Document 6RNYmJ7OX7a00KvewQKe06LQR

Be n j a min e. t a t l o r CHARLES VERNON PORTER UURANCE W. BROOKS JAMES R.PULLER CHARLES W. PHILLIPS WILLIAM G. RANDOLPH SEN. B. TAYLOR.JR. i ADA MOTT LAW OFFICE TAYtOR,PoBTEH,BROOKS 8c FULLER LOUISIANA NATIONAL BANK BUILDING RBa t o n o x j o e s ^Lo u i s i a n a September 17, 1946. POST OFFICE BOX 2070 TELEPHONE 3-3-411 Dr. Robert A. Kehoe, Kettering Laboratory, College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Eden Avenue, Cincinnati 19, Ohio. Dear Dr. Kehoe: In view of our experience in the l&d poisoning case, it seems to me that we should consider well - in advance of the trials of the above referred to cases whether or not it is desirable to e^tempt^ocompromise any' or all of them. (Parenthetically,wit& whose claim you are more than familiar, has not filed suit as yet, but will do so very shortly, I am sure). You will recall that after the trial of the MBWBk case, you and I thought it wise to compromise same in view of his blood pressure, particularly on the diastolic side. Vie could probably have compromised the case, before the trial for less than it cost the defendant, but 'in any event we could have saved Coqrt costs. As I have advised you, the Ernest Taylor case was partially tried in the State Court, *ad the testimony of plaintiff's own physician, Dr. Young, was quite favorable to the defendant. However, Mr. Hardin, plaintiff's chief co'unsel, was unable to attend the trial and depended on one of his associates- to do so. Thereafter, I am sure he must have realized the weakness of the case, and he dismissed it and refiled the suit in the United States District Court. This was after the verdict in the Walter Johnson case. I am confident that he will send Taylbr to some doctot who, in all probability, will find something vitally wrong with the plaintiff. The flHBPBcase has also been re filed in the United States District Ubiirt, and both it and the Taylor case will be tried Dr. Robert A. Kehoe, Page 2. before a Jury. The Whitfield case is still pending in the State Court. I suggest that this would be a good time to have all four of the above named employees examined to ascertain their present condition. I realize, of course, that so few of the Baton Rouge doctors know anything about lead poisoning that we are liable to receive some adverse diagnoses, but we are going to have to do this sooner or later. I do not think that we would secure an advantage by referring these men to a New Orleans doctor, because he would probably not know any more about lead poisoning than the Baton Rouge doctors do. I would very much appreciate your views in this matter in the light of your and my experience in the Voster Baker case. I am sending a copy of this letter to Mr. Klaw, of the du Pont Legal Department, asking his views as well. Since dictating the above letter, I find that my partner, Mr. Phillips, wrote Mr^Klaw^i^th^6th instant with reference to compromising the case. He stated in his letter that in his opinion the case could be compromised for #2500.00, plus medicalexDenses^which would be on substantially the same basis as the^flHHB^IH^ case was compromised. We have not had a reply frololr. "KIaw as yet. Very truly yours, CVP/mr hLu,. cc - Abel Klaw, Esq..' - Mr. H. B. Hunt. KE 0017145