Document MJL16mgrR4J5xXE3wYe3L7gzM

* AOHM. %i H 'A 901022.001 AUSTRALIAN OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH MANAGEMENT JTV Is.VtiTcO BY FACSIMILE: 09 321 2002 22 October 1990 C3. ''jrx (.Arc 'owefs ' Boomerang St Svdnev 20CO. Austria CPO So* 653 Svan*v 2001. Australia >lepnonp :02) 361 4212 sat3imne ;02:361 4791 rtcorooratwj in n$W Mr John Mengler Jackson McDonald Solicitor* and Banisters Perth Dear John, Denis Daniel Gallagher - lung cancer Thank you for asking me to comment on the suitability of the Gallagher claim as a test case against the relevant tobacco companies. I have read ail the documents and believe it would be a very good test case: - undisputed significant lifetime smoking history; - undisputed large cell asaplastie lung cancer originating from right upper zone; - no suggestion of mesothelioma; - no evidence of asbestosis on X-Ray in 1990, and none detected by the Medicine Panel in 1983; C 3857 no clinical evidence of asbestosis; .-.M AOHM. no abnormal broncho-alveolar lavage (BAL); ''moderate" (by Wittcnoom standards) exposure to crocidolite at Wittenoom; and evidence of another cigarette induced (aggravated?) condition, vis: peripheral vasuiar disease. The only negative aspects are the lack of lung histology and the Medical Panel award of compensation for lung cancer due to asbestos. The Musk, de Klerk and Tarala opinions are all supportive of cigarette smoking as a causative agent - ranging from 50% with Musk, more than 50% with de Klerk, and more again with Tarala! Yours sincerely, Dr David Douglas