the fibers which produced th cancer whfcA S d a u -------- m your opinion, witness replied, no, you can'? b r ? L ^ ? caused hi: r=--- said because the asbestos fibers moved aroSnd A^ked S h n S ^i31 -- ------- w i n nt leave thd system witness replied, yes, thev will -------------- -- ---- -------- the system, they might leave it at any time. -- -1 1 - R o th w e ll (d e c 'd ) Counsel for Utica renewed his request that the questions and answers admitted de bene be stricken from the record and Commissioner rulPd they be allowed in until the entire record had been s u b m i t S ******************************** Jauuliyy 33i1, 1953, the following evidencien wtahsiSreCpaoSrteidn: Boston on Friday*, APPEARANCES: L. Locke, Esquire, for Claimant. A.J. McLaughlin,Esquire for Utica Mutua Insurance Company R. Plunkett, Esquire, for Travelers Insurance Company *************************************^^^^^^^^ HELEN V. ROTHWELL, the claimant, questioned by her counsel booh which counsel has in his h ^ d ^ l h e l ^ ^ t ' f n S S p" ^ i ^ t h a t ^ o o k andbt e i r ?r ! Wrk- .Asked t0 Xook at the handwriting terh u s b a n d 's " lf ShS rec9nizea it, witness replied, yes. it is Counsel for claimant offered this Memorandum Book for fhi record as an Exhibit,stating it is a work record keot bv SLS \ * Monday, October 28, 1951 through February 19, 1952, that in it ?he ^ ib is a?p?rent is saved for counsel for Utica f i t t e d as an Exhibit and exception JOHN J. HUGHES, called and questioned by counsel for claimant, Dorchester. His occupation isitat o? aSblsios^worker nHf rry Stref ' the Heat and Frost Insulation Workers' Union! Hi has worked f S i X f 'H DMina V1 ?5ey^eearrt"'wit(nCesUsnSoenl for the claima"t trade of sSted a heat he Safo?fe!^gS and frost insulator ) and s U u s . I n ^ n g t h ^ f he Snl-fhad^o" b0iJrS' plpes' h L PbieoPcaked T l ^ T l u e s an, ^ v r J k l S F o l r w " ? V " hLfn ,, d thj?ost material was not always used to block a flue mb insulatln9 ib * The same number of materials used lor blocking a flue* I S ar? 3 Certain lirnited used for blocking a flue, witness replied as Asked, what are the materials one; air cell board would be^nother^thf* P ?ei\ Cent ^ n e s i a would be and application of magnesia cement a W an asbestos paper; of these three insulating material* fhaf ,^ .ut kicking. Asked, in any used, witness replied, yes It is used in have 3ust mentioned is asbestos materials was usld sp^cilfiall" S s u l a i i n f T c , ? ^ E?h of the used an asbestos cement. Asked if a p a r t i c u l a r o f JfVlng* ~hQy also particular one of those four i n s u l a tinomaSS?^ iy P - l flue re<?uired a Asked, what would be the circumqfanroc^m^ ads' W1tness replied, yes. asbestos cement, witness replied, in 90 p e ^ c e n ^ o f ^ h e ^ "13 US the ^ r i h e hb:iilsthi a S St- e- - tUp - P a " d . drop it into a mixing box a n d ^ p p ^ e r ^ ^ e d ^ S ^^ofof?he -1 2 - R o th w e ll (d e c 'd ) trade of a heat and frost insulating man and asbestos v^orker is it the of that trade that the men on the job mix this asbestos cement as they need it (objection by counsel for Utica as being immaterial, question allowed) witness replied, yes. He has done that himself. TO THE COMMISSIONER: Asked to tell what he actually observed when this cement was mixed, witness replied, the dust naturally raises up when the cement strikes the box. " TO COUNSEL FOR THE CLAIMANT: Blocking a boiler just means applying the insulation. That is done in the same manner as blocking a fli when blocking a boiler you generally used the insulation directly in contac with the boiler because no air space was called for but in a flue they used an air space lath to give air space when blocking it. The army used the air space. Asked, you said in answer to a previous question that 90 per cent of the time the material used in blocking a flue was this asbesto: cement, would that same figure apply in blocking a boiler or would it be a different proportion, witness replied, no, it's the same thing. He would say that 90 percent of the time they used this asbestos cement to finish; in other cases they used the asbestos cement to stick the blocking to th boiler but that was not a general practice with every person. Asked to te how he would go about covering a steam pipe, witness replied, a steam pipe up to ten inches is generally stuck with paste. The insulating material is generally magnesia. Asked, is it loose material or does it come in the form of a cylinder, witness replied, no, it's a molded material. 'Asked to tell what he means by that, witness replied, it comes in a molded form up approximately ten inches and then molded in segmental form from ten inches on. He means it comes pre-shaped. They do have to cut it to fit. Asked, on the material that you used is there any label or other tag stati what the material is composed of (objection noted by counsel for Utica, question allowed and exception is saved), witness replied, yes. He only knows of four companies who manufacture this material-- they are Bisbee & Materson, Johns-Manville, Phillip Carey, Everett Asbestos. Asked, is yo memory sufficientiy strong today so you could tell us today what appears o the labels of the molded pipe covering produced by any of those four manufacturers(objection noted by counsel for Utica, question allowed) witness replied, 85 per cent magnesia and that is aif. Asked, does it say anything there about what the other 15 per cent is there, witness replied never stated to my knowledge. Asked, what does the phrase 'cementing a ' boiier refer to, witness replied, that is simply finishing up the work. Asked, what is the substance that is used in that operation, witness replied, asbestos cement. Asked, what is the phrase 'finishing fittingsmean, witness replied, putting on the asbestos cement and canvassing. TO COUNSEL FOR TRAVELERS: He didn't know Mr. Rothwell very well He was on the same job with him but never worked directly with him. He never worked directly with him so he never saw what work he had been doing Asked, there are a lot of the duties on this job that are not dusty, witne replied, I would not say a lot, it's really a dusty job. Asked, you mean mixing is dusty, witness replied, even the application is dusty. Asked, after you have mixed the water with the material that is in this bag, then r l u T a P P ll , l t 1V V et and there is no dust, is that right, witness replied, no, there is dust when you apply it. Asked, when vou wet it, witness replied, you re not applying this wet stuff to the boiler or flue ' ou apply it to the magnesia block it's dusty. They put this ag materai in a pail or tub and pour water on it. Then it's wet. The mixing can be f ^ r A f a r a mS US i "e\ Wh ^ ^ to tha Sto o, and ton Y ?se a trowel* These men take some in a buck, d then apply it with a trowel. One man can mix enough for 100 men. On an average job there would be ten men. One man,in one hour, could mix eTMent_for all the men for the day. So the other nine men could go to the tub and get a pail or bucket full of this material and take it to5 wayrit isYdone? Wrklng and apply ifc with a trowel. That is the usual . , T0 COUNSEL FOR UTICA: He was not working u d in Fori- v- m - with Mr. noth 1 1; ^ was not on that job. He worked wft^him a ^ h f ^ ---------- That may have been two years ago. It was sometime in 1951. Y -1 3 - R o th w e ll (d e c 'd ) There are different means of applying insulation to a boiler. There are all 1 ,eren^- types of insulation used. Asked, and whether or not in any given period of time Mr. Rothwell was using asbestos to your knowledge vou don't know, witness replied, no. TO COUNSEL FOR THE CLAIMANT: When one is applying this wet cement you're going against the dry surface and when you apply wet stuff on the dry surface you bring back the dirt. He did state the asbestos cement was used as the finishing coat. As a general rule it was used as a finishing coat on top of something else. Asked, what is the usual material that is put on before the asbestos cement, witness replied, that is 85 per cent magnesia. Asked, is that in the form of a pre-molded segment or section or is it aiso in the form of a wet base, witness replied, 90 per cent of the it s in molded forms. Besides the mixing of the cement which is dusty.Asked and would it make any difference where you were installing these molded segments as to the extent of the dust that would get on you, would some places be more dusty than others, witness replied, yes, on open construction there would be more wind. That would make it more dusty. Asked, how about installing insulation on pipes that are in the ceiling, between one ceiling and floor above (objection noted by counsel for Utica, question admitted de bene) witness, replied, I don't think that question is put correctly as far as we are concerned because between a ceiling is not so you're not between a ceiling when you're applying that, you're open * although it's between the ceiling when the job is completed, you're in the open when you apply it. The floor above is in place. Asked,'you're working above against a floor, witness replied, yes. Asked, is that work more dusty than other work or less dusty, witness replied, I think the answer would be 3ust about the same. job. TO COUNSEL FOR THE UTICA: That depends on the conditions on the TO COUNSEL FOR THE CLAIMANT: Asked, so if I understand your answers, there are three parts of the work that are dusty, one of it is mixing of the asbestos cement the second is when you place the asbestos cement against the magnesian block and the third is when you cut th* molded segments to put on pipes, is there any other part of the work that is dusty, witness replied, as far as dusty, now as I understand that question to be is the work dusty, yes, it's dusty but I won't say it's dusty for all materials. J TO THE COMMISSIONER: The work was dusty when he used their material m mixing or cutting or applying. ,, .. TO COUNSEL FOR TRAVELERS: Asked, on these jobs where you were that is true. be working on -o-caHed, is 1 ;*aV ou were cutting, there was a considerable "ot ?? result of your materials, is that true, witness repliec I said yes. Asked, in other words on boilers that you might there may be a thick coat of ordinary house or building d^st that right, witness replied, yes. Asked, and on pipes9fhat ' o? h r f a COVari?g ^ r e p a i r i n g there might likewise be thick coating of hous or building dust, witness replied, yes. Asked, and when you say the job was dusty you mean m your operations you disturbed and knocked loose a lot of this dust in around there, witness replied, no, in my statement. Asked ls that the procedure when you apply material either to a boiler or ' ?;pes yOU mi9ht disturb the dust that was on these pipes, witness replied, the answer would be 'yes.' That would -Mv r-onr,* * , ^ explained that the job was dusty you meant that dust as well as other ^ YU 5 -t F ?Lto* material comes that way with cloth on the outside,' witness Percentass< I would not know sthat answe1r.w ^Asked, would you say?raombihgat " 14- R o th w e ll (d e c 'd ) I followedr'it1has been^ithout'cloth 'fwf^ness replied, on the work has been larger w o r " ^ " S u W n ' t ^ w " h e t h L V S t L e ? r the larger work or with work up to ten inched A s k , U w 31 wlt? witness r^pliedUnoUAskedt S With trowel and tha/is wet, yes Afte? he nntS ih! S?' Z put ihat " with blocks, witness replied, wet^e^^L^ ^ They t se molded forms with a saw.Asked, and when you cut them with a saw Yu usually put them down on something and saw down on them witness itPd i f ' 1 WO"" aay ;n' to that question. That is usua?ly done by living Sn a4.flat surface and cutting across it. It is done like o n ^ Y 9 able and cut across. It cuts easily.Asked, and the material that you cut is usually covered with cloth, up to ten inches,witness replied,yes tnihf: YU ?n t .know whether Mr. Rothwell used any material oSer te n * inches or not, witness replied, not definitely. DR. JAMES STEWART ROONEY, called and questioned by counsel for admitted as pathologist) he has had ^ S p p o i S t y ^ o record of Massachusetts General Hospital and the autopsy record of the Massachusetts General Hospital, pathology department. He has formed an 2 1?10? aa to the cau^ of death in this case. In his opinion this man s death was caused by adenocarcinoma of the lung - that was the immediate cause of death - with extension to the helrt, pleura diaphragm retroperitoneal tissue on the left, adrenals, kidneys and the lym^h nodls' confrihW?S th<?re any other pathological/condition this man had which was a ntributing factor m his death (objection noted by counsel for Utica his exception is saved) witness replied,there were other contributing ' factors.Asked, what were they in order of importance,witness replied, this man had asbestosis with pulmonary fibrosis, congestion of the liver inflammation of the external surfaceof his heart,inflammation of his right lung,externally, and he had approximately a quarter of fluid in his right chest. Asked to tell what there is in the hospital record which leads him Tt in examination^? ^ ls.man bad asbestosis, witness replied, in the microscopic examination of his lung tissue the characteristic nodular shaped bodies the asbestosi!f yere present, these are diagnostic of asbestosis. Asked if he has an opinion as to whether or not there is any causal reiationship between the asbestosis and the cancer from which this man died,witness replied he has. His opinion is that due to the longstanding chronic irritation,as resuit of the inhalation of asbestos fibers,that'this ,s,aa ca^se fo3: the development of his cancer which led to his dea Asked, did the asbestosis itself, apart from its effect in producing the cancer, did the asbestosis itself play any part in his death at the time that he died,witness replied, I don't think so, no. Asked, I want you to assume that this employee worked for A. W. Bancroft Company between December 17,1950 and March 19, 1952, that during that time he performed the regular duties of a heat and frost insulation worker or asbestos worker as it is ordinarily described, that this work, and specifically during the period from October 28, 1952 and February 19, 1952 included days in which he covered steam piped with insulation material in which he blocked flues, days in which he blocked boilers, days in which he covered pipes days in which he finished fittings, that in these operations he used in- SUT'jt^n? materials, included among which would be asbestos cement, he used molded insulation material and molded segments, that in connection of covering of pipes he had to out and saw the asbestos board, that he had to cut it to fit around pipes and fittings that came with the pipes that he was covering. -1 5 - R o th w e ll (d e c 'd ) that this work was dusty, that the dust included dust from the insulation materials as well as building dust which was present in a construction job, that the widow testified as fact that he coughed, that the clothes she washed contained dust particles and I want you to assume further that in January 1952 he developed the onset of a harsh,hacking cough which was worse in the morning and productive of a small amount of brownish sputum, that shortly thereafter he noticed that on exertion he was short of breath and had a sharp boring pain below the angle of his left shoulder blade, that he was out of work from February 21 to February 29, 1952 and returned home from the job which he was doing away from home and was t reated for whaH the doctor told him was grippe, that he then returned to work for a few weeks and finally ceased work for the Bancroft Company on March 19,1952 and went to work for the Armstrong Company from March 20, 1952 to April 25, 1952, that he continued to do the work of a heat and frost insulation worker for t he Armstrong Company, that he finally stopped work in April 1952 following consultation with a physician because of these symptoms described before, namely, shortness of breath on exertion, pain below his left shoulder and cough, now, assuming those facts to be true as to his work history and the history of the onset of his symptoms, do you have an opinion as to whether or not the work this man was doing while in the employ of the A. W. Bancroft company, that would be December 17,1950 to March 19,1952, was a causative factor in producing the asbestosis and bronchogenic carcinoma/wnich he died, witness replied,(counsel for Utica objected, questi admitted de bene, his exceptions are saved) I do. It is his opinion that sometime during 1951 this man developed a malignancy of his lung as secondary to his asbestosis, the asbestosis was a factor in causing the malignancy to start, that is as far as he can go. Asked, do you have an opinion as to whether the inhalation of dust from insulating materials in his work during 1951 was factor, aggravating or precipitating factor, in the asbestosis and thereby of the cancer(objection noted by counsel for Utica, his exception is saved) witness replied, if he inhaled dust containing asbestos during the period of time it would aggravate his condition. Asked, do you have an opinion as to whether or not his work from March 20,1952 up to April 25, 1952,for the Armstrong Cork Company, assuming that he inhaled dust from insulation materials at his work, including asbestos, was a factor in the asbestosis and cancer from which he died, witness replied, I have an opinion. It is his opinion that it did not play any role. Asked to give his reason for that opinion,witness replied, because he had carcinoma prior to the time and carcinoma was the ca of the death. Asked, didn't the further inhalation of the asbestos dust duri the last six weeks play any part in the aggravating or worsening his conaitiwitness replied, no, I don't think so. Asked, did it play any part in pro ducing the death at the time that he died,witness replied, I don't think so. TO COUNSEL FOR THE UTICA: Asked, you say that there was a long standing chronic irritation due to the inhaling of fibers which you say was an adequate cause for the cancer,witness replied, that is correct. Asked, when you say longstanding chronic irritation, can you tel]/ts how long, witness replied, I don't think anybody can tell you that; we do know that one of the causative factors in the production of malignancy is a chronic irritating process, when that begins I don't think anybody cart narrow it down as to a week or a month, we know that cancer takes a certain length of time to develop, once it starts,it depends onthe location, it depends on whether it can be removed or not, this man's cancer was too advanced to remove, they took him to Massachusetts General and attempted to remove it and found they could not because of the advanced stage, when his cancer began I can't tell you because the line of demarcation between normal and abnormal no one ever sees, I don't think anyone can tell. Asked, so you can't say whether or not the cancer had its inception prior to March 20, 1952 or subsequent to that date, witness replied, it had its inception prior to 1952 because it was far advanced when they opened him up at the General. He cannot give a definite date on the inception of cancer in 1952. He cannot give a definite date on that for 1951. He thinks it began sub sequent to 1950. Asked, so that you say that sometime in 1950 on, witness replied, either that - I would say probably 1951 from the description of the cancer. It could have been 1950.He has seen the autopsy report. Asked, this man, according to that report, had a history of having worked 29 years in the asbestosis business, have you an opinion as to when the asbesto first commenced, witness replied, I would say the asbestosis had been presen for many years. That is so because of the appearance of the lungs. Asked -1 6 - R o th w e ll (d e c 'd ) assume that this man worked at the same job subsequent to March 20 1952 up to April 25, 1952, doing the same sort of thing that he had done between th period of December 1950 to March 20, 1952, do you have an opinion as to whe or not the work subsequent to March 20, 1952 would be detrimental to him having in mind the fact that it was your opinion at that time he had first asbestosis and, second, cancer (counsel for Travelers stated that th docto has already answered the question) witness replied, here's a man who by 1952 was doomed to death from his malignancy, his malignancy was then far advanced, I doubt the inhalation of anything further accelerated the growth of his malignancy. Asked, do you have an opinion as to whether or not work during that period of time was detrimental to him (objection noted by counsel for Travelers, doctor allowed to answer the questions), witness replied, there are certain patients with malignancy that you advise contin- whSgr ^ n t ^ 2 ? and working until the day they die, there are other patients who completely collapse once you tell them they have malignancy and never return to work. I don't think the work factor plays much'of a role in the i t T i t Snn7 ^ SeaS ` Jsked' the malignant disease was aggrava was it not, by the inhalation of asbestos after the malignant disease had started m his system, was it aggravated by the asbestos dust, in your 7 ^ T ' / l tn e S S r;?lied' I.think that once his malignancy began, that for period of four or five or six months following the beginning of nis malignancy he might have accelerated the growth a little bit by inhaling more of the factor that was one of the causative agents in his mmuuc^hh9bbynthheo?fdu;rLthie0rn,i-tnh;ael-lmatai-oingnoafnCYasbensCteosl ,t tshtaatrteisd winasanndotofaggirtasevlaftedintoo rreepplliieedd,^yyeess. S Asked, but your answde^r hwaPsrthSaet` iAtswkaesd'notsb.agtgrava;ted.iveer,v. witness replied, I don't think it was aggravated very much by his Y work after his malignancy started. Asked, but it might have been aggravate, somewhat, witness replied, slightly. 9 aggravate, -T0 COUNSBL TOR TRAVELERS: Asked, did X understand you to say in YaF Pinin Jhe man s work frora March 20th until the date heYfinally stopo, work, such asbestos as he might have inhaled,, if any, played n o a !n hiqhd L e a^ ravJJlon.or acceleration of the disease nor did it bring abou his death sooner than it otherwise would have occurred, is that a correct statement, witness replied, that is correct. correct ***************************************** . CoauSel f?r Travelers made a motion the claim against them be dismissed. The motion was taken under advisement. *******************************A^ AA^ ^ 1^952-Uunniirt NKuummbbe2rr\7f7f8!2o05?l-aibhe=nmtade part ofthtehisAutroepcosryd RepTohritc;of,-cDecembeur 4, G saBSSssrSS& s fingers, mild). g 800 c c ) (Pulmonary osteoarthropath ********************************* ********** -1 7 - R o th w e ll (d e c 'd ) MEMBER'S DECISION This hearing was held to determine whether the employee suffered a personal injury arising out of and in the course of his employment and if so, whether his death was causally related to said injury. The claim was brought against two insurers-- Utica Mutual Casualty Company which covered the A. W. Bancroft Company and Travelers Insurance Company which covered the Armstrong Cork Company. The employee worked for the A. W. Bancroft Company from December 17, 1950 to March 19, 1952 and he worked for the Armstrong Cork Company from March 20, 1952 to April 25, 1952. There is evidence in this record upon which I find that this 46-year old decedent, with a 29-year work history as an asbestos worker, was last employed as a pipe cutter and heat and frost insulator for the two aforementioned companies. This work with the two insured firms entailed the handling and installation of asbestos in the covering of pipes and also as an insulator against heat and frost in various forms and under various conditions. There is evidence upon which I find that the decedent's work exposed him to the inhalation of asbestos dust particles. did inhale these particles. I find he It is also a fair and reasonable inference-- and I so infer-- that asbestosis is a disease contracted only by people who are exposed to the inhalation of asbestos fibers in their work. It is common knowledge that persons who are not so exposed do not suffer from this progressive disease for which there is no known cure. _ There is additional evidence that the employee died on December 1952 and the further evidence upon which I find that death was due to bronchiogenic carcinoma, secondary to asbestosis. I accept and adopt the opinion of Dr. Harriet L. Hardy, under whose supervision the decedent was treated during his entire period of hospitalization and who had an opportunity to review the entire autopsy protocol and who saw some of the pathological material in connection with the autopsy. Dr. Hardy testified-- and I so find-- the work the decedent -1 8 - R o th w e ll (d e c 'd ) performed as a pipe cutter and heat and frost insulator and the disease tha resulted in his death "fall in together." I accept and adopt the opinion of Dr. James Stewart Rooney, a pathologist, who testified that sometime during 1951 (when he was working for A. W. Bancroft Company) this man developed a malignancy of his lung as secondary to his asbestosis, the asbestosis was a factor in causing the malignancy to start." I find, therefore, that the asbestos dust which the employee inhaled at his work resulted in asbestosis. This, I find, constitutes a personal injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. I find further that the asbestosis caused a lung malignancy which resulted in his death on December 3, 1952. The fibers that caused the cancer which produced the death of the employee had been in the employee's lungs much longer than a year in the opinion of Dr. Hardy. "That is a fair statement," Dr. Hardy testified, adding, "that seems certainly more than likely", and I so find. This considered medical opinion would certainly relieve the last insurer of any responsibility for the payment of compensation since it was in the year of his death that the employee commenced work for the second insured. This opinion, too, is shared by Dr. Rooney. He testified, and I so find, that "the man's work from March 20 until the date he finally stopped work, such asbestos as he might have inhaled, if any, played no part in either the aggravation or acceleration of the diseases nor did it bring about his death sooner than it otherwise would have occurred." Dr. Rooney, who is prominent in the field of pathology and whose qualifications were admitted here, testified it is his opinion the cancer started "subsequent to 1950. * * * I would say probably 1951 from tha description of the cancer." I accept and adopt Dr. Rooney's opinion and so find. The decedent was in the employ of the A. W. Bancroft Company, the first insured, throughout all 1951. I find, therefore, that the industrial injury which resulted in a lung cancer and caused the employee's death is causally related to his -1 9 - R o th w e ll (d e c 'd ) employment with the A. W. Bancroft Company, covered by the Utica Mutual Casualty Company. There is evidence in the record that the employee's last working day was April 25, 1952. Between the cessation of his employment and his death he was three times confined to the hospital and in addition to these three confinements received out-patient care. There is no evidence to the contrary and so I infer and find that the employee was totally incapacitated for work between April 26, 1952 and December 2, 1952 due to the aforementioned compensable industrial injury, namely lung cancer. The Utica Mutual Casualty Company is directed to pay total incapacity compensation for the above-mentioned period, at the rate of $30.00 a week, plus $15.00 a week for dependency, in the total sum of $1420.71. (See Atamian's Case, 265 Mass. 51). The Utica Mutual Casualty Company is further directed to pay the claimant widow the sum of $20.00 weekly dependency compensation, from December 3, 1952 to date and continuing, subject to the provisions of the Act. The sum of $905.71 is due to the filing date of this decision. The Utica Mutual Casualty Company is also directed to pay the claimant widow the sum of $25.00 weekly dependency compensation, for the care and support of five minor children in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The sum of $1132.14 is due in weekly compensation benefits for the children to the filing date of this decision. The total sum due the claimant widow under this decision to the filing date, October 16, 1953, is $3458.56 which the Utica Mutual Casualty Company is directed to pay forthwith. The Utica Mutual Casualty Company is also directed to pav the claimant widow the additional sum of $300.00 under Section 33 of the Act. The Utica Mutual Casualty Company is ordered to make the payment of $500.00 to the State Treasury in accordance with Section 65N of the Act. I find equity and justice required the testimony of Doctors Hardy and Rooney and they are each entitled to $50.00 under the provisions of Section 9A of the Act. -2 0 - R o th w e ll (d e c 'd ) The claim against the Travelers Insurance Company is hereby denied and dismissed. HUGH J . GOLDEN -2 1 -