Document ByqYeZ4avoO8QdjZNMqDRakrX

FILE NAME: WR Grace (WRG) DATE: January 22,1986 DOC#: WRG321 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: 1986 Legal - Deposition of William E. Smith, M.D. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION THE CORPORATION OF MERCER ) UNIVERSITY, ) Plaintiff j v. ) ) NATIONAL GYPSUM COMPANY, et al., ) Defendants ^ * * * CIVIL ACTION NO. 85-126-3-MAC ********** STATE OF MARYLAND, Plaintiff KEENE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants ) ! IN THE CIRCUIT COURT { FOR ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY j CIVIL ACTION NO. 1108600 ) ^ f VOLUME TWO DEPOSITION OF: WILLIAM E. SMITH, M. D. Upon oral examination, taken by counsel for Plaintiffs on January 22, 1986, commencing at 10:00 a.m., at Holiday Inn, Ellsworth, Maine, before Corinne L. Keene, RPR, Notary Public, State of Maine. BROWN, KEENE & HALTEMAN COURT REPORTERS P.O. BOX 1538 BANGOR, MAINE 04401 1 APPEARANCES 2 For Plaintiff Mercer: 3 4 5 6 7 For Plaintiff Maryland: 8 9 10 11 For Defendant Grace: 12 13 MARTIN D I E S , ESQ. 1009 West Green Orange, Texas 22630 DARCI L. ROCK, ESQ. Bracewell and Patterson 1825 Eye Street, N.W. Suite 1200 Washington, D.C. 20006 MARLENE TRESTMAN, ESQ. Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General State of Maryland Calvert and Fayette Streets Baltimore, Maryland 21202 RICHARD MONAGHAN, ESQ.. Herrick & Smith 100 Federal Street < Boston, Massachusetts 02110 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 206 1 2 3A 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that and it says groups 1, 2, and 3. Can you describe for us what this is, please, sir? Yes. This is a notebook labelled VG, dash, Vanderbilt, groups 1, 2, and 3. The significance of VG was that we used that on our notebooks to indicate VanderbiltGrace because we were running tests of samples of tremolitic ore provided to us by R. T. Vanderbilt Company and it was at about that time that Dr. Yang asked us if we could run some tests of tremolite preparations for Grace, and I said, well, we're going to have a control group of animals that are sham operated and treated with just injection of saline into the pleural space and those animals m that control group could just as easily serve as controls for the samples from W. R. Grace as for the sample from R. T. Vanderbilt. So for that reason we just have a designation on this book VG because the groups 1 and 2 are groups of animals treated with different doses of the material we received from Vanderbilt. Group 3 are the control animals. And this book contains a -- each individual animal is entered with a number on a single line and then at intervals in the course of the experiment the weight, the body weight of that animal is entered and then at the time that that animal died the number of days, 207 1 2 3Q 4 5 6A 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Q 16 17 A 18 19 20 Q 21 22 A 23 24 25 the day on which the animal died is entered and the number of days from the start of the experiment. Can you identify Exhibit 77 which would appear to me to be the ledger pertaining to the Grace study, groups 4 and 5, is that correct? Yes, it is a similar notebook and in it are entered the animals from group 4 and group 5. Group 4 was treated with sample 60 and group 5 with sample 63. And these books are -- this book is set up in the same way as the other one. It shows the animal number and then the weight, body weight of the animal at intervals as the experiment proceeded, the day on which that individual animal died, and then the number of days that represented from start of test. Doctor, was sample 60 in the Grace study pure tremolite or the mixture of 50 percent tremolite? I think sample 60 was the pure tremolite. Let me just be sure on that. Sample 63 was tremolitevermiculite. Doctor, can you tell me what adenocarcinoma is, your definition of it? Well, it's a cancer that has cells that resemble cells of, let's say, a lining of a lung or lining of the gastrointestinal tract, gland-like cells in contrast to so-called squamous carcinomas which are made up of 216 1 2A 3. 4Q happens a lot? Well, i t 's an uncommon tumor in, as spontaneous tumor in hamsters. Is it thought to be associated with a fibrogenic 5 6A process? Not that I know of. 7 (Manila folder, entitled Vanderbilt-W. R. 8 Grace, Project Data Sheets, was marked for 9 identification as Deposition Exhibit 82.) 10 BY MR. DIES: 11 Q Okay. Can you identify for me what's been marked as 12 Exhibit 82 and it says on the front: Vanderbilt-W* R. 13 Grace Project Data Sheets, and I have taken those out 14 for the moment here, but can you tell us what this 15 material is? 16 A Well, these are pages from a loose-leaf binder on 17 which we have entered the individual animals, how 18 long they lived and what was found in the growth, 19 what was found on the histopathology. In contrast 20 to t h e , the bound books that you have as exhibit -- 21 well, I don't know the number, Exhibit 76 and 77, those 22 books were set up when the experiment was started and 23 the animals in each group are listed simply one, two, 24 three, four, five. 25 Now, as the experiment progressed, it could be 217 1 that animal 48 was the first to die perhaps at 57 days. 2 Then animal 15 might die at 102 days and so forth, and 3 that's all recorded in those books. 4 Now, to unscramble that and put the animals 5 listed chronologically in the order in which they 6 died, that was done on the pages that you have here. 7 (There was discussion off the record. 8 (Data sheet entitled Group 4, V-G, Tremolite 9 60, page 5, 25 mg, containing listing of animal 10 52, handwritten, was marked for identification as 11 Deposition Exhibit 213-B. 12 (Data sheet entitled V-G, Group 3, Continued, 13 Control Saline, handwritten, was marked for 14 identification as Deposition Exhibit 213. 15 (A brief recess was taken.) 16 BY MR. DIES: 17 Q On the record, Doctor, we have marked in the data 18 sheets for the Grace study as Exhibit 213-B that sheet 19 that pertains to animal 52 in group 4, and I would 20 like for you to read into the record and explain to 21 us the writing that is identified on that sheet with 22 animal 52. Tell us what it says, please. 23 A It says in the gross findings 3 foe, which means focal 24 adhesions were recorded as grade 3, and then 2 dif, 25 which means that there were diffuse adhesions regarded 2 3 9 1 MR. MONAGHAN: Can I state for the record that 2 document was produced as part of the -- the original 3 was produced yesterday. 4 MS. ROCK: That's what we're asking him to say. 5 MR. MONAGHAN: Okay. 6A The original is here in the# with the computer cards 7 and shows what the color codes represented in the 8 sketches that were made on the autopsy cards. It 9 also shows the definitions that we adopted for grading 10 the different kinds of adhesions that we saw. They 11 are all here. For example/ just a one plus meant that 12 there were little, thin adhesions that we speak of 13 here as violin string adhesions, whereas in this 14 animal number 52, the focal adhesions are listed as 15 grade 3, which would mean more than eight and less than 16 12 of those violin type adhesions. 17 Then for diffuse adhesions, we graded it grade 2 18 and for diffuse adhesions grade 2 would mean 2 to 2 plus 19 lobes bound together or to chest wall or more adhesions 20 equal to this area. 21 BY MR. DIES: 22 Q Okay. What else is indicated on your data sheet? 23 A On this sheet in Exhibit 213-B, opposite animal 52 24 and under histopathology, it says mucus adenocarcinoma, 25 left lung, and then H. Sobel and then WES, so that 220 1 2 3 4Q 5A 6 7Q 8 9 10 11 12 A 13 14 15 16 17 A 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 would mean that both Dr. Sobel and I saw that. Now, there is a statement under that: Asbestos bodies. What are asbestos bodies? Asbestos bodies are deposits of iron that form on asbestos fibers, and as I look back, as I recall -- Let me get -- let me just stay with that while I've got it at the tip of my tongue. Can we assume that Dr. Sobel made the diagnosis to which you agreed that there were present in the tissue asbestos bodies and that's the reason it's written there? Well, it seemed to me that, as I look at this note, asbestos bodies not in lung, this is something that he's written on the back of the card so where were the asbestos? They must have been seen somewhere. MR. MONAGHAN: The card -- (Continuing) Oh, yes, here we go. On the front of the card, this goes back to Exhibit 211-B for animal 52. On the front of the card among the various printed things, there's a column where we would check for either the presence or absence of what on the printed card says Fer, period, bodies. That was our abbreviation for ferruginous bodies or iron-containing bodies, and on this card number two is circled and it says: HS and WES agree. So, there were -- we agreed that 222 1 2 3 4A 5 6 7Q 8 9 10 11 A 12 13 14 15 16 17 Q 18 19 A 20 Q 21 22 23 A 24 25 fibrogenic process or fibrosis? Is there any similarity between the, whatever the definition you may use and fibrous processes and diffuse adhesions? Well, it would be a way of estimating in the gross; that i s , with the naked e y e , whether there had or had not been fibrosis. So the diagnosis as indicated in the card for animal 52 marked as Exhibit 231-B does indicate that there was a fibrosis indicated by the blue throughout the lung in these areas that have been colored? That's correct. We checked that out by the special stain for fibrosis that is one of the exhibits. It's a paper that you have -- I don't recall the number of the exhibit -- but the type of stain that we used to actually find out whether there were fiberglas there, and fibrosis is recorded. And fibrosis is one of the conditions that can be associated with exposure to asbestos? That's correct. Okay. All right. Let's see. I'm not sure that I'm clear yet on where you concluded that asbestos bodies were found in the sample. The asbestos bodies were certainly seen in the initial sections and presumably in the pleura because when Dr. Sobel examined the sections later he made a specific 223 1 2 3 4Q 5 6 7A 8Q 9A 10 Q 11 12 13 14 A 15 Q 16 A 17 Q 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 comment that he hadn't seen them in the Jungs whereas he and I both agreed they were present and they must have been present in the adhesions in the pJeura. And that's the reason on the computer card for the animal that you have ferruginous bodies circled, level two? Two. . And that's what you meant by that? That's right. And because of the fibrosis indicated in examination of the animal's lung which we agreed was indicated in blue coloring, that's why you and Dr. Sobel circled level three, I'm sorry, level two under fibrosis? Yes. Is that correct? Yes. I want to look at the computer card marked as Exhibit 211-A on animal 79 in group 3, the control group, and I would like for you to describe for me in essence your findings in connection with that animal and interpret that for me, and we have talked about, talked about this to some extent. Can you tell us if there are any ferruginous or asbestos bodies identified in the lungs of that animal, as indicated by the computer card? 286 1 with Exhibit 96 and ending with Exhibit 206 were 2 originally contained when you brought them to the 3 deposition, is that not correct? 4A That's correct. 5 (Envelope was marked for identification as 6 Deposition Exhibit 230.) 7 BY MR. DIES: 8Q And Exhibit 211 is the metal file container containing 9 the various card files on the examination and 10 pathologic examination of the particular animals in 11 12 A 13 various studies, is that correct? Yes, sir. (Metal file cabinet containing computer 14 cards was marked for identification as 15 Deposition Exhibit 211.) 16 BY MR. DIES: 17 Q Doctor, marked as Exhibit 217 is a letter which you 18 brought to the deposition this morning, according to 19 Mr. Monaghan's statement earlier today, dated 20 December the 3rd, 1953, to you from a Mr. John P. 21 Knox, marked Confidential, appears to be not a copy 22 but, well, maybe it is a copy. It's an original 23 typed copy apparently to you from Mr. Knox. Can 24 you identify for us this letter and have I characterized!i 25 it properly in terms of its date and its author? ; 287 1A 2 3 4 5 6Q 7 8A 9Q 10 11 12 A 13 Q 14 A 15 Q 16 A 17 18 19 Q 20 21 22 23 24 25 A The date and the author, yes. This is a typed copy of a letter that I received m December. It was mailed December 3, 1953 from Dr. Knox to me. His original letter was m longhand. This is a typed copy of the longhand letter. Is that an accurate copy of the original letter that was in longhand, Doctor? Yes. Has it been maintained in your custody as part of your personal records since you received it back in, I assume December of 1953? Yes. You brought it here today, is that correct? That's correct. Who was Mr. Knox, for the record? W e l l , John Knox is a physician who was the medical officer for one of the principal asbestos mills in England. Okay. Thank you. Doctor, Exhibit 218 appears to be a copy of a letter that was dated February 18th of 1954 addressed to John F. Knox, M. D., in England signed by William E. Smith, M. D. The question is, can you identify this as a true copy of a letter that you wrote to Dr. Knox on February 18, 1954? Yes, this is a carbon copy of my letter to Dr. Knox. 289 1Q 2 3A 4Q 5A 6Q 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 All right. And likewise that's been maintained in your records since you transmitted the letter? Yes. You brought it here today, is that correct? That's correct. Exhibit 219 has been marked and it consists first of a two-page handwritten letter addressed to you, Dear William Smith, from John F. Knox, dated 2/16/1954. Attached to the handwritten letter is a typed document consisting of five pages numbered at the bottom, first page having the title, quote, Mortality from Lung Cancer Among Asbestos Workers, close quote. The left-hand side at the top, the name J. F. Knox, Industrial Medical Officer, appears. On the right-hand side of the top of the page, the name R. Doll, D-o-1-1, member of the statistical Resea Unit of the Medical Research Council, appears. The next page following page five of that document is a page listing references. It's not numbered by page. Attached to that, the next page, is a table one, quote, Causes of Death, Diagnosed at Autopsy Among Persons Employed at an Asbestos Works, 1933-1952. Attached to that is a table identified and described as table two, Asbestos Workers With Primary 290 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 A 13 Q 14 15 16 17 18 A 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Lung Cancer, Occupational History and Autopsy Data. The next page is table three, quote, Number of ManYears Lived by Men Who Had Previously Worked for 20 or More Years in a Scheduled Area. The final, page is table four, Causes of Death Among Male Asbestos Workers Compared With the Mortality Experience of All Men in England and Wales. Can you identify Exhibit 219 as being the original handwritten letter sent to you by Dr. Knox on December 6, 1954 and the attachments being the attachments I have described which he sent to you as part of this letter? Yes, that's correct. Doctor, I think I may have left out attached to that is a Xerox copy. I will ask you if it should be attached of, quote, Mortality From Lung Cancer in Asbestos Workers by Richard Doll. Is this something that should be attached to that or -- That came later, and the data that is in this typewritten document that you just cited titled Mortality From Lung Cancer in Asbestos Workers by J. F. Knox and R. Doll, D-o-1-1, was their original or their preliminary report. Later that material was published in the document that you have there, and the publication is made entirely by Dr. Doll, D-o-1-1. All right. Let's stop and mark this document 291 1 separately as it was not marked. 2 (Reprint entitled Mortality From Lung Cancer 3 in Asbestos Workers, six sheets, was marked for 4 identification as Deposition Exhibit 221.) 5 BY MR. DIES: 6Q Now, let's talk for a moment a little bit more about 7 Exhibit 219, the attachment to the handwritten letter 8 which is dated 2/6/54 to you from Dr. Knox and make 9 sure I understand the documents beginning with page 10 1 described as Mortality From Lung Cancer Among 11 Asbestos Workers consists of the data from what? 12 A It's data that Dr. Knox got out of his records that 13 became available to him of cases of co-existing 14 asbestosis and lung cancer in people that had been 15 employed m the plant where he was the medical officer. 16 Q Okay. Mow, let's go to Exhibit 221 we talked about 17 and just marked which, again, is described as Mortality 18 From Lung Cancer in Asbestos Workers by Richard Doll 19 and in light of that explanation tell us what Exhibit 20 221 is. 21 A Two twenty-one is a Xerox copy of a publication in 22 the British Journal of Industrial Medicine, the year 23 1955, Volume 12, pages 81 through 86. 24 Q And is that the published form of the data attached 25 to the 2/6/54 letter, Exhibit 219? 292 1A 2Q 3 4 5 6 7 8A 9 10 11 12 13 Q 14 15 16 17 18 A 19 20 Q 21 22 23 A 24 Q 25 Yes. All right. Can you identify what's been marked as Exhibit 220 which bears the date June 12, 1956, a letter addressed to George E. Armstrong, M. D., Director of New York University, Bellevue Medical Center, consisting of a number of pages and signed by you. Can you identify that for us, please? Yes. This is a seven page letter that I sent to Dr. Armstrong attempting to detail my experience at, during my service at New York University and bringing out that my, I had been told by my chief, Dr. Lanza, that my appointment there would not be continued. Excuse me, Doctor. I just want to clarify at this time, is it a correct statement that that is a letter written in your hand and authored by you on that date and actually that was sent to the gentleman I indicated, Mr. George E. Armstrong? Yes, and the purpose of the letter was to request a hearing. Okay. In connection with your circumstances involving your departure from New York University which you described earlier in the deposition, is that correct? That's correct. All right. Dr. Smith, a couple of questions in connection with documents. Who is Professor R. E. Lane? 293 1A 2Q 3A 4Q 5 6A 7 8Q 9 10 11 A 12 Q 13 A 14 15 Q 16 17 A 18 Q 19 A 20 21 22 23 Q 24 25 R. E. Lane? Yea, sir. You recall Professor R. E. Lane? I don't recall that name. Let's see. What about the Daymon Runyan fund? What is that? Daymon Runyan fund is a fund that makes grants largely in support of cancer research work. Do you know anything about the origin of it, when was it, when did it begin, how was it organized, approximately what dates? I would just be guessing. Well - It goes back to, I think, oh, shortly after the second World War. Okay. Have you ever received any grants from that organization? I don't recall any. Okay. I say that because at Sloane-Kettering Institute and also at NYU there was some general grants and I may have benefitted in some way from grants made to the institution. Okay. Do you have any specific knowledge of any grants or funds that were given by that fund or group to any study in connection with asbestos, asbestos 294 1 workers, asbestosis or asbestos in cancer? 2A I don't recall. I remember that when I was at NYU 3 there was talk of going to them for a grant, but I 4 don't really remember back to whether any proposal 5 6Q was made to Daymen Runyan. Doctor, are there any other documents in your 7 possession or that have been in your possession in 8 connection with the items listed on the subpoena 9 that we went over yesterday or in connection with the 10 various research experiments, studies, and matters 11 that we have talked about in this deposition in 12 reference to the records we have that you showed to 13 Mr. Monaghan or discussed with him and for whatever 14 reason have not brought to the deposition or produced? 15 A No. 16 (A brief recess was taken.) 17 BY MR. DIES: 18 Q Doctor, in connection with your letter to Dr. Armstrong 19 in 1956 on June 12th, 1956 which is marked as Exhibit 20 220, did you ever get the hearing before the University 21 22 A 23 24 25 authorities that you requested? No, I did not. I had a call from Dr. Lanza telling me that asbestos, my interest in asbestos problems and his association with asbestos companies was only part of the larger picture and that I just didn't 295 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Q 8 9A 10 Q 11 A 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 understand the enormous trouble was caused by claims for occupational cancers and that if I persisted in going through with request for hearing, he would see to it that X never got a position in any other university and also that he would enter a suit for libel against me. Now -- Okay, Doctor. Is there something that's material in terms of whether you got a hearing or not? Well - I don't want to cut you off but I don't -- What happened was that I felt very deeply about the public health aspects of this, but after talking with my wife about it, she pointed out to me that this might mean that our family would end up out on the street, and about the same time an old friend whose judgment I very much respected told me that I was just struggling against the world and I better give up, that I was a laboratory man, I ought to stick to that. Also, he had a friend in New Jersey who was president of a college and he wanted to talk to me about my experience, and this was Dr. Peter Sabertino who was president of Pairleigh Dickinson University. So my friend spoke with Dr. Sabertino and I was offered a position at Parleigh Dickinson University where I have worked happily ever since until just a couple of years 296 1 ago they told me I was getting old and over the hill 2 and time for me to move along to green pastures. So 3 I have come up here to Maine and hopefully will get a 4 few more papers written up on things that we should 5 have described long ago. 6 MR. MONAGHAN: I'm going to move to strike that 7 answer as nonresponsive. 8 BY MR. DIES: 9Q I hope so, Doctor. Doctor, let me ask you to look 10 at page 4, last paragraph of this letter to 11 Dr. Armstrong, Exhibit 220, and I want to read a 12 sentence to you and ask you to follow while I read, 13 and make sure I read it correctly, b e g i n n m o the third 14 line here with I recall. Do you see that? 15 A I do. 16 Q I recall that, according to my understanding, 17 Professor Lanza served since about 1949 as consultant 18 for a large asbestos company, which I shell define 19 for the present purpose as Company X. In the spring 20 of 1950, medical officers of this and other asbestos 21 companies visited the Institute to discuss a report 22 published by the Chief Inspector of Factories in 23 Great Britain indicating association of lung cancer 24 with asbestosis. 25 Did I read that correctly? 339 1 because I think I'm done? 2 (A brief recess was taken.) 3 MR. MONAGHAN: I don't have anything further. 4 I obviously reserve my right to ask questions if the 5 Plaintiff conducts further examination. That is all 6 I have for now. 7 REEXAMINATION . 8 BY MR. DIES: 9Q Doctor, do you recall the testimony that you gave 10 Mr. Monaghan, as I remember substantially this would 11 be correct, that the evidence that you have received 12 and reviewed from the British in connection with tfee 13 link between asbestos and cancer was at the least 14 sufficient to make you highly suspect and to believe 15 that further testing was required? 16 MR. MONAGHAN: I'm going to object to that 17 question both as to the statement on the record and 18 as to leading. You may answer. 19 THE WITNESS: I may answer? 20 MR. DIES: Yes, you may answer. 21 MR. MONAGHAN: We all agree on that you can answer. 22 A My answer is yes. 23 BY MR. DIES: 24 Q Do you know, Dr. Smith, whether the W. R. Grace and 25 Company or any other asbestos company -- 340 1 MR. MONAGHAN: I want to object to the 2 characterization of W. R. Grace as asbestos company. 3 MR. DIES: Let me start over again. 4 BY MR. DIES: 5Q Doctor, do you know whether W. R. Grace and Company or 6 any other company that sold asbestos products ever did 7 any further testing themselves on the question of 8 whether their asbestos products were producing cancer 9 in those years? 10 MR. MONAGHAN: I want to object as to what years 11 we're referring to. 12 BY MR. DIES: c 13 Q In the years following, immediately following the 14 British study that you referred to. 15 MR. MONAGHAN: I will state another objection, 16 to the best of my knowledge, W. R. Grace was not 17 selling asbestos-containing products until 1963. 18 BY MR. DIES: 19 Q Well, Doctor, I will just make it a broad question 20 and come back to that one. Let's try it this way. 21 Do you know whether W. R. Grace and Company ever did 22 any testing whatsoever to determine whether their 23 products that contained asbestos were a cause of cancer 24 in humans other than the tests and experiments that 25 you performed? 341 1A 2Q 3 4 I'm not familiar with any other studies. And how long a period of time, Dr. Smith, were you associated in the study that we have talked about now for a day with W. R. Grace and various employees 5 including at least two doctors consulting with W. R. 6 Grace and familiar with the company? 7A Well, the dates are on the correspondence. I believe 8 9Q it was a period of about two years. Certainly if W. R. Grace had conducted other tests 10 to determine whether any of its asbestos-containing 11 products were dangerous as a cause of cancer, you 12 would have expected them to give you that information, 13 would you not? 14 MR. MONAGHAN: I'm going to object to that 15 question as leading and suggesting the answer to the 16 witness. 17 BY MR. DIES: 18 Q You can answer it. 19 A I can answer it? I would have assumed so. 20 Q Would you also not, would it not be the case that if 21 in fact there were significant data on the history of 22 W. R. Grace's employees at their Libby mine that 23 indicated significant disease process related to 24 cancer that if that information existed, you certainly 25 would assume that W. R. Grace would have provided you 342 1 that information? 2 MR. MONAGHAN: I'm going to object to that question 3 both because it's leading and suggesting the answer and 4 because you're asking, as you have noted, Dr. Smith to 5 assume what W. R. Grace and Company may or may not have 6 done and in fact to read the minds of other individuals. 7 You can answer it. 8 BY MR. DIES; 9 Q You can answer the question, Doctor. 10 A 11 12 13 Well, I don't really see any need for them to have acquainted me with any other studies. They had a question they wanted to ask. They formulated the < question; How could we run some tests on some 14 materials that they could provide? And I told them 15 how we could do the tests. We agreed to do them and 16 we did them. 17 Q Do you know or were you ever provided even facts in 18 connection with the mortality rate for W. R. Grace's 19 employees at the Libby mine? 20 A No. 21 Q 22 When you made the various statements to Mr. Monaghan that, and I believe you were reading from some letter 23 that he pulled out of the correspondence file, that 24 the animal study that you performed which indeed 25 showed their product was carcinogenic in hamsters -- 345 1 BY MR. DIES: 2Q You can answer the question. 3A 4 Well, I do not recall being given any information about clinical studies of the men in the mine or the 5 mills. I do recall that Dr. Duecker asked me in the 6 course of the studies that we did at the time when we 7 began to find tumors in some of the animals, if I 8 could recommend any additional types of studies, and 9 I did say that we could do some further studies by 10 intrapleural tests which we were set up to do but that 11 we were not set up to do inhalation exposures, and I 12 suggested to him two things. One was that the next 13 step would be either inhalation exposures in 14 experimental animals but that it really might be 15 more pertinent to go to the species that we were 16 all concerned with, human beings, and look at 17 epidemiological data and see first if there were 18 really any reasons to do animal studies. If 19 epidemiological study showed that there were or was 20 a cancer problem, then there would be no real reason 21 to do laboratory animal studies. 22 MR. MONAGHAN: I'm going to move to strike that 23 answer as not responsive. 24 BY MR. DIES: 25 Q And as you have stated yourself in the record, you 346 1 yourself were never given any information by Grace as 2 to any epidemiological data or clinical data involving 3 their own employees and their exposure to the product 4 tremolite? 5 MR. MONAGHAN; I'm going to object to the question 6 as leading. You can answer. 7 BY MR. DIES; 8Q Is that correct? 9A That's correct. 10 Q I guess what I'm asking you, Doctor, is this. In 11 terms of the type of evidence then that might be 12 weighted that you would want since you have got your 13 study and you have qualified that in your answer to 14 Mr. Monaghan that it was a screening program and it's 15 difficult to extrapolate from the animal studies, 16 would you m fact consider it the best evidence to 17 m fact study those employees who had been exposed to 18 the product in their plant? 19 MR. MONAGHAN; I object to the question as 20 leading and because it is compound and I believe that 21 it misstates the record. 22 BY MR. DIES: 23 Q You can answer the question, Doctor. 24 A I would say yes. 25 Q Doctor, I wasn't in the room but you offered testimony 354 1 marked Exhibit 138. 2 3A 4 (There was discussion off the record.) (Continuing) The only lung, the only tumor of the lungs was metastatic malignant melanoma. 5 BY MR. DIES: 6Q And which animal was that on? 7 A That was in animal 79. 8 Q That was the animal -- 9 A Group 3. 10 Q Was that not the animal that we talked about at length 11 earlier in the deposition when we looked at the actual 12 computer cards and did not find any evidence of 13 fibrosis or mineral particles? 14 MR. MONAGHAN: I want to object to that question 15 as leading and that the record speaks for itself. 16 BY MR. DIES: 17 Q 18 A You can answer the question, Doctor. Yes, the answer is yes. 19 (A brief recess was taken.) 20 BY MR. DIES: 21 Q 22 Dr. Smith, in terms of what was reported about asbestos and the relationship to cancer, sort of summarizing some 23 of the things that we have talked about, it's true from 24 what we established, is it not, that at least in the 25 medical journals by, in one instance, 1944, the 355 1 editorial in the American Journal of Medicine, there 2 were suggestions by leading investigators that asbestos 3 was in fact a cause of cancer; I believe you agreed 4 with that, did you not? 5 MR. MONAGHAN; I'm going to object to that 6 question as leading and to the extent that it's an 7 attempt to state the record, the record speaks for 8 itself and I believe Dr. Smith has already testified 9 at some length about the subject of that question. 10 You can answer. 11 A 12 13 Yes. MR. MONAGHAN: hear the answer. What was the answer? I didn't 14 THE WITNESS; Yes. 15 BY MR. DIES; 16 Q Also, isn't it a fact that medical literature, to 17 your knowledge, based upon your career, that in 18 terms of what you yourself were exposed to and what 19 you knew, that by the year 1950 when you completed 20 your tour in Europe and published your review of 21 occupational tumors, you chose certain categories 22 of occupational tumor incidence to write about and 23 in fact asbestos was one of those categories? 24 MR. MONAGHAN: I'm going to object to that 25 question as leading, as being compound. 356 1A Yes. 2 BY MR. DIES: 3Q And I believe that we established yesterday that 4 your article was in fact published in a reputable 5 medical journal entitled The Survey of Current British 6 and European Studies of Occupational Tumor Problems, 7 and you felt that the evidence of what you had 8 gathered was at least significant enough to report 9 to the medical community in the United States and 10 describe the incidence of tumors in these particular 11 categories in which you include asbestos? 12 MR. MONAGHAN: I 'm going to object to the 13 question as leading and because it attempts to state 14 or restate Dr. Smith's previous testimony which speaks 15 16 17 A for itself. MR. DIES: Yes. You can answer. 18 BY MR. DIES: 19 Q And isn't it also true that in terms of your own 20 career, as we have established in this deposition, 21 that by the year 1953 you had received evidence and 22 communication from Dr. Knox detailing the findings 23 that were going to be published later with regard to 24 the incidence of lung cancer associated with asbestos? 25 MR. MONAGHAN: I'm going to object to the question 357 1 as leading and to the extent that it characterizes 2 findings which are on the record. I object on that 3 basis as well. 4A Yes. 5 BY MR. DIES: 6Q And if one goes back and looks at it from a factual 7 standpoint, what that evidence said, regardless of 8 what characterization one might put on it, from a 9 factual standpoint the literature showed in late 10 1930 -- I don't remember the exact date that Dr. Gloyne 11 in England had in fact reported a case study connecting 12 asbestos with cancer. That's true, isn't it? 13 MR. MONAGHAN: Object to the question as leading. 14 A I don't, I don't recall offhand when that report came 15 out. 16 BY MR. DIES: 17 Q Let me just stick then to your personal knowledge 18 based upon the information and data that you came in 19 contact with in your career. Factually, isn't it 20 true that the report of the Chief Inspector of 21 Factories from England that you reviewed in your 22 literature 1950 that he found and you reported that 23 there was a tenfold increase in cancer among asbestos 24 workers studied, tenfold over what he thought to be 25 the normal rate of cancer? 358 1 MR. MONAGHAN; I'm going to object to the question 2 as leading and because it purports to state both the 3 results of two studies, both of which are in the record 4 and both of which speak for themselves. You can answer. 5A I don't recall whether the Chief Inspector had that 6 number, tenfold increase in his report, not that 7 stands out in my recollection and the report from 8 Dr. Knox. 9 MR. DIES: Okay. 10 MR. MONAGHAN; I move to strike the answer as 11 nonresponsive. 12 BY MR. DIES: 13 Q All right. Therefore, Dr. Knox in 1953 reported to 14 you evidence of a tenfold increase in cancer from 15 exposure to asbestos? 16 MR. MONAGHAN: Object to the question as leading. 17 A Yes. 18 BY MR. DIES: 19 Q And in terms of your work for W. R. Grace, it's true, 20 isn't it, Doctor, that when you go through the 21 correspondence and the files that we have here, that 22 you notified W. R. Grace at least by the year 1977 23 that, based on your experiments, your finding was 24 that their product containing tremolite as submitted 25 to you, a sample, was carcinogenic? 359 1 MR. MONAGHAN: I 'm going to object to the question 2 as leading, as compound, as a misstatement of the 3 record. There's no testimony here today that any 4 Grace product was ever submitted to Dr. Smith. 5 BY MR. DIES; 6Q Let me restate that, Doctor The facts are that, 7 based on your experiment, at least by 1977 you reported 8 to W. R. Grace through the established channels that 9 you had in the working relationship that the tremolite 10 samples that they had sent to you produced carcinogenic 11 activity in the hamsters, the animals that you studied. 12 MR. MONAGHAN: I'm going to -- , 13 MR. DIES: Can I finish my question? 14 MR. MONAGHAN: I thought you were done. I'm 15 not trying to slow things down. 16 MR. DIES: You can answer the question. 17 MR. MONAGHAN: I'd like to object to the question 18 as leading and the record speaks for itself. What 19 Dr. Smith communicated to W. R. Grace has been testified 20 to at some length and more importantly as is reflected 21 in the documents, unless you are asking about 22 additional communications. 23 BY MR. DIES: 24 Q You can answer the question, Doctor. 25 A The answer is yes. 360 1Q 2 3 4 Isn't it also true factually that you told W. R. Grace through established channels as part of your working relationship that the next thing they could do is to perform more testing? 5 MR. MONAGHAN: I'm going to object to the question 6 as leading. 7 BY MR. DIES: 8Q You can answer, Doctor. 9A I outlined some additional tests that could be done 10 and, as I mentioned a little earlier, I suggested 11 that perhaps additional animal experience were 12 considered, they might want to get some epidemiological 13 studies. 14 Q In fact, you not only suggested that but you mentioned 15 the possibility of inhalation study regarding animals, 16 did you not? 17 18 A MR. MONAGHAN: Object to the question as leading. Inhalation exposure, yes. 19 BY MR. DIES: 20 Q And it's also true that W. R. Grace, Doctor, never 21 asked you to perform anymore tests or experiments 22 subsequent to that, did they? 23 MR. MONAGHAN: I'm going to object to the 24 question as leading. 25 A Well, as I mentioned earlier, we were not set up to do 361 1 inhalation exposures and actually the data that we 2 had gotten from the intrapleural tests was providing 3 a positive answer so that there really didn't seem 4 much point in going into further intrapleural studies. 5 Similarly, we are not, we were not set up to do 6 epidemiological study. 7 BY MR. DIES: 8Q Okay. Would it be true though, Doctor, that subsequent 9 to your communication to Grace of the facts that we 10 have just discussed, that no one with W. R. Grace 11 ever requested your involvement or, to your knowledge, 12 your data at least through you and any other studies 13 or tests that they chose to follow up on? 14 MR. MONAGHAN: Object to the question as leading 15 and as compound. 16 A No, I have had no further contact or discussion since 17 the material that I brought to you. Of course, I don't 18 know whether they may have gone to others who would 19 be equipped to do epidemiological studies or the 20 inhalation exposures of animals. 21 Q That's what you would have expected though, is it not, 22 Doctor, from the fact that you told them you were not 23 equipped to do inhalation studies and you couldn't do 24 the epidemiological study? 25 MR. MONAGHAN: I'm going to object to the question 362 1 as leading and asking what, I think, what Dr. Smith 2 expects W. R. Grace to do. 3 4A MR. DIES: Yes. You can answer the question. 5 MR. DIES: That's all we have. 6 MR. MONAGHAN: I just have one question if it's 7 all right. 8 REEXAMINATION 9 BY MR. MONAGHAN: 10 Q Dr. Smith, you have just answered a series of 11 questions for Mr. Dies. An hour or so ago you 12 answered a number of questions that I asked you. 13 If I was to ask you those questions again, would 14 your answers be any different now than they were an 15 hour or so ago when I asked you questions? 16 MR. DIES: Excuse me, Doctor. I'm obligated to 17 respond to that. That question is improper form in 18 just about every jurisdiction in the country. It 19 assumes that -- it's global. The question asked the 20 doctor to assume an answer to a question, every 21 question you asked him, most of which I wasn't in 22 here for. I'm sure he can't remember every question. 23 I object to the form of the question. It's improper. 24 BY MR. MONAGHAN: 25 Q Dr. Smith, you can answer the question. If you'd like