Document LgVmN3KEKagmQ76mdyadzerzd

k'rrw AL. 7~/ZAxsS C/2.JPT J u / y 2, / 1 ? S A rr/HAA/e^ T UT ______________________________ . . ___________________________ ! 121 THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ST. CLAIR COUNTY, ILLINOIS 3 PRANCES E. KEMNER, ET A L . , 4 Plaintiff.*, vs NO. 80-L-970 6 MONSANTO COMPANY, 7 Dfendant. S 9v 10 REPORT OP PROCEEDINGS 11 July 22, T985 12 13 14 Before the HONORABLE RICHARD P. GOLDENHERSH, Circuit Judge 13 16 APPEARANCES: 17 Mr. REE CARR and MR. JEROME S2IG7REI0, Attorneys at 13 Lav, on Behalf of the Plaintiffs: and 19 MR. KENNETH HEINEMAN and MR. JOSEPH NASSIP on Behalf of the Defendant, Monsanto Coapany. 20 21 il 23 Kathleen Watson Brunsmann 24 Official Court Reporter IXD.C.X OF WITNESSES 1 Called on t>rialr of tne Plaintiffs: DR. JZORG ROUSH 3 Clarification Examination 4 (Dy Mr. Heineman)...... 5 i 2 6 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 7 PLAINTIFF'S ZX. N O . HARKED FOR ADMITTED 8 IDENTIFICATION INTO EVIDENCE 9 10 1512 11 52 12 13 MONSANTO'S EX. NO. 14 15 910 16 91 1 17 50 55 18 19 20 21 n mm 23 '4 I i ax IT REMEMBERED AND CERTIFIED, that heretofore, 2 on to-wit: July 22, 1985, the matter aa hereinbefore sat 3 forth cama on for haaring bafora tha Honorabla Richard p. 4 Goldanharsh, Circuit Judga In and for tha Twentieth Judicial 5 Circuit, and tha following vaa had of racord, to--wit: 6 7 8 (Tha clarification examination of Dr. Gaorga Rouah 9 by Mr. Hainaaan continuad aa follows:) 10 11 12 (Tha following procaadlnga wara had in chambers, 13 out of tha praaanca and haaring of tha jury:) 14 15 MR. CARR: Judga, there's baan soma dispute 16 on tha racord aa to whathar or not the reference ranges that 17 wa have used for porphyrins and for tha creatlninas are the 18 normal reference ranges that have baan given by tha labora 19 tory. And there was dispute as to whether or not I had ever 20 asked for than, or what they ware, what these ware that had 21 baan given to me. I checked tha records, and on April tha 22 15th, 1985 I had just baan delivered tha day before the pile 23 of material dealing with tha Krummrich Health Study, the 24 medi cal records. I had had an opportunity to briefly scan i I the laboratory results and discovered that there were no 1 normals for the porphyrins at that time. And the Court will 3 note, on April the 15th# 1985, on page 107, I asked that 4 they give me the normal ranges used. That was on a weekend. J And the following Monday, I guess it was, at any rate a few 6 days later, on the 22nd of April, 1985 they did, indeed, 7 produce these exhibits, 3846, 47 and 48, which deal with 8 the porphyrins and the creatinine levels. 9 Now, unless Counsel stipulate that the sequence 10 of events, and that these were furnished to me in response 11 to my request made on April the 15th, I want to make an 12 additional record by putting Mr. Massif on the stand to 13 confirm that this is the sequence of events, and that these 14 test ranges given me, 3846, 3847, 3848, were given to me in 13 response to that request for the normal reference ranges*. 16 THE COURT: First of all, is there any dispute 17 as to that? I think that was the first point, wasn't it? 18 MR. CARR: Yea. Zf there is no dispute, then 19 I think it's Exhibit 1509 that can be no challenge as to the 20 authenticity of that. They may not have challenged it, but 21 I don't think they have admitted*in court at least that 22 these were the Metpath Test Ranges for the porphyrins that 23 were given to me, and for the creatihines that were given 24 to me in response to my request. 1 HR. HEINEMANj I am trying to recall in my own > 1 mind# Judge# the occasion when this first came up in the 3 testimony or Dr. Roush. I may be incorrect# but 1 think my 4 recollection is that Mr. Carr asked Dr. Roush whether those 5 documents were# in fact# the normal reference ranges. And 6 I think at the same time# perhaps# may have represented that / they were furnished by Monsanto's attorneys for something s to that affect. My recollection is that Dr. Roush said that 9 they were# indeed# the normal reference ranges. Didn't ha? 10 MR. CARRi Yes* But you objected to their 11 authenticity. You said you didn't -- and I had on the copy 12 that had been put into evidence# I had written on it "Nitro 13 , normal#" or "Suskind Laboratory," because it was, in fact# 14 the same. As I learned from Carnow and Conibear, it was 15 the same reference ranges used in, the Suskind Morbidity 16 Study for Nitro. And you challenged that at that time on 17 the record in front of the jury. You said# "Why these don't 18 even refer to Krummrich," or something of the sort# "These 19 are the Mltro." I represented then to you that these 20 were the normal reference ranges given to me in the 21 Krummrich. You again expressed a doubt# or I'm sure objected 22 on the record to the use of these values. If you didn't 23 object on the record, then there is no problem. '4 THE COURT: Hell# okay. There was an objection I on the record. These were admitted, 1509 was admitted on J July 16th, and my notes have they were admitted over oojec- 3 tion. 4 MR. HZINEMANx If we're talking about -- I'm 5 not sure that we're talking about the same occasion. 6 THE COURT: This is when they were first used 7 on the 16th. a MR. HEINEMAR: All right. 9 THE COURT: I have in my note* that they were io admitted over objection at the time. n MR. HZIN2MAN: You don't have in your note* 12 what the objection was? 13 THE COURT: I don't. M MR. HZINEMAN: I don't know, was the objection 15 only that his handwriting was on them, and they said "Nitro?|" 16 MR. CARR: The objection was that these were 17 not connected, these were not shown to be the normal IS reference ranges, and you weren't going to take any represent* 19 tatioa that they were. I represented to the Court that they 20 were produced to me, and your objection was to their author: 21 or that they were, in fact, the normal test ranges. You're 22 not making that objection now. There's no problem. 23 All I want is on the record a statement from you that these 24 were the normal test range values given to me by you in response to my request of April the 15th and that these are < 1 the normal teat ranges that wars used in ths laboratory reports that we have in evidence in this case referring 3 to the Krummrich Health Study. 4 THS COURTi My notes do indicate that you Mr. 5 Carr indicated that these were produced in response to an 6 order of court. I don't have noted down what the specific 7 objection was. 3 MR. H3I2JSMAMI Do you know whether Dr. -- whether 9 he asked Dr. Roush about it right at that point? Recause 10 I have a recollection maybe incorrect that Roush said# 11 12 "Yes these indeed are the normal reference ranges for por* 13 phyrins from Metpath." 14 MR. CARRx He has testified on the record that 15 these are the normal test ranges used at Metpath. That is 16 not my quarrel. I have him on the record three or four 17 times in which he agreed that these were the normal test 18 ranges. That's not the equivalent to a stipulation by you 19 that they are or that by an agreement by you. Because you 20 made the objection on the record that you don't know the 21 authenticity of them and you challenged them and you Tm-l objected to them and I want it clear on the record from 23 Counsel that what I represented was correct that these '4 were produced by you in response to my demand or request 1 fax these normal values, normal teat ranges. ** - THZ COURT: .Whatever position you took then, do 3 you have any objection to that now? Let's put it that way. 4 MR. EEINEMAN: First, I want to read the transcript here. 6 TEE COURT: Sure, go ahead. 7 MR. HEIMZMAN: Of the in-chanbers conference. S Then I will need to ask Joe Massif if they, indeed, are the 9 same ones that were produced. 10 MR. CARR: Jesus, Ken, you can see the ausdbers II on the receipt, and the numbers -- well, never mind. TOO 12 do whatever you need to do. 13 MR. HEINEMAN: Oh, there's a receipt here? 14 Okay. 15 THE COURT: That'3 just before the actual 16 documents. 17 MR. HEXNZMAN: Well, from the receipt they 1S obivously are the same documents that were produced. 19 THE COURT: Fine. 20 MR. CARR: Well, are you stipulating and 21 agreeing that exhibit 1509 represents the normal test range 22 values as shown for those three urine specimens, whatever 23 they -are, for the Krumnrich Health Stiudy? MR. HEINEMAN: What I would stipulate to is that these three document*, which I don't remeaoer exactly 1 II 'J what comprised 1509 -- THE COURT: Thoaa three documents. 1 MR. HEINEMAN: These three documents are 1509? 4 THB COURT: Ye*. 5 MR. HEIHZMAH: But if these are 1509, that 6 these three documents demonstrating that Metpath'a noraal 7 reference ranges are for aicrograaa per twenty-four hour S saaple are, indeed, the normal reference ranges that Metpath 9 used. 10 MR. CARR: Well, I want acre than that. Z 11 want that these were given to ae in ay response for th 12 value -- ashing for the values, noraal values given for the 13 M porphyrins. MR. HEINEMAN: I am sure, as I sit here, that 15 these documents were provided to Mr. Carr in response to 16 the request that is set forth in this transcript. 17 MR. CARR: Then that's all I want. IS 19 THE COURT: Fine. Great. Okay. We'll start 20 in a couple of minutes. 21 MR. NASSIF: I remember a request from Mr. Carr 22 for the Metpath reference ranges, and to my recollection 23 those three documents were produced in response to that 24 request. i 1 TH E COURTi O k a y , gentlemen. We' l l start in a i n couple of minutes. Thank you. 3 MR. CARR: Yes, your Honor. 4 s (The following proceedings were had in the 6 presence and hearing of the jury:) 7 S GEORGS ROUSH, 9 haring previously been called as a witness under 10 Section 2-- 1102 having previously bean sworn, 11 continued clarification examination as follows: 12 13 EXAMINATION 14 BY MR. HEINEMAN: 15 THE COURT: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. 16 I apologize for starting a little bit late. As I've told 17 you before, you've heard this many times, there are certain 18 matters that have to be taken up in chambers, outside the 19 presence of the jury. We had one of those this morning, and 20 I believe we've resolved it. So we're ready to proceed. 21 Mr. Heineman. 22 Q (By Mr. Heineman) Yes. Or. Roush, on Thursday, 23 when we closed court at the end of the day, we had begun 4 discussing the Zack-Suskind Study; had we not, sir? I A Y e s , sir. i| I > Q And I'd like to hand you a copy of that study ! 3 as it's been previously marked as Monsanto Exhibit Number 4 62, and I'd like to aak you some questions about it, sir. 5 Now, as I understand it, sir, the only way that those who 6 could have been exposed to the clean--up of the '49 accident 7 could be determined was through the chloracne records; is S that right? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 0 Now, as a matter of fact, the paper states, does n it not, that it's subject is the chronic health effects to 12 exposure to TCDO as reflected in the mortality experience of 13 a cohort of Monsanto Company workers who developed symptoms 14 of chloracne following a trichlorophenol process accident 13 at the Nitro, West Virginia plant in 1949? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q And if you'd look atthe lastparagraph in the 18 right column on the first page of Exhibit 62, would you read 19 that first sentence, please, to the jury. 20 A "Employees whoworked in thearea of TCP 21 production or were involved in the clean-up began to develop *n* symptoms immediately following exposure to the material 23 which was discharged from the autoclave." 24 Q Thank you. And then it goes on to discuss thesei 1 symptomsj correct, sir? n A Yas/ sir. 3 J And would you tall us what it says tha symptoms 4 vara. 5 A Should 1 raad tha* or just tall you? 6 Q Wall/ plaasa raad tha* 7 A "Symptoms includad aya andraspiratory tract 8 irritation/ haadacha, dissinass and nausaaf and a sewers 9 irritant raaction of tha exposed skin." 10 Q Than it goes on to discuss tha symptoms subsiding 11 doas it not/ sir? Would you raad that next portion? 12 A "Aftar thasa initial symptoms subsidad, tha 13 chloracna and othar symptoms bacaaa evident." M Q Now/ what it appaars to ba discussad thara, air, 15 is an acuta exposure with acuta symptoms/is that right? 16 A Yea. As a mattar of fact/ tha iamadiata 17 raaction following that autoclave discharga was manifesta 18 tions of irritant and thought to ba dua to tha caustic 19 contsnt of tha matarial that cams out/ not dua to tha TC -- 20 MR. CARR* Your Honor/ I object unlass tha 21 witnasa is testifying from his own knowledge. If ha's not/ ha should idantify tha sourca of his knowladga. It appaars 23 as if ha's stating somathing as a fact. TEH COURT: Objaction is sustainad. Could you I rephrase the question so that matter is cleared up. 2 Q (By Mr. Heineman) Doctor, Dr. Roush, with 3 respect to the acute nature of the symptoms that arose and 4 of the exposure, how does that relate to the fact that the 5 study is talking about results after a long period of time? 6 MR. CARR: Your Honor, Counsel isn't going to 7 rephrase that question, I ask that the jury be instructed a to disregard what the doctor said. 9 THE COURT: Objection is sustained. The jury 10 is to disregard. n THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. Would you repeat the 12 question? I'm not sure how it related -- 13 THE COURT: Could you read back the question 14 please. 15 (Question read.) 16 THE WITNESS: Well, these workers did have 17 acute reaction immediately following the release, but those ia symptoms subsided quite rapidly, and then after a period of 19 days to Months they developed a skin reaction quite different 20 than the irritant reaction, and that when it cama on over a 21 period of days to a month or more was called chloracne. So 2"> that identified group was based on the identification of 23 the chloracne or the skin reaction. 24 Q (By Mr. Heineman) Now, was it possible in 1979 I or 1977 when this study -- when you began working on this study/ is it possible at that time to determine all of the J people who were exposed in the 1949 accident? 4 MR. CARR: Your Honor/ first I would object. 5 Counsel hasn't established that this witness has that 6 knowledge/ of his own knowledge/ or if he's referring to 7 this exhibit/ whether or not this exhibit says that it's S possible. It's not clear what he's referring to. Is he 9 referring to the witness' own knowledge? If so, if he 10 hasn't established that the witness has such knowledge. II MR. HEINEMAN: Well, your Honor, I 'd like to 12 establish Dr. Roush testifying on behalf of information that IJ was developed by people working under him. 14 MR. CARR: Well, I object to that, your Honor. 15 If he's going to refer to thi3 study, refer to this study. 16 If he's referring to some hearsay documents, or hearsay in 17 formation, that should be here so I can cross examine and 18 determine the authenticity of it. 19 THE COURT: I'm sustaining the objection. Would 20 you rephrase the question? 21 Q (By Mr. Heineman) Doctor, do you have personal 22 knowledge with respect to the way in which, or the effort 23 that was undertaken to try to determine a cohort for this 4 study that's reflected in Defendant's Exhibit 62? I A Yes, sir. Q All right. Now, would you tell us picas what 3 was done to try to determine the people who were exposed? 4 Was there any way to determine all of the people that were J exposed in that 1949 Incident? 6 MR. CARR: Your Honor, I object to that. That's 7 two questions. First of all, what was done? I think he 8 has to establish that. 9 THZ COURT: You can answer both of the* in JO sequence. 11 THZ WITNESS: In an attempt to identify those 12 who had been involved in that accident, they attempted to 13 find whether there's records available on work records that 14 would identify who had been working in that accident, and 15 they were unable to do so. The other approach to deciding 16 who was exposed is to determine those who had chloracne. 17 Or. Suskind sent me the first group of people he knew were 18 exposed, and there were about fifty of them, fifty to 19 fifty-three, as I recall. Then we went back, and to add on 20 to that population who had chloracne, we went and got a 21 copy of Mr. Voir'a files in which he listed those that were on the Workmen's Compensation list. In addition to that, we 23 checked with Workmen's Comp, and verified those names that 24 obviously had chloracne. So what we have then is a list of 1 people who were identified by Dr. Suskind, by those who * caa in from Ed Volz, and then the Workmen's Compensation 3 files. And that constituted what they called the chloracne 4 group. That means that there could have been some people 5 who were there who had chloracne that was so mild that it 6 was not included, because a decision of who had chloracne 7 was made by the doctor. They cross-checked the medical 8 records, but it still wasn't clear if a man had a blackhead 9 whether the physician thought that was chloracne or not. 10 So we were unable to determine those who did not hare 11 chloracne and who were involved in the clean-up. We believe 12 that we picked most of them who had significant chloracne 13 by the method used. 14 Q (3y Mr. Heineman) Now, when you say you had 13 access to Or. Suskind's files, now Or. Suskind had indeed 16 examined a number of these people back at the time of the 17 incident, and subsequently? 18 A Yes. 19 Q So he had files with respect to people who were 20 his own patients? 21 A Yes, sir. Q And these were employees involved in the 23 incident?,.,... 4 A Right. I Q Than you aaid somathing about Ed Vols' filas. ? A Right. Q Nov Ed was tha Safaty Diractot of tha plant? 3 A Yas, ha was. 4 Q And ha kapt track of thosa paopia who had 5 filad Workman'a Coapansation claias? 7 A That's right. But ha also had a rtsponsibility 8 to kaap that list up-to-data for tha plant managar. Tha 9 plant managar wantad a ragular rsport of hov auch chloracna IO thare was. 11 Q So ha kapt a racord of who had chloracna? 12 A Yas, slr. 13 Q And than you aaid you want to Workar's Compansa14 tion files? 15 A Yas. 16 Q Wart thosa kapt by Monsanto or by tha Stata? 17 A By tha Stata. 18 Q . Stata of Wast Virginia? 19 A Yas. 20 Q And from thosa three sourcas you compilad tha 21 group of who had chloracna and who did not? 22 MB. CARSi Your Honor, I objact as to who had 23 chloracna, not who vara axposad and did not bara chloracna. A MB. HElNEMANi I'm sorry, I misspoke. MR. CARRx Y e s , you did. 1 Q (By Mr. Haineman) You had tha list of who had 3 chloracna? A Yea, air. 4 Q Those wara tha people who wars followed in this 5 study? 6 A They became what wa call tha cohort. Tha 7 population that wa could study. 3 9 Q Now, I want to gat to tha diffaranca, sir, batvaan an acuta axposura and a chronic exposure. People 10 11 that wars tha subject of this study, what sort of exposers 12 did they have? 13 A These people who developed this chloracna at 14 that time wars related to tha episode in which there was a 13 large discharge of tha 2, 3, 7 TCDD. 16 Q So which would that be? Would that be an acute 17 or chronic? 13 A An acuta axposura. 19 Q That would be an acuta exposure? 20 A Right. 21 Q Something that takas place over relatively 22 short period of time? 23 A . / Yes, sir. 24 Q There's a statement that I want to direct your I attention to. If I could direct your attention to the 1 second page of Exhibit 62# the right-hand column. There's J a portion there that says "Population and Methods;" is that 4 correct? 5 A Yes, sir. 6 Q At the end of that first paragraph there's a 7' sentence that begins with the words "An analysis." Do you 8 see that? 9 A Yes# sir. 20 Q Would youread that to thejury,please. 11 A "An analysisof the chloracnecases and 12 exposures not associated with this accident but rather with 13 the normal TC?/2#4#5-T production processes will be the 14 subject of a future paper." 15 Q How# what is it that the authors of this 16 document are referring to in that sentence? 17 A This study was a study of those involved in the 18 acute accident. This subsequent study was to be related to 19 what health effects were associated with the normal operation 20 and production of TCP# and the 2# 4# 5-T at the plant# over 21 a period of time. 22 Q So that would it be possible# sir# to describe 23 the second group of people to be examined in a future 24 paper# the subject of a future paper, would that be a I chronic exposure that's being dealt with there? .. > A Well, the normal TCP/2,4,5-T production procaea ! 3 would involve a continuing, long-term exposure as opposed 4 to an episode. 5 Q All right. Now what was the second -- the 6 second one is the Zack-Gaffay Study; is it not, sir? 7 A Yes, sir. 3 g Nov, what is the difference between the two? 9 What are the two separate itudies accomplishing? 10 A Well, the first study was a concern for the II possibility that those workers involved in this accident 12 in which there were people who were quite ill. They were 13 sick. ?our of them were hospitalized at the University 14 of Cincinnati, some hundred miles away from Nitro, West 15 Virginia, for a study in depth. So these workers had 16 significant exposure. And the question was for these 17 hundred and twenty-two people identified with exposure, that 13 heavy exposure had any adverse affect on their mortality 19 experience. 20 g All right. Now how does that differentiate 21 from the second one? 22 A The second study took those workers who had 23 been working at the plant for a period of about twenty years 24 or during that twenty years, and had exposure to continuing I qrer moat ot this time, or at least up until 1969, and the question was at these lower levels of exposure, but over 3 this long period of time, did that have any affect on their 4 mortality experience. 5 Q Now, it may well be that there were some people 6 in the second study who were also exposed in the first one? 7 A Yes, sir. S Q And there may be some people in the first one 9 who were not involved in the second one because they weren't 10 involved in the subsequent 2,4,5,T production; is that right? II A Yes, air. 12 Q One was for chronic exposure, one was for acute 13 exposure? 14 A Yes. 13 Q Now, with respect to the Zack-Gaffey Study, sir, 16 does that study purport to say -- 17 MR. CARR; Your Honor, I object to the leading 18 fora of the question. I haven't objected to now, but I do 19 object now. 20 TEE COURT: Rephrase it, please. X believe it 21 is leading. 22 Q (By Mr. Heineman) All right. What, if anything, 23 sir, does that study say with respect to whether or not anybody who was the subject of it -- strike that. Let me * 1 over again. Ahat does that study purport to say, if 1 anything, sir, aoout whether anybody who was listed as not 3 exposed in the Gaffey Study had ever been exposed to TCDD 4 in the past? 5 A It didn't address that question. The study was 6 simply a comparison of the mortality experience of those 7 involved either in the regular operation, on a regular basis, 3 or a year at least who had their job was making the TC?, or 9 making 2,4,5-T, and they want to know whether they had -- 10 what their mortality experience was. And for comparison, II the comparison craw was the rest of the plant. And the rest 12 of the plant could include those who were not assigned to 13 that unit, but were a part of the whole work force. 14 w How, sir -- now, in dealing with these two 15 studies, sir -- now, Mr. Carr went through with you and he 16 said, did he not, sir, that there were four people -- this 17 is Exhibit 1462-A, sir, I want to snow you. He pi-ks out 18 four people that were exposed, listed as exposed in the 19 trichlorophenol process accident in 1949; correct? 20 A 'fes, sir. 21 * And then he showed you Plaintiff's Exhibit 281-B, IT mm in which he stated that those same four people were included - 23 that's the wrong one. 24 Here, we are. Here we go. I had the wrong one. 1 1462-3/ air. Keeping in mind 1462-A, listed the four * people# listed or had underlined four people who had been 3 exposed in the '49 trichlorophenol process accident; correct; 4 A Yes, sir. 5 Q 1462-3# had underlined the sane four people as 6 being listed in the not exposed to 2#4,5-T table from the 7 Zack-Gaffey Study. 8 A Yes, sir. 9 <2 Is that right, sir? 10 A Yes, air. 11 C Now, how could it be, sir, that the four people 12 who were listed as exposed in the trichlorophenol process 13 accident could be listed as not exposed to the 2,4,5-T in 14 the Zack-Gaffey Study? IS A The definition of who was going t^ be in the 16 Zack-Gaffey exposed group were those who were working with 17 TCP or 2,4,5-T during the period of 1955 to 1977. And 18 these four people were not in that cohort as I've just 19 described that's going to be studied, they were there 20 because they could not be identified by virtue of looking 21 at the work records. mm 2 So that while they may have been exposed to 23 TCSD in the trichlorophenol process accident in 1949, they 4 were not exposed to the chronic, low-level group, or just 1 chronic -- let's just use that word -- the chronic exposure ' 1I in the day-t^-day operation of the 2,4,5-T Department from j 3 55 to 'TO? 4 A That's right. 5 MR. CARR: Your Honor/ I would object unless 6 counsel and the witness will point out something in the 7 Zack-Gaffey Study where it says this excludes anybody who 8 was working before T955 in the TCP accident/ in the TCP 9 production. 10 THE COURT: Objection sustained. 11 MR. HEINEMAH:' I think, your Honor, I think the 12 Zack-Gaffey Study itself defines the cohort. 13 MR. CARR: That's the reason I'm asking Counsel, 14 that's the reason I'm making the objection, because I'm 13 suggesting to you that it says nowhere that the people who 16 were exposed before 1955 were excluded from this study. 17 The representation that you're making to the IS jury is wrong. 19 HR. HEINEMAN: Well, sir, I think the represen 20 tation is that those were the people who were working in 21 that department between '55 and '70. 22 THE COURT: Okay. Objection is sustained. 23 MR. CARR: Those weren't your words, Counsel. 24 THE COURT: The objection directly relates to the I proposition oeing ut to the witness. The ojection is , I TI sustained. I'll allow you to rephrase the guestion, if you 3 wish. 4 ^w (3y Mr. Heineman) Doctor, in light of the 5 objection that Mr. Carr has made, sir, would you define the 6 cohort to the Zack-Gaffey study carefully? 7 A The cohort that was gcing to be studied for the 8 effect of working with TCP, 2,4,5-T was all of those who 9 could be identified by the work records that had worked 10 with these materials, these two materials, over the period ii from the first time we had work records available, 1953 12 up to 1977. Ae could not go beyond that. 13 w Sir, that study, the attempt to identify that 14 cohort, was begun when? 13 About the same time, 1978, *79. 16 w Sometime around 1978? So in 1978 you were 17 trying to go back and find out who worked inthe2,4,5-T -- 18 let's see -- the 2,4,5,-T, TCP production process? 19 A Right. 20 0 And as of that date the only work records you had 21 began in 1955? ii A That's right. 23 j nov/ there-were people, were there not, who were at work in 1955, in that process, who may have been at work 1 in that process before 1955; isn't that right? A Yes. 3 Q And had they been at work for a year, a year or 4 more after 1955, they would be included in the cohort? 5 A That's right. 6 0 In addition to that, sir, were there people, or 7 do you know whether there were people who were not working 8 with the company in 1955 who may have been exposed in that 9 process prior to 1955 and whoa you -- could you identify >0 people of that kind? II A No. 12 Q So there may have beenpeople who had previously 13 worked in the process but as to whom you did not have work 14 records prior to 1955? 15 ,A That's right. 16 Q Now, what Mr.Carr sought tohave you do was 17 to take the people from 19 -- from the 1949 incident that 18 had cancer and add them to the people in the Zack-Caffey 19 Study; is that right? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 Q All right. Now, can you do that? 22 A What do you mean by can you do that? 23 Q Well, underthe principles of epidemiology, can \ you do that, sir? !i I 9 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 13 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 4 I A If you're trying to combine what we thought was { the affects of an acute exposure/ plus those from a chronic exposure/ and think of them at the same time you can. Q All right. But under what circumstances do you have to do it? what's required in order for you to be able to do that/ sir? A Well/ several things. J'irst of all/ you have to make sure that your definition of those two cohorts are consistent/ and that's difficult to answer/ because they were defined differently. And there's subtle differences when you start talking about a cohort. You don't define a cohort after you've completed the study. Both of these studies were done by a study group that was defined before they looked for the experience. The health experience. In other words, that hundred and twenty-two was put together and then they went back and looked to find out whether those who had left were alive or dead/ that was done after the cohort is designed. Otherwise it becomes a bias study. The same thing on the Zack-Gaffey Study/ that population was defined and then the mortality experience was looked at. So when you start trying to put them together, yes, you can do it. But you're not sure what you've done in terms of how you've changed the definition of the cohort, because you don't have a clear definition of the cohort you're looking at. That's v 1 on reason. Q You mean if you put them together? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Because tha two cohort* wr* put together with 3 different thing* in mind; i* that right? 6 A And dfind diffartntly. 7 Q Dfind diffrntly? 8 A YS. 9 Q So if you jumble than together, you don't know 10 what tha dafinition of your cohort ia? 11 A That*a right. 12 Q Now, in connaction with an epidemiological 13 study, you said that you dafinad tha cohort first without 14 ragard to what tha axparianca i*. What do you naan by that, 13 sir? 16 A Wa dafina that first cohort as thosa who had 17 chloracna, and wa war abla to idantify that population 18 group va're going to look at a* a hundred and twenty-two 19 workers, and wa took out on. The nurse was in there. 20 Since thera was one female, we dropped her out just because 21 of the consistency. Hundred and twenty-one of them were 22 males. The second population group was those who had 23 worked continuously in that operation; or for at least one '24 year during that time period of tima. That's how that I population was defined* y Q Now, when you make the definition of the 3 population, at that time do you have any idea what the 4 actual mortality experience is for that population? 5 A No,sir. 6 Q So you define it first, and then you find out 7 where the chips fall? 8 A That's right. 9 Q And that's done in both studies? 10 A Exactly the same. 11 Q And you don't maneuver them? You don't change 12 the cohort once you find out what the mortality experience 13 is? 14 A No, sir. 15 Q You've already defined what the cohort is? 16 A That's right. 17 <2 Now, so that while it is true to say, or it 18 may he true to say that both groups studied could have been 19 exposed to TCDO, that would be true, you say? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 <3 They were exposed under differentcircumstances; v* correct? 23 A Yes. j 24 Q And .the purpose of the studies was to find out M l 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 . 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 the differing -- whether those aif-ering circumstance3 produced differing mortality experiences; correct? A Yes, sir. Q Now, when Mr. Carr asked you to start adding them together/ the first thing he did was ask you to name certain people and he picked them off/ I think, Exhibit 1460, which was a list of everybody that was included in the ZackSuskind Study; isn't that right? A Yea. Q And then -- then, air/ he had you atart doing some computations; didn't he? A Yea, sir. Q And what he would do is take the deaths as to a certain type of cancer aa compared to the total number of deaths in the Zack-Caffey Study, and then have you add in the cancer deaths from the Zack-Suskind Study; correct? A Yes, air. And he had you add those to the numerator and had you add those same to the denominator; correct? A No, sir. Q Now, what's the difference? Why is it, sir? Why is.it that you can't compare them by just lumping in the cancer deaths from the ether study without any reference to the total number of deaths in that study? I A That first line up there shows that there wrs 2 1 0 5 4 c i M ( deaths expected, and he divided it by the 3 population in the Gaffay Study/ in which there were 54, and 4 he says 1 4 . 9 percent of the deaths were due to cancer. But 5 then he took the -- he took 47 -- he took 58 and added 9 -- 6 that's hard to tell froai that -- he added 9 cancer deaths 7 froa the xack-Suskind Study to the population of lack-Gaffey 8 to cose up with 67 In other words/ his population now was 9 67/ and he got 1 8 . 5 percent/ and said he would expect 1 2 . 6 . 10 But you can't do that. 11 Q But/ air he used the 18.9 percent/ which is the 12 result of determining how aany are expected in this 13 population -- 14 A Right. IS Q. -- correct, sir? 16 A Right. 17 U That isn't the nusher of expected in this IS population# is it? 19 A Mo. He's trying to calculate itthere. 20 Q Right. But what in addition do you have to dor 21 even if this 10.94 is not the expected for this created 22 population of taking the 9 and adding then to 58, there's 23 still something further wrong with it, isn't there/ sir? 24 Tea. I Q Okay. Now what'* that? *a7 A Ha haa to changa that population froa tha 57 -- 3 ha haa to add tha total population of tha Zack-Suakind 4 Study to it. 5 0 At laaat that poction of tha total population 6 which ia not duplicatad? 7 A That*a right. 3 g In tha Zack-Guffay Study? 9 A That's right. 10 U So you'wa got to find out how many total doatha 11 thara axa in tha coafcinad -- 12 A Right. 13 Q -- group? You can't just taka tha cancars -- 14 that1a lika taking tha rad applaa out of yallow and rd 15 applaa# and rad applaa out of yallow and rad applaa# and 16 lat'a taka thaaa rada and thaaa rads# and put than owar 17 bara and say aaong this bunch of applaa wa'wa got a lot 18 apsa rada. 19 A That's right. 20 Q But that doaan't show what tha total incidant 21 is# doas it? 22 A That's right. 23 U You'va got to taka tha yallow applaa froa hara 24 and bring than ovar with tha yallow applaa froa hara# don't i I you, air? A That'a right. 3 Q So you're shoving the number or red apples, whic. 4 may be the number of people exposed to TCDD in the antira 5 population, not just in that portion of tha population; 6 correct? 7 A Yea. 8 Q Nov, ao then, if you look at Exhibit 1464-A hare, 9 air, ha aaya hara that tha daatha observed wart 13 and not 10 9 11 A Yea. 12 Q But ha comparts it with tha daatha axpactad to 13 tha. daatha expected only from tha Zack-Gaffey Study popula 14 tion; correct? 15 A Ho, air. Ha compared it to that recalculated 16 ona on tha othar page right bahind it. 17 Q All right. Back hare? 18 A Yea. That right there. That ona tvo six. 19 Q Twelve point six? 20 A Twelve point six, yea. 21 Q All right. So you calculated -- what's thia, th< 22 nav axpactad? 23 A Yea. 24 Q Nov this is the nav expected for this I population? A Yea, and that's not a population. 3 <2. But what's the new expected for the real 4 population, which is how many people? 3 A Fifth-eight plus thirty-two, minus four, I think. 6 So it's -- it's 86. What you should do is take that 86 7 times -- 18.9, if in fact the percent expected in a larger 8 population would be the same as it was in the first popula 9 tion, and that's not correct. 10 Q So that changes too, doesn't it? I! A Right. You can't do that. That percent 12 axpacted in the Zack-Gaffey Study was derived from a /3 computer program which, corrects the expected by virtue of M age. As a population gets older, the cancer experience 13 increases. So you never can pick up and identify the 16 expected. First of all, the age expected mortality from 17 cancer in any population is about twenty percent. So that's IS pretty close. But that that's expected in any special 19 population is dependant upon the age of the population. So 20 when you start to add, take 13.9 percent in the Zack-Suskind 21 Study, which was considerably cider than the Zack-Gaffey 22 because it was based on that population back in 1949, the 23 expected is going to be quite different from that. And you can't do it anyway -- you can't take 13.9 and multiply it ... I times the 3ack-Gafey mortality and just add the cancer to it and,,say that's the population. The population is the 53 plus 32, minus the overlap. So that's completely wrong, the way that vaa done. Q Now, why is that, eir? Are there principles^of epidemiology we're talking about here? A The expected in mortality experience in any population is dependant upon correcting it for age. And in order to correct it for age, you can do it manually, but it would take days. So there are computer programs that hare been written to take a population in which you insert the age of each one-of the people involved in this study, into the program, and then it calculates the expected cancer experience Cased on age. Q All right. Well, let me direct your attention again, if I may, to Defendant's Exhibit 62 . If you'll look at the second page of the exhibit, sir -- A Are you talking about -- Q Yes, the Zack-Suskind Study. A I don't have it -- Zack-Suakind, all right. Q All right. The second page, rightwhere you were. A All right. Q Right there. Right down at the beginning of 34 i / I this paragraph- Dr. Suskind is describing there, ia he not, 2 on* of these generally recognized computer programs? 3 MR. CARR: Dr. Suskind or Zack? Ia the principle 4 author Suskind -- 5 Q (By Mr. Heineman) All right. Zack and Suakind 6 are discussing here one of these generally recognized 7 programs; isn't that right? 8 A Yea. 9 0 In other words, when they say "The data were iO analyzed by the modified life-table method using the updated 11 Monson program," it doesn't tall you right here what the 12 updated Monson Program is, does it? 13 A No, sir. 14 3 So that the people, this being written for 15 other epidemiologists, I suppose, people will know what the 16 updated Monson Program is? 17 A Yes, sir. IS Q Wouldn't they? 19 A Yes, sir. 20 Q Why do they know that? 21 A Because it's commonly used. 22 Q Everybody uses it? 23 A Yes. 24 Q All right. So thatwhen you're talking about I **** apidaaiolcgical computar program*, thaaa ara tiling* 2 that art usad all ovar tha country? 3 A Yas, air. 4 Q And tilts* art statistical analysts aaployad by S matiisaaticians; corrset? 6 A Yas, sir. 7 Q Nov, i indttd this procts* was ustd by Mr. 8 Carr, whart ht addad only tha daatbs, only tha cancar daaths 9 from tha Zack-Suakind Study and not tha total nuabar of 10 daaths, so that things, as 1 undarstand it, that ara wrong 11 bara ara ona, you can't just taka tha cancar daaths, you'T* 12 got to bring in tha total nuabar of daaths into your 13 danoainator hart? 14 A Right. 13 y Don't you? 16 A Yas, sir. 17 Q In addition to that, your axpactad changas, 18 doaan't it? 19 A Yas. Ha was trying to calculat* tha axpactad 20 thara, but it is not -- but you can't avan do that that way. 21 0 All right. So your axpactad changas? 22 A Yas. 23 Q In addition to that your axpactad changas not 24 only bacausa of tha nuabar of paopla involvad, but your 1 expected changes because of the differences in age of the *9 people involved? 3 A Yes, sir. And time of death. 4 Q And the time of death -- 5 A Right. 6 Q -- is another factor. So all of those have to \ / be plugged into the computer in order to come up with what 8 in fact ia the incident of death, whether it ia statistically 9 significant? 10 A Whether it's greater than the number of expected, II all that has to be done. Yes, sir. 12 Q Doesn't it? So that this figure, where other 13 types of cancer deaths have been calculated by Mr. Carr, M that's not correct either, ia it? 15 A Ho, sir. 16 Q For the reasons that we've just talked about? 17 A Right. 18 Q And this one for a different kind of cancer 19 death, that's not correct either, is it, for the reasons 20 we talked about? 21 A That's right. 22 Q And the same would be true of this one? 23 A Yes, sir. G All right. That gets into the next study. We'll v worry bout that later. Now, in the Zack-Suskind Study, you! studied a hundred and twenty-one people) correct? A Yes, sir. Q Now out of the total deaths, there were how many, 32? A Thirty-two. Q And how many were expected, sir? A Out of 46.4. THE COURT: I'm sorry. What was that number? THE WITNESS: Forty-six point four. THE COURT:. Thank you. Q (By Mr. Heineman) Now in that study, Dr. Suskina says on page -- well, it's the third page of the exhibit, right in the "Results" section -- MR. CARR: What exhibit are you talking about? MR. HEINEMAN: 62. Defendant's 62, the ZackSuskind Study. MR. CARR: You said Susklnd again. Dr. Zack said this, and Suskind signed it along with Zack. Q (By Mr. Heineman) The Zack-SuskindStudy. A Yes. Q The results arestated there on that page right below Table 1, are they not, sir? A Yes, sir.. i Q And it 3ays, "The results of the standardized j mortality analysis of the 121-member study cohort are shown 3 in Table 1;" correct, sir? 4 A Yes, sir. 5 Q "The standardized mortality ratio for all deaths 6 is shown to be 0.63, with 32 observed deaths and 46.41 7 expected." 8 A Yes, sir. 9 Q Correct? So that's 41. He says this is the 10 only statistically significant difference shown in this II table; correct? 12 A Yes, sir. 13 Q The only one that wasstatisticallysignificant 14 was this. And what was it? It was low, wasn't it? 13 A Yes, sir. 16 Q It was statistically significant, less, fewer 17 deaths than expected; correct? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q All of the other findings where excesses were 20 found and there are lung cancer, disease of other respiratory 21 pardon me: -- respiratory system and lung, there are excesses 22 found, arethere not? 23 A ' Yes, sir. 24 Q But they're not statistically significant? J A That's right. Q The diseases of the circulatory system are 3 found to be less than expected? 4 A Yes, sir. 5 Q Arteriosclerotic disease, including coronary 6 heart disease, is found to be less than expected? 7 A Yes, sir. 8 Q The malignant neoplasms, all malignant neoplasms 9 are found to be as expected; right? 10 A Yes, sir. 11 3 Cancer, 9 observed, 9.4 expected. 12 A Right. 13 0 Right? Now, these expected figures are expected 14 for this population; correct? 13 A Yes, sir. 16 Q All right. Gastrointestinal, are these cancers 17 now? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q Gastrointestinal cancers, none found, 2.5 20 expected. 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q Correct? Lung cancers; correct? 23 A . Yes, sir. 24 Q Five found,2.35 expected. Correct? 1 A Yes, sir. * Q So the gastrointesti.nals are low by some margin, 3 the lung cancers are high by some margin, but neither of them 4 is found to be statistically significant? 5 A That's right. 6 Q Heart disease, 13 found, 17 expected. Correct? 7 A Seventeen seventy-four. 8 W Seventeen point -- 9 A Seventy-four. 10 Q All right. And that was f^und not to b 11 statistically significant? 12 A That's right. 13 Q The bladder cancers, none found; correct? 14 A That's right. 15 Q Was there an expected level there for bladder 16 cancers? 17 A One point one six. 18 Q That's the Zack-Suskind Study, isn't it, sir? 19 A That's right. 20 Q Zack-Oaffey. Now what's the population in this 21 group? VI * I d o n 't have it. 23 Q That's Plaintiff's Exhibit 281. It may be up 24 here . No, I'm sorry, it sure isn't. Let me hand you, sir, i I vhat's fta nar*d as Flaiatiff'a Inhibit 211 and Dsfsndant 1 M i n t * labialt 5. Mov that's th zact-affsy study, is 3 it not# sir? 4 A Xss, air. 5 g Mow what's tho population ia this 9 roup, six? 6 A fifty-sight. 7 U fifty-sight is thnuofcsr ofdsaths? right? 3 a fss, sir. 9 g Out ot s w e n largsrpopulation than that? 10 A Mot dflad. 11 g All right. If 1 can dixsct your attsntlon hack 12 to tho Zack-Suskind study, thrs wort a hundrsd and tvsnty- 13 oao that had onloracas, ftut thsrs vrs thirty-tv dsaths; 14 right? 15 A Its, sir. 16 g All right, so ths zack-Hlsffsy w bars total dsaihs 17 fifty-sight Ms has total caner, hov aany, sir? 18 A Mia. 19 g And hov aaay xpoctsd? 20 A Ta point niaty-four. 21 U In this population1 coxrsct? A That population of that ag distribution 23 Q Castroiatsstiaal, hov any? ;4 A Zsro. 42 1 Q None. And how many expected? A Two point eight zero. 3 Q Lang? 4 A Six. 5 Q How many expected? 6 A Three point five seven. 7 Q Heart disease? 8 A Twenty-seven. 9 Q How many expected,air? 10 A Nineteen point seven two. 11 Q And bladder? 12 A Bladder two, with point twenty-twoexpected. 13 Q Yes, sir. Now of the total of these 32 deaths 14 in the Zack-Suskind Study, there were four that we know of 13 that were in the Zack-Suskind Study and listed as unexposed 16 in Zack-<3affey; correct? 17 A Yes. 18 Q In addition t^ that, sir, werethere some that 19 were in the Zack-Suskind Study and listed as exposed in the 20 Xack-<3afey Study? 21 A Yea, four of them. 71 Q So there is a total of eight people that overlap 23 between the two groups? 24 A That's right. I Q The two groups of deaths? 2 A That*s right. 3 q How with respect to adding^zack-Suskind and 4 Zack-Gaffey, what did you do with that, sir? 5 A You'll have to add the 53 of the Gaffey Study 6 and you add to that the 32 Zack-Suskind, minus four that 7 were already included. S Q Now, how about the other four? 9 A That's the four we're adding. 10 Q All right. So that the total deaths when yu I! add these two together are how many? 12 A It's 53 plus 28, or 86. 13 Q So it's not 67? 14 A N o . IS Q It's 86? 16 A That's right. 17 Q Correct? Did you in the EpidemiologyDepartment 18 make this calculation since Mr. Carr went over this with you? 19 A Yes, sir. 20 Q All right. Andwhat did you do inorder to make 21 the calculation? A We used a Monson Program based on the age 23 distribution of that 86 to determine what the expected cance:; 24 death for each one of those categories. 1 Q Ail ri;?ht. How over here you've got the computer Motion Program; correct? j 3 A Correct. 4 Q Over here we have what computations Mr. Carr 5 went through with you. Okay? 6 A Right. 7 Q Now we start with the total cancer. Let's make 3 sure we've got them in order here. Gastrointestinal, lung/ 9 bladder, lymph aystem, other cancers, and heart disease. 10 Correct, sir? 11 A Yea, air. 12 Q Now those are the various itemsthat Mr.Carr 13 went over with you? 14 A Yes, air. 13 Q Now -- now, as to totalcancers, Mr. Carr said 16 there were 13, and there should be expected hew many, sir? 17 Twelve point six, wasn't it? 13 A That first item you had was twelve six. 19 Q Okay. As V9 gastrointestinal, he said there 20 were two, and -- 21 MR. CARR: Your Honor, I don't really mind being n considered as a witness in this case, but I've not said 23 anything. I've asked questions and the witness has respond "4 ed, various witnesses have responded giving these facts, and I ! I ! 2! i 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 13 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 all these particular facts vere elicited free: this witness .| at this time frem the exhibits in evidence. I object to ' counsel charactericing as "I said." HR. HZINZMAN: I think that's quite accurate, Mr. Carr. MR. CARR: Thank you. MR. HZINZMAN: What you did was write down thesei calculations for him. You said you had done them on a calculator. Correct? MR. CARR: Counsel, as you know, each thing on there has tM be agreed to by a witness based upon the facts given the witness, based upon the exhibits in evidence, or else it cannot be put there for the jury, as you're aware of that. It cannet be admitted into evidence. Therefore, each fact that I have put on any board I have done so with the agreement of the witness at the particular point in time. TEZ COURT: Objection is sustained. Could you rephrase your statements. Q (By Mr. Heineman) Doctor, Mr. Carr showed you a calculation for lung cancer. Do you recall that? A Yes, sir. Q And he said there were -- MR. CARR: Your Honor -- : 1 Q (By Mr. Heineman) -- he said there were ten? 7 MR. CARR: Your Honor, I object. I gave the 3 calculation to the witness. The witness agreed that that 4 calculation, based upon those facts, were correct. These 5 are not calculations that are nine. I'll be glad to testify 6 to them, but ^ e way that it works, Counsel, is the witness 7 either agrees or disagrees. If he disagrees, it cannot be 8 written on the exhibit. 9 MR. HEINEMAN: Your Honor, if I might address 10 that a moment. My recollection of what happened was that 11 the witness said a number of times that you can't do that. 12 You can't add the two together. And Mr. Carr said he could, 13 and that were these calculations correct if you assumed 14 that they added them together. That's what the witness 13 agreed that the arithmetic was correct. 16 MR. CARR: What I gave to the witness were the 17 facts that were in the exhibits. I said based upon these 18 facts is this calculation correct, and the witness agreed 19 based upon those facts that they were correct. 20 THE COURT: Objection is sustained. I'll ask 21 you again to rephrase it. 22 Q - (By Mr. Heineman) The calculations, sir, 23 that you went through with Mr. Carr, reflected 10 lung 24 cancer deaths and 4.12 -- now wait a minute. Well, here I we've got it right here. Plaintiff's Exhibit 1465-A. Do 1 you see that, sir? 3 A Yes, sir. 4 Q For lung, TO. Genitourinary, 2. Correct? 5 A Yes, sir. 6 Q Now he listed 10 for lung. 7 MR. CARR: Your Honor, Counsel is doingtthe same 3 thing again. 9 MR. HEINEMAN: I'm 3orry. It's a freudian slip, 10 Judge. 11 Q (By :tr. Eeineman) The calculation states 10 12 lung cancer deaths; is that right? 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q And it says here on Plaintiff 3 Exxhbit 1465-A 15 10 lung cancer deaths; correct? 16 A Right. 17 Q And the number expected for lung cancer deaths i 18 was calculated to be 4.12; is that right, sir? 19 A I don't recall. That's it. 20 Q Is this it? 21 A Yes. v* Q Four point one two. Where the 143 percent -- 23 A Yes. _ '4 Q All right. So that's for the lung cancer there, ii 1 as shown on 1465-A7 2 A Right. j ! 3 Q All right. Now, air, with respect to -- with 4 respect to bladder cancer, there were two listed in 1465-A; 5 correct, sir? 6 A Yea. 7 Q The calculation of expected -- I don't see that 8 here. I'm trying to find the exhibit where that number 9 was, Judge. 10 THE COURT: Why don't we take a short break and 11 you find it? > 12 MR. HEINEMAN: All right. Thank you. 13 THE COURT: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we'll 14 take a short break at this time. I will remind you, and 15 this would go for any other breaks which we take, not to 16 discuss this matter among yourselves, with anyone outside 17 the jury panel, or as of yet form any opinions or conclusions 18 about the matter in trial. Court is in recess. 19 20 (Short recess.) 21 Mm Q (By Mr. Heineman) Doctor, at the break you 23 corrected me on something, didn't you, sir? You said this .4 G.I. should be G.U.; is that right? 1A > Q What would that stand for? 3 A That leans gastrointestinal, and G.U. would be 4 genitourinary. 5 j Okay. 6 MR. CARRi And anotaar correction, what is that 7 exhibit number, counsel? 8 MR. HEINEHAM: No, not yet. 9 MR. CARR: Why don't you put an exhibit number 10 on it so I can refer to it? It MR. HSINEMAN: Okay. I'll be glad to. 12 13 (Defendant Monsanto Exhibit 910 was marked 14 for icentification by the court reporter.) 15 16 Q (dy Mr. Heineman) Doctor, I'm marking this 17 sheet that we've ceen drawing on here as Defendant's Exhibit 18 910, and that's this last sheet where we're addking Zack1* Suskind and Zacx-Gaffay together; correct, sir? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 MR. CnAR: It refers to a "Carr Study," or a 22 "Carr column." uf course, that's inaccurate to be an 23 exhibit, or Dr. Roush's testimony to that affect. But I haven't testified to it. I object to the use of the word I A ^e S, sir. Q What would that stand for? 3 A That means 'gastrointestinal, and G.U. would be 4 genitourinary. 5 j Okay. 6 MU. CARR: And another correction, what is that 7 exhibit number, counsel? 8 MR. HSINEHAI: No, not yet. 9 MR. CARR: Why don't you put an exhibit number 10 on it so I can refer to it? 11 MR. HZINZMAN: Okay. I'll be glad to. 12 13 (Defendant Monsanto Exhibit 910 was marked 14 for identification by the court reporter.) 15 16 C (ay Mr. Heineman) Doctor, I'm marking this 17 sheet that we've caen drawing on here as Defendant's Exhibit 18 910 and that's this last sheet where we're addking Zack19 SuaJcind and Zacx-Gaffey together; correct, sir? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 MR. CARR: It refers to a "Carr Study," or a 22 "Carr column." of course, that's inaccurate to be an 23 exhibit, or Dr. Roush's testimony to that affect. But I '4 haven't testified to it. I object to ithe use of the word I "Carr" on this exhibit. MR. HEIMEMAN: Well# your Honor, the reason 3 the "Carr" is on there is that these were the calculations 4 that Mr. Carr went through with the witness. And it was 5 to identify them as that column only. 6 THE COURT: I 'd prefer that you change that. 7 I'll allow you tw change it to whatever number of the 8 exhibit that you've been referring to that those calcula 9 tions. 10 MR. KEINZMAN: Well, it's a combination of ]] exhibits, your Honor. 12 THE COURT: I do want you t? change that. 13 MR. HZINEMAH: All right, sir. 14 THE COURT: You've been referring to 1465-A and 15 MR. CARR: Just put the exhibit numbers on it 16 that you're referring to, Counsel. Then you don't have to 17 guess about what you're talking about. IS MR. HSINEMAN: How these documents here, your 19 Honor, from which these numbers came, some of them came, 20 were never marxed oy Mr. Carr. Could we get plaintiff 21 exnibit numoers on those, then I can put the numbers of *m these 23 THE COURT: ' Fine. 24 MR. CARR: That's fine with me. ! HA. a Z I Z i i L M A r i i I think it start.! hers TnZ CGU&T: You can just mass i t s group sxhibit; 3 HA. dZlHSAAUi Maks it a group sahibit, your 4 Honor? 5 T H E CuU&Ti It's ths sans calculations. 6 7 (Plaintiff's Group Zahibit 1512 was aarksd 9 for idsntiiication by ths court rspcrtsr.) 9 10 HA. HEIAEHAHt All rrgat. So that ths rscsrd II would bs clsar, your Honor, Plaintiff's Group Exhibit 1512 '2 consists of tna first shsst of calculations in wnicn Mr. 13 Carr -- in whicn tnsrs appsars calculations 67 tiass 1b.9 14 psrcent vjuals 12.6. 13 Ths sscona shsst or calculations snaing in ths 16 stataaisat ons nundr so forty-thrss psrcsnt. Ths third shsst 17 of calculations wooing in ths statsasne 92 psrcsnt in szcsssw 18 And ths fourth shsst or calculations snding in ths nunosr 19 25 psrcsnt 20 TH CGU&Ti fins. 21 u (ay nr. Hsinsoan) Wow, sir, with rsspsct to ths 22 blaadsr -- with rsspsct to bladder cancsr, ths nuabsr which 23 appears in tns ack-Gaffey Study, wnicn is Plaintiff's Sxhioit 261, as tns expected is wnat, sir/ 1 A Point twenty-two. 1 g Point twenty-two. And Plaintiff*a Group Exhibit 3 1512, to your rcollection, air, doa not contain a calcula 4 tion for bladder cancer, doea it? 5 MR CARRi l object to the fora of the question. 6 THE COURT: Objection sustained. 7 Q (By Mr. Heinenaa) Does Group exhibit 1512 8 contain a calculation for bladder cancer? 9 A No, air. JO g nom with respect to the lyaqpb cancer calculation, 11 Exhibit 1465-A shows a percentage of deaths higher than 12 expected. That's Plaintiff's Exhibit 1465-A of 92 percent. 13 And we can trace a calculation for that as part of Group 14 Exhibit 1512, can we not, sir? 15 A Tea, sir. 16 U And in that the expected was placed at 1.54j 17 correct? la the calculation in Group Exhibit 1512. 18 A Which is 1512? 19 Q I'a sorry7 20 A Which is 1512? 21 0 1512 is this group exhibit of calculations, sir. n A Yes, ...Right. 23 Q Right? 24 A Yes. i I Q And from Exhibit 1465-A we see that there are 9 lifted ax 3 -- 3 A Right. 4 Q -- occurring. How, air. with reapect to other 5 sitae, we see iron Exhibit 1465-A that there are three 6 occurring, and from Exhibit 15 ~ two occurring at a percen 7 tage of death higher than expected of 26 percent, and if 3 we go back to Group Exhibit 1512 we see that in order to get 9 that 26 percent there was a 1.59 expected used. 10 A Yes. 11 0 And with respect to heart disease, sir, we see 12 from Exhibit 1465-A that there are 27 accounted for there. 1J We don't have -- do we have such a calculation among Group 14 Exhibit 1512? 15 A No, sir. 16 Q But from Exhibit 281 we have the expected of 17 what, sir, 19.72? 13 A 19.72. 19 Q All right, air. Now you told ua, sir, that you 20 caused a computer Monson Program to be run; is that right, 21 sir? 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q And.how did you go about doing that? A A We took that -- what we were trying to find is 1 what would be the expected cancer, G.U., lung, bladder, *> lymphatic, other, and heart for a population of a size of 3 86 with the age distribution as presented in that group. We 4 used the Monson Program to determine the expected rates 5 for each of those. 6 Q And the Monson Prograa was used on this 86 and 7 the group you looked at were the two groups that were put S together; is that right? 9 A Yes. 10 Q So that you could get a determination of age? 11 A Yes. Assuming that they could be put together. 12 Q Assuming that they could be put together? 13 A Right. 14 Q All right. And whom did you discuss this with? 15 A Or. Gaffey. 16 Q Dr. Gaffey? 17 A Right. I* Q And you and Or. Gaffey worked together on this 19 being performed? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 Q All right. n mm 23 (Defendant Monsanto Exhibit 911 was marked *4 for identification by the court reporter*) I >1?.. CARR: i'our Honor/ I object to any use by Gaffey unless Dr. Roush did it himself. If Dr. Gaffay did 3 it, Dr. Caffey should be here. It's not clear thus far, 4 ether than the fact that Roush discussed it with Dr. Gaffay, 5 who worked the computer, who put it in, who did the study. 6 THE COURT: Would you clarify that please. / MR. HEINEMAN: I'll be glad to clear that up. 3 THE COURT: Fine. 9 Q (3v Mr. Heineman) Dr. Roush, tell us how you 10 and Dr. Gaffey did this, and what each of you did. II A We -- I asked him whether we could put these 12 two studies togetner in his opinion, and he said no, they 13 could not be put -- 14 .iR. CARR: our Honor, I object to any testimony 13 that this witness is going to give to some other person. 16 THE COURT: Objection is sustained. It is 17 hearsay. 18 Q (Ey Mr. Heineman) Now, if you would, sir, tell 19 us what the two of you did, together or separately, in 20 coming up witn the figures on the computer Monson Program. 21 A He did the computer analysis of the expected ii mortality for each of those specific causes of death. 23 -J io -- i A Related to a population of 86 with the age I distribution that could only be gotten from that program. > Q All right. Now was that done under your 3 direction, air? 4 A Yes, sir. 5 Q Were you with him out at Monsanto when he did it 6 A No, sir. 7 Q So that it was at your instruction that he 3 performed this exercise with the Computer Monaon Program? 9 A Yes, sir. IO Q And then he came to you with the results? II A Yes, sir. 12 Q All right. Let me hand you what's been marked 13 as Defendant's Exhibit 911, sir. Can you identify that for 14 me. 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q What is that? 17 A This ii the proportional mortality ratio study IS of Gaffay by putting those two populations together. 19 Q I notice it's in handwriting; is that right? :o A Yes, sir. 21 Q Whose handwriting is that? n A Dr. Gaffey's. 23 And that w a s -- that handwriting, was that given .4 to you? 1 A Yes, sir. s Q Was that thereport of what you had asked him 3 to do? 4 A Yes, 3ir. 5 Q Sir, was there adetermination with respect to 6 this.Computer Monson Program as to how many total cancers 9 i were to be considered? 3 MR. CARR: Your Honor, I object. Any use of the 9 table is clearly Or. Gaffey's table, and not Or.Roush's 10 table, and not be used unless I cross examine Or. Gaffey II as to its authenticity, and how he got it is clearly a 12 self-serving statement prepared by Monsanto. I object to 13 it. 14 MR. HEINEMAN: Your Honor, there isn't any 15 question, as I 've established through this witness, this 16 work was done by Dr. Gaffey under this witness' direction, 17 and that this report was made by Dr. Gaffey in his own 18 handwriting as tw the results of the report on the results 19 of this Computer Monson Program. I think under those 20 circumstances, all I want this witness to do is to report 21 what those numbers are. TT mm MR. CARR: I object to it, that all he wants to 23 do is to have Dr. Gaffey's table introduced"into evidence, or used without Or. Gaffey being here and subject to the ! cross examination as the rules require. 1 THE COURT: Objection is sustained. 3 Q (By Mr. Heineman) All right. Doctor, one of 4 the items included on Plaintiff's Exhibit 1464-A is an 5 entry for a Mr. John Workman. Do you see that, sir? 6 A Yes, sir. 7 Q Whose date of death was 1971. Do you see that, 8 9 A Yes, sir. 20 Q And the source of information was Marcia Strauss 11 A Yes, sir. 12 Q Do you see that, sir? 13 A Yes, sir. 14 0 Now, this John Workman is included on this 15 exhibit entitled, "Cancer Deaths of Workers Exposed to TCDD 16 Omitted from Table 10 Zack-Gaffey Report;" correct? 17 A Yes, sir. 18 Q And it is a fact, is it not, thataccording to 19 this exhibit, which was shown to you a couple a days ago, 20 a few days ago, that the souce of that information was Mar21 cie Strauss; is that right? 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q You have -- Doyou have Plaintiff's Exhibit 1463? 24 Thank you. Let me hand you what's been previously marked I as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1463. Do you remember that document,[ j 9 sir? 3 A Yes, sir. 4 G Mr. Carr wentthrough it with you,or went 5 through portions of it with you, did he not? 6 A Yes, sir. i G And he asked youspecifically about a certain 8 page which is page four of four, and Attachment II, Roman 9 Numberal II. Do you remember that, sir? 10 A Where was that, sir? I don't remember it. 11 G Page four of four, Attachment II. 12 A Yes. 13 Q All right. Under there he asked you about the 14 entry for a Mr. John Workman, did he not, sir? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 G And this is the same John Workman for which 17 Strauss is listed as the source of information? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q And there is a portion ofthis record here, 20 there's some writing on this document that's in evidence 21 which Mr. Carr did not ask you to read to the jury. Do 22 you remember that? 23 .A. Yes, sir. ^4 G Would you read it to thej u r y -- i I MR- CARR: Would you identify whose writing it *9 is because this is a work of Strauss unless this is J Strauss' handwriting on there# I'll object to it. 4 THE HEINEMAN: The document is in evidence, Mr. 5 Carr. 6 MR. CARR: Then I withdraw the objection. But 7 I would ask that you identify whose writing it is, Counsel. 8 MR. HEINEMAN: I don't know whether this 9 witness knows whose writing it is. 10 0 (By Mr. Heineman) Do you know whose writing 11 that i3 there, sir? 12 A No, sir. 13 Q You don't know one way or the other? 14 A No. 15 g It might be Marcie Strauss, it might not be? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 MR. CARR: I object to that. That's pure 18 speculation. I ask the jury be instructed to disregard it. 19 THE COURT: Objection is sustained, the jury 20 is ordered to disregard it. 21 Q (By Mr. Heineman) Now would you read that statement to the jury, please. 23 A "He shouldn't becounted asexposed because 24 information came from the medicalrecords# not the work I history.* Q Ail right. It says he shouldn't be counted as 3 exposed because tne information came from the medical 4 records, not the work history; correct? 5 A Yes, sir. 6 Q Now, the Zack-Gaffey Study, sir, was based upon 7 work histories, was it not? 8 A Yes, sir. 9 J And it was the people whose work histories 10 demonstrated their exposure to the process of manufacturing II 2,4,5-T and TC? that were included? '2 A Yes, sir. 13 0 So that, in this documentthat's in evidence, 14 the typewritten portion has John Workman listed? IS A Yes ,sir. 16 Q The handwritenportion says heshould not be 17 included? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q N o w , sir -- before Iget to that. Let me ask 20 you this, Or. Roush, if you have two separate studies, and 21 statistically one study does not reveal a certain abnormalit mm and statistically the other study does not stress that 23 particular abnormality, even though both are looked for, if you put the two together, what would you expect to find? I A Since you're adding constant ratios, a certain *9 percentage in one study has cancer and a certain percentage 3 of the other that have cancer, the percentages will come 4 out to be about the same, and relate to the two of them. 5 It won't be strikingly different? 6 Q So that if you put the sets of figures together 7 properly by adding the total populations studied in each, S that you shouldn't find enormous changes from one to the 9 other, should you? 10 A No. As a matter of fact, it would be someplace It inbetween. 12 Q It would be inbetween the finding of one and 13 the finding of .the other? 14 A That's right. IS Q It's like taking five and four, putting them 16 together to make nine, divide it by two and you get four 17 and a half? 18 A fee. The only problem is that the populations 19 are not equal size, so they have to be weighted. 20 Q All right. So that in an epidemiological study, 21 the populations have to be weighted according to size, <71m according to age? - 23 A " Yes-, sir. 14 Q Those kinds of corrections; have to be made. ! According to date of death aa well. But when you do ail o those calculations according to the Monaon Program, then 3 what cornea out is something that's a hybrid of the two? 4 A That'3 right. J Q But it's not going to be outlandiahly greater 6 than either one, is it? 7 A Right. The only thing that will happen then i* 3 the significance of it will be related now to the new 9 larger denominator, so the significance will change because 10 of the larger numoer in the denominator. That's the reason 11 the denominator is so important. It's the reason you can't 12 just take part of it and add it. 13 Q So the larger denominator may create something 14 that is statistically significant that wasn't before? 15 A That's right. 16 Q And it may create something not to be statistical 17 ly significant that was before? 13 A Yes, sir. 19 Q So the larger numbers change statistically, 20 the findings of each one separately? 21 A That's right. 22 Q But not greatly? 23 A No. No. It depends on how far they're apart, because a larger one will tend to make the numbers come up i closer to the larger one. I Q All right. But it's not going to be outside 3 the range of either one? 4 A H o , sir. 5 Q It's going to be somewhere inbetveen them? 6 A Right. 7 Q Now, sir, do you have Exhibit 1433 there? 8 I'm sorry, here it i3 right here. Exhibit 1483 is in 9 evidence there, sir, is it not? 10 A What do youmean inevidence? 11 Q Well, it has been admitted into evidence, has it 12 not? 13 THE COURT: I think it has. 14 Q (By Mr. Heineman) You may not know that, Dr. 15 Roush, but I think it has occurred. Now I'd like to direct 16 your attention to page 39, I think it is, or that exxhbit. 17 THE COURT: It has been admitted into evidence. 18 MR. HEINEMAN: Thank you, Judge. Would you 19 mark that please. 20 21 (Defendant Monsanto Exhibit 912 was marked -IT for identification by the court reporter.) 23 ',4 Q (By Mr. Heineman) Sir, let me hand you what's 1 been marked for identification purposes as Defendant's Exhibit Number 912. Is that an accurate copy of page 30 of 3 Exhibit 1483? 4 A Yes, sir. 5 MR. HZINEMAN: Your Honor, may I pajs copies of 6 Exhibit 912 to the jury? 7 THE C3CRT: Yes, you may. 3 MR. CARR: Mo objection, your Honor. 9 a (By Mr. Heineman) Now do you remember, sir, 10 Mr. Carr discussing with you the subject of the relationship n statistically between 2,4,5,-T exposure and the extent to 12 which PAB caused bladder cancer in the Nitro population? 13 A Yes,sir. 14 Q Do you remember that, sir? 15 A Yes, sir . 16 Q Now there was no doubt, was there, sir, that 17 Monsanto was aware that exposure to PAB, which stands for -- 18 A Para-aminobiphenyl. 19 Q Para-aminobiphenyl? 20 A Right. 21 Q That had beenmanufactured at theNNitroPlant 22 up until like 1955? 23 A Yes, sir. ,24 y Was found tobe a bladdercarcinogen, and was no 1 longer manufactured after that date. s A Yes, sir. i g And Monsanto instituted a program of monitoring 4 those people that had been exposed to PAB? 5 A Yes, sir. Q And indeedsome of those peoplewere included 6 7 in the Nitro Morbidity Study? A Yes, sir. 8 9 0 And some of the findings withrespect to them 10 were set out here in Exhibit 9 -- what is it -- 912? 11 A 912. 12 g 912. Is tnat right, sir? 13 A Yes, sir e 14 0 Now, Mr. Carr suggested t"* you, did he not 15 well, first of all, when you look at the people that were 16 exposed here, those across the top, those words across the 17 top refer to exposure to 2,4,5-T; correct? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q So that the column on the left are those who 20 were not exposed to 2,4,5-T and the middle column is those 21 who were, ana the right-hand column is those with question- aola exposure t* 2,4,5-T; correct? 23 A : Yes, sir. g And then those who had been exposed to para- I aminobiphenyl are distributed among those three columns; s correct? 3 A Yes, sir. And those among the persons that had exposure 4 to para-aainooiphenyl who had bladder tumors, or bladder 5 6 cancer, those are also distributed among those columns; 7 correct? S A Yes, sir. 9 U So that ~ and these are by history rather than 10 examination, according to this document? U A It had to oe by history, 12 j I'm sorry? 13 A It had to De by history and not oy examination, 14 g All right. So what is the difference between a 15 bladder tumor and a oladder cancer? 16 a A tumor is any cancer or both growths that can 17 happen anyplace in the body, and the difference between a 18 tumor and a cancer is the tumor is a benign tumor by this 19 definition, and because they're separated the bladder- cancer 20 is one that's a malignancy. One is a growth and the other 21 one is a growth that's a malignancy. n Wnat this was was differentiating between the mm 23 two? -. 24 A Yes. 1 Q Those whicn were benign tumors and those which *9 were malignant cancers? 3 A Yes, sir. 4 j All right. Now,Mr. Carr, whenquestioning 3 you, showed you these percent numbers. Oo you remember 6 that, sir? 7 A Yes, sir. 3 Q And he said that the .61 percent was less than 9 one percent; correct? 10 A Yes, sir. 11 w On the bladdertumors and bladder cancers? 12 A Yes, sir. 13 j Sut the 3.43 percent for the bladder tumors was 14 many times larger than the .61. I think he said it was 15 Seven times larger? correct? 16 A Six times larger. 17 j And that would be accurate if you looked just 18 at those percentage numbers, wouldn't it, sir? 19 A Yes, sir. 20 w And he relied on those numbers to lead to the 21 conclusion that those who were exposed had more bladder 22 tumors, those were exposed to 2,4,5-T and para-aminobiphehyl - 23 had more bladder^Cuuidrs than those who were exposed only to 24 p a r a - a m in o b ip h e n y .l a n d n o t t h e 2 , 4 , 5 - T ; correct? I A Yes, sir. 2 q Hut as a matter of fact, Doctor, those percentag 3 that are being looked at there are the percentages that 4 those numbers bear to the little 'n' up here; isn't that 5 right? 6 A Yes, sir. 7 Q Okay. Now that little 'n' number up there 3 refers to the total number of people exposed, or the total 9 number of people unexposed in the Suskind Morbity Study, 10 doesn't it? 11 A " Yes, sir. 12 j Doesn't refer to the number of people exposed 13 to cara-aminobiuhenyl, does it? 14 A N o , s i r . IS j So those numbers are not percentages of 8, or 16 71, or 16, tney're percentages of 163, 204 and 51? 17 A Yes, sir. 13 Q Aren't they? 19 A Yes, sir. 20 Q So that if you want to look, sir, at how many 21 people actually got bladder tumors or bladder cancer, of 22 those who were exposed to para-aminooiphenyl, as compared 23-, to those that were exposed of those which ones also had . .. 24 exposure to 2,4,5-T, you just look at; the numbers that are aC the top or tnose columns, don't you? I > A Yes, sir. Q So tnat of those who were not exposed to 2,4,5-T 3 eignt had para-ammooiphenyl exposure; right? 4 A Yes, sir. 5 0 And of those, two had either a tumor or cancer; 6 correct? 7 A Yes, sir. 8 Q So tnat would be two out of eight, or 25 percent 9 correct,sir? 10 A Yes, sir. 11 \ w So that the rate of those who were exposed to 12 13 both para-aminobipnenyl and 2,4,5-T that got one of these cancers or tumors was 25 percent? Excuse me, 1 did that 14 13 wrong, didn't I? 16 A Yes, you did. 17 It's the other way around. Therate of those 18 wno were exposed only topara-aminobipnenyl andnot exposed 19 to 2,4,5-T is 25 percent; correct? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 ^ Well, let's look at the next column. Those it who were exposed to both is 71; correct? 23 A Yes, sir. 4 <2 nnd of tnose 9 people had eitner a tumor or a v::- -hi;'-"' 1 cancer of the oladder; correct? i A Yes, sir. 3 And it's 9 out of 71/ or about twelve and a 4 half percent? J A That's right. 6 Q Correct? 7 A Yes, sir 8 Q So that *re isless bladdercanceramong the 9 people who were also exposed to 2,4,5-T than there is among 10 the people wno are only exposed to para-aminobiphenyl; corre 11 A Yes, sir. 12 g And, indeed, those withquestionableexposure 13 are two out or 1o, one out of a, about twelve and a half 14 percent again? 15 a Yes, sir. 16 g And there as well, there's less people who 17 have questionaole exposure to 2,4,5-T and para-aminobiphenyl IS exposure than those who have exposure to para-aminobiphenyl 19 alone? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 g Correct? As a matter of fact, this document 22 proves just tne opposite of what Mr. Carr asked you about 23 doesn11 it, sir? "'''7 A Yes, sir. q If tnere were any conclusion to be raised from this table along, it would be -- HR. CARR: 'lour Honor, I object to that, i ^oy Mr. Heineman) -- it would be that dioxin protects you. THE COURT: An objection is being made, I believe MR. CARR: I do object to the leading cross examination form of the question. I ask that the witness make conclusions rather than Counsel. THE COURT: Objection i3 sustained *i'iR. HEINEMAN: This would be a good time Judge, if you want to break for lunch. THE COURT: Fine. I believe we're breaking for the day. :>iR. HEINEMAN: I beg your pardon? THE COURT: This is it for the day, I believe* HR. HEINEMAN: Oh, that's right. Okay. THE COURT: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we will break for the day at this point in time, as I told you before we were going to do. We'll start again tomorrow morning at 9:00. I would remind you that you're not to read, listen to or watch anything about this case, in particular, or subject matter in general in "any of the media. We'll see you tomorrow morning at nine. Thank you for your ! attention ani expiration. Court ia adjourned. 2 J .Court adjourned.) 4 J 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 IJ 14 12 16 17 13 19 20 21 77 23 I 7 I 9 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 >- mm 23 ' ` .">5-v s t a t s o? i l z :::o :s ) * TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 35. COUNTY OP ST. CLAIR j I, Kathleen Watson Brunsmann, on o the Official Court Reporters, do hereby certify that the foregoing transcript is a true and correct copy of said transcript. DATED: July 29, 1985. ?.r >0 /X jQ_40\ZTn ) Kathleen Watson Brunsmann, C3R, RRR Official Court Reporter -r -A T- STATS OF ILLINOIS I j j'*9 THXNTISTS JUDICIALCIRCUIT SS J COUNTY OP ST. CLAIR J J 4 5 I, RiCHARD GOLDENHERSH, Circuit Judge, do 6 herefcy certify-that the foregoing transcript is a true and 7 correct copy of said transcript. S 9 DATEDtJuly 29, 1985. IO It 12 13 RICHARD GOLDENHERSH, Circuit Judge 14 13 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23