Document 6b6wQ22D3Gvg84bMXv85db3pE

0O t 0*0 C 9 "C I iflT ^aC C. aiMAao *w/ C.COO*<M wO"*iWflUlTlNC j.iJUT 3< ^OOiSQn xOtAiit Hobart >?c Mixard Lir:OU*T BUILDING lldO * > 30CUVi.O JBM2T I l 13, 1934. It* prwliainar7 study of letropolltaji 1ife Insurance Caopajry Mr . Taarilrer 2Trrro, '.tljr~T7, Johrs-L'aaw illo yi 4Cth ;trsot, *r -- 71 * -- -HA--, * / Corporatlan, Tear hr. rrwrti I rwcwiwed 7rar latter of Deceuber 13th with wnclowim#, including proof of the prwllaln*x7 rtud7 eirtitlod, 'Hffscts of the Inhalation of vsbsstaa ru*t on the Luasr* of isbwwtc* Jorisrt*. 1 hare carefully rzaained tha proof and return ass*. m readtn/j thie proof I hare cotsparwd It with the paper of tha sac* title which t* prepared hr the Industrial Health jswwiae of the 'Ia t repo li tan shoot threw jeers ago, I rotait the following ao^jowtion (Tor ctnrronieno* of rtfsreue# I hare mustered rajr wennta ia rod pencil in the uaryi* tf the srreTal pojpu* of the ^mlley proof*) i (1) Cal. 11* At the end of the permrrapb which discos*** the wariatlee* open which the progrewa of the discos* le laxluanced, the following soutane* appears* `It night well he aseuued that sidlar wari-able* would influence the occurrence of asbaetool*.* Too will recall that ia dealing srith the lew Jersey Le<ri*lAtiT# Coctaission which ha* had charge of the proposed new lagislatioa la Sew Jiruy whereby silicosis le to he added to the list tf occupational distaees far which ewnpousatim ia required under the terras of the corapwasatica statute, we hare consisterrtl7 amd that there is a mbrtairtial diffeTtnoe between silicosis and a* he stasia -- both as ts the clinical nature of the disease and as to the roaeonahle probability ef ita ineiicojer and 7*0 will also recall that ia particular.jrewsare urged that asbewtosi* should not at the nrooeut tire he included* ia the list ef eoepwaeation diseases, for the reason that it is only within a earpaxatirely recent tiue that astestool* ha* hear rtcufiujisjsd hy the nedieal and scientific profusion* as a disease --- in faet'onei ef, our principal defense* In action* against the errwosy on the eomou. La; theory of neali^ouce ha* teen that the scientific and aeclcel !rnowl?dcw ha# boon insufficient until a wary recent period to place 1 won the e-mers of plants or factor!#* the burden or duty of tairiu* special prsoautloo# aaeinst the ucssitl* onset of the disease to n.ir 04037045 I, therefore, Jisli'c* to hawe this 'ropert sur^wst that aoh-eotoal Uioht V, astTT^o^ to he 'si - ilar'1 to silicosis, slther as to^ the ^p*riod Ihr, 7WndiTr 3rrrn, a of tiro# elihin tM ch It ni.-ht dsrslop, -Jr aa to tba daaaga rocsl-tod >7 *.:-.a l'jca-a , or an to iba quant 1 \ j of duat, ct a. (2) Cal- 11- * \t th* botts-i of this <7x1107 1 obuarra that tiara is sac- forth in^a nota (lnataod of In tha bod7 of th.i articLa) tha stato-oant that ar>aoro In tha .Topor-t of 1331 r*Latin? to tha ml:\t---art of th# partlel## and tha us# of logarltlefl^. (Jaa o- 7 or .laport of 1321) -'# a ratr ar of cnrioa i ty I Tender Thy til a etatarsent (shi ch aa-ona xa salt* ioirertaat} la 7ut in a r.ota inotood of la th# tody of tho articla. If tha author* prafar to hrr It la the for* of a not#, of eourr#, thair Judmant ahould oontrol, as it has no particular b oaring in an7 arant 0700 tha point# la Tfcich th# ooerpasy la Lntrraat#d- (3) Cal- 12, fit lint pone rich on this srallaj boa 1 succarj of tha duat counts sith raupoct to tha scaaral plant#- I nation that It 13 statad that plant 3 *wj unnacaaaarlly dusty*,. I understand this doos not in an7 -jay refer to an7 plant of Johro--lanrllio, fat Z is rcndorinr ehothor th# prorrintor of slant 3 has had an opportunity to rarla# tha corroant. It srtrifras to that th# report Tould son rrar7 tutpoai If t# 1##t# out in tho first lin# of tha paragraph on that fall#7 the ard# Praj nunacTsaarily duat7*. Htnrcrnr, that is a aatt*r Tlth -rhich t* m indlrnotl7 conaamod and I narely suggest It for conalderatioi It Is tha *nai# aTprrralon shloh appear# in th# rt sport of 1231 at pxg* 1L, Callay 13* fo a accent. (l) Gal- 14- Tha sord 'daath* ho-ald b# inarrtod after th# T<rrd S rf 34 In tha third paragraph of aubtiil# "fcisurxnco Cl airs'*. Ton here already callad attaartiou to this ia 70ar letter of 5#anb#r 13 to Zt. Laexa-- (3) Gal-- 14 under subtitl# Cmolusi on#*. TTo, 1- I *gre* -rith 70ar euggtatica In hotter to 2r. Lan=a of C#c#absr 13th that tfct/rs ahould b* added to this conclusion a atatenerrt siullar to that rhich appeared (at p- 23} In th# .1 a port of 1331, nonaiy, 'Clinically,It la of a tjp# aildar than silienais- -- or. If th# doctor# do not Tint to sale a tha stataroeirt in that positiT# fora, It sight ha i# folios# (an snggtsted in jour letter)* *gllalgailytfrun this study it appeared to b# of a typ# ild#r-than ailieoaiaM or, if that is. too strariff, it alrht b sat forth as folio*"#! Tio far 1# indicated t7 tho study] aab##toais is of a typ# (or appears ts bo of a type) aildar than stlico#is. Th# axaot wording is not important, oxcapt that 1 thln.fr it roald ba doslrabl* (if th# dootar# ar* sati sf i#dJ. that such is th# fact), to has# sens exprarsion ccuparing aaba#tosis',ith silioosis and indicating that thsra Is a roal dlffsrorrc# botsoan th# t disaas##, so far u aciantlflc Vno#ledga no-# lndicataa. Of coors# har# again I hare in rind th# Trrobabilit7 that th# I'rm Joroe7 Coaslsalcn Till lntroduc# a bill In tha laa-i alatirra s.-.ieh orans In J.wJarj 3f 1333 j and If it is tbs olic7 of Jo>.rs-''mirr Ills to opooa* 007 bill that attorrp-.tod tc includa -sbaotosla, at conptrsabla. It t^jU ba oary hslpf'Jl to ha#a in official rerort to ahr-a that tharo is a substantial dlffarscca bataaon aobsstrois *nd oiliccOior a.td b7 tbs j.inu to'en it sruld ba trsnblcsera if an nd 0 3 704^ _ .IrJ 7osditar Broca *3' 3 '? lei si. re-art aa^T'-d a~-cir frra h`.cfi thj ocncLjsijn ~i~-* b3 ira-m that thsro lo 7377 little IT ary d iffo mnca isrjsan Vr.3 r.to d1aaaaas. ' as Ic. 2. I on de ret am) that the .stat.nent/ta ths cardiac jplaryan#tjt 1 s corT3ct fr-rn a sciontif ic atandpolot * and a do 20* 3t hear can cen a l3tan t ly objact to it. Co. 3. r a^reo that the oord *pr*li:xlnar7- la soprrflaoaa. no. 4. 7* a. 77. 3. This reads tha Sara aa on ;A* 21 of ths ncpsrt 3f 1731 and, hence, It say ha a little lata t? object. Ii sa-rar, I -aint rot that aa :;s. 3 ao* reads tha infareocs ri-rht ca linxi that aabet33ia doa* odd to the -nortality of tuberculosis easaa. But that irfsrenca doss r.ot aa an to ba Justified froa this study. 1 aa Trondariro if it too Id ba a acrro accurate soiaofitio atateomnt if there nrs eaittad frora 77o. 3 th* last three eorda ta-<rit "attar than tubsTcal-eis*. 2o* . This la the 3C aa aat forth 00 ?*t?a 21 of naaort of 1331* elth tha eoreeption that tba rtoport of 1531 at tha and of the lantenc-a ta-s tha word* "than fraa silica (3102)* and tha jalla7 proof haa tha rorda "than ^ranita dost*. Sara a^ain it say ba a little lata to criticise tha st-ataaent, bat I da not lUce tha xaog-eetioa that thara la a possibility that aabeatoaia ray cause proonoccniosi* aara readily than jrraniie dart. Tha reason I object la that may easaa of ailicaais ore atrpnoaad to originate in jrraaita dart and thir stateseat aa it nor rrada Toryaerta ttat a possibility that a pnetnaoeoaioais ray arise aora readily froa aiirrtjt.. than r-Tronlta daat. thin* ra aho-ald, if noeeible, alirirato all that tort of corelneim hs. 6 fhllortnc tha sari-colon if tor tha rordo "of air* is lira 0 of tha conclusion* To. 7. This la tha ms a* in tha no-port of 1231. Ho ec-anirt. (3) Cala 14 and 13 aabtitla "Tlseoroecdatiana*. m ay COry of tha la-port of 1231 I hurra a pencil new. aa to recomendati on To* 4 to insert tha rord possible* before the Trord "affects* so as to base it reeLd *a rail &s atndise cn tha poaslbla effaota of as tar-taels on tha haart and ci reolation*. I do not thlnb tha point is of ouch inrortance, bat I call 'attention ts it so that it is not rrarlooiod. I Tt ri th tho other oac^orti ona ta your latter to Tr. La.nra of racerh-ar ICth. 04037047 7ary inly youro. *P, CC52 Hobart & Minard Lefcourt Building 118 0 Raymond Boulevard Newark, New Jersey Re preliminary study of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company Dec. 15, 193 Mr. Vandiver Brown, Attorney, Johns-Manville 22 E. 49th Street New York City. Corporation, Dear Mr. Brown: I received your letter of December 10th with enclosures, including proof of the preliminary study entitled, "Effects of Inhalation of Asbestos Dust on the Lungs of Asbestos Workers". have carefully examined the proof and returned same. the I In reading this proof I have compared it with the paper of the same title which was prepared by the Industrial Health Service of the Metropolitan about three years ago. I submit the following suggestion (For convenience of reference I have numbered my comments in red pencil in the margins of the several pages of the galley proofs): (1) Gal. 11. At the end of the paragraph which discusses the "variables" upon which the progress of the disease is influenced, the following sentence appears: "It might well be assumed that similar variables would influence the occurrence of asbestosis." You will recall that in dealing with the New Jersey Legislative Commission which has had charge of the proposed new legislation in New Jersey whereby silicosis is to be added to the list of occupational diseases for which compensation is required under the terms of the compensation statute, we have consistently urged that there is a substantial difference between silicosis and asbestosis -- both as to the clinical nature of the disease and as to the reasonable probability of its incidence and you will also recall that in particular we have urged that asbestosis should not at the present time be included in the list of compensation diseases, for the reason that it is only within a comparatively recent time that asbestosis has been recognized by the medical and scientific professions as a disease -- in fact one of our principal defenses in actions against the company on the common law theory of negligence has been that the scientific and medical knowledge has been insufficient until a very recent period to place upon the owners of plants or factories the burden or duty of taking special precautions against the possible onset of the disease to their employees. I, therefore, dislike to have this report suggest that asbestosis might be assumed to be "similar" to silicosis, either as to the period of time within which it might develop, or as to the dosage received by the lungs, or as .to the quantity of dust, etc. (2) Gal. 11. At the bottom of this galley I observe that there is set forth in a note (instead of in the body of the article) the statement that appears in the Report of 1931 relating to the enlargement of the particles and- the use of logarithms. (See p. 7 of Report of 1931) As a matter of curiosity I wonder why this statement (which seems to me quite important) is put in a note instead of in the body of the article. If the authors prefer to have it in the form of a note, of course, their judgment should control, as it has no particular bearing in any event upon the points in which the company is interested. (3) Gal. 12. The last paragraph on this galley has a summary of the dust counts with respect to the several plants. I notice that it is stated that plant E "was unnecessarily dusty". I understand this does not in any way refer to any plant of Johns-Manville, but I am wondering whether the proprietor of plant E has had an opportunity to review the comment. It strikes me that the report would serve every purpose if we leave out in the first line of the paragraph on that galley the words "was unnecessarily dusty". However, that is a matter with which we are indirectly concerned and I merely suggest it for consideratior It is the same expression which appears in the Report of 1931 at page 11. Galley 13. No comment. (4) Gal. 14. The word "death" should be inserted after the words "6 of 36" in the third paragraph of subtitle "Insurance Claims". You have already called attention to this in your letter of December 10 to Dr. Lanza. (5) Cal. 14 under subtitle "Conclusions". No. 1. I agree with your suggestion in letter to Dr. Lanza of December 10th that there should be added to this conclusion a statement similar to that which appeared (at p. 20) in the Report of 1931, namely, "Clinically, it is of a type milder than silicosis" -- or, if the doctors do not want to make the statement in that positive form, it might be as follows (as suggested in your letter): "Clinically, from this study it appeared to be of a type milder than silicosis"; or, if that is too strong, it might be set forth as follows: "So far as indicated by the study, asbestos is a type (or appears to be of a type) milder than silicosis". The exact wording is not important, except that I think it would be desirable (if the doctors are satisfied that such is the fact), to have some expression comparing asbestosis with silicosis and indicating that there is a real difference between the two diseases, so far as scientific knowledge now indicates. Of course, here again I have in mind the probability that the New Jersey Commission will introduce a bill in the Legislature which opens in January of 1935; and if it is the policy of Johns-Manville to oppose any bill that attempted to include asbestosis, as compensable, it would be very helpful to have an official report to show that there is a substantial difference between asbestosis and silicosis; and by the same token it would be troublesome if an