Document 6an009JKg7dQ8Vzrq9KL7QN1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE KENNETH PEERENBOOM, et al. PLAINTIFFS vs. B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY, et al. DEFENDANTS ) ) ) ) ) > ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. C-81-0698-L(A) OBJECTION OF DEFENDANT, B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY, TO PLAINTIFFS' "RENEWED MOTION FOR JOINDER11 Defendant, B. F. Goodrich Company, by counsel, objects to the plaintiffs1 "Renewed Motion for Joiner." In support of its objection this defendant will rely upon the Affidavit of its counsel, attached hereto. Louisville, Kentucky 40202 (502) 582-1601 Counsel for Defendant, B. F. Goodrich Company CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ' It is hereby certified that a true copy of the foregoing document was served this 12th day of February, 1982, by mail upon the Hon. Fred R. Radolovich, Suite 200, 440 South Seventh Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40203, attorney for plaintiff; Hon. Walter Sales, 3rd Floor, M. E. Taylor Bldg., 312 South 4th St., Louisville, Kentucky 40202, counsel for Union; and Hon John Stiles, Starks Building, Louisville, Kentucky 40202, counsel for Union. Counsel for Defendant NGC39119 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE KENNETH PEERENBOOM, et al. PLAINTIFFS vs. B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY, et al. DEFENDANTS ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. ) ) ) ) ) C-81-0698-L(A) AFFIDAVIT OF COUNSEL Stephen F. Schuster, after having been first duly sworn, states as follows: 1. I am counsel of record for B. F. Goodrich Company in this case. 2. In my opinion this is not a proper case to be joined with an action which had been filed by counsel for plaintiffs, namely C-81-0427-L(A), hereinafter referred to as the "Kitterman" case. From the point of view of this defendant, the two cases have very little in common. 3. The plaintiffs' decedent in the present case died of a liver ailment for which there is a recognized connection to chemicals to which the decedent was exposed during the course of his employment with B. F. Goodrich Company. That is why the Company started paying him Workmen's Compensation Benefits in 1974 and continued to pay those benefits until the time of his death. Moreover, since the time of his death, the Company has NGC39120 tendered Workmen's Compensation benefits to his dependents* 4. On the other hand, plaintiffs' decedent in the Kitterman case died of a liver ailment for which there is no known connection to any of the chemicals to which he may have been exposed during the course of his employment. For that reason Workmen's Com pensation benefits have been denied in the Kitterman case. 5. At the very least, the medical proof will be vastly different in the two cases, and other measures of damages, should either case get to that point, will be vastly different. 6. In addition, the defendant Union is represented by different counsel in the two different cases. 7. In short, the only connection between these two cases is that both decedents worked for B. F. Goodrich Company and the plaintiffs in each case were represented by the same counsel. FURTHER THE AFFIANT SAITH NOT, Stephen F. Schuster STATE OF KENTUCKY ) ) SS: COUNTY OF JEFFERSON ) Sworn and subscribed to before me by Stephen F. Schuster thisday of , 1982. My commission expires: Notary Public State-at-Large NGC39121