Document NEaRZMwqOy0wn7JN0LyMq46D

1 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 3 4 MARIE B. SOIGNET, et al 5 Plaintiffs, 6 vs . 7 MONTELLO, INC., 8 Defendant. 9 ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION ) ) FILE NO. B-86-1193 ) ) ) ) 10 11 12 Deposition of DR. HILTON C. LEWINSOHN, taken 13 on behalf of the Plaintiffs, in accordance with the 14 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, before Janet K. 15 Wilson, Certified Court Reporter and Notary Public, 16 at Marriott Airport Hotel, Room 922, Atlanta, 17 Georgia, on the 9th day of March 1989 , commencing at 18 the hour of 2:00 p.m. 19 ' DUPLICATE 20 FILE COPY 21 22 23 BROWN REPORTING, INC. 24 1100 SPRING STREET, SUITE 750 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309 25 (404) 876-8979 UCAREF00011433 1 2 INDEX TO EXAMINATIONS 3 Examination 4 Cross-Examination by Mr. Caruso Direct Examination by Mr. Guyton 5 Recross-Examination by Mr. Caruso 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 Page 4 61 62 UCAREF00011434 3 1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL: On behalf of the 2 Plaintiffs: DANIEL J. CARUSO, Esq. 3 On behalf of the Defendant: 4 HENRY G. GARRARD, III, Esq. JOSEPH GUYTON, Esq. 5 Also Present: Ms. Christina Berk 6 7 MR. CARUSO: This deposition is being 8 taken for all purposes allowed under the Federal 9 Rules of Civil Procedure. All objections except to 10 form of the question are reserved until the time of 11 trial. 12 Dr. Lewinsohn, you have a right to read 13 and sign this deposition or you can waive. What is 14 your pleasure with that regard? 15 THE WITNESS: I'd like to read it. 16 MR. CARUSO: Make a note that the doctor 17 would like to read the deposition. 18 May I ask to whom should the deposition 19 be sent for getting him to read it? 20 MR. GARRARD: Directly to him; and it's 2 1 agreeable with me if he signs it in front of any 22 notary. 23 DR. HILTON C. LEWINSOHN, 24 having been first duly sworn, was examined and 25 testified as follows: UCAREF00011435 4 1 CROSS-EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. CARUSO: 3 Q. Would you state your name for the 4 record, please. 5 A. Full name is Hilton Cecil Lewinsohn, 6 L-e-w-i-n-s-o-h-n. 7 Q. And by whom are you presently employed, 8 Dr. Lewinsohn? 9 A. By Union Carbide Corporation. 10 Q. And in what capacity? 11 A. I'm the medical director for the 12 Chemicals and Plastics Group. 13 Q. How long have you had the position of 14 medical director for the Chemicals and Plastics 15 Group at Union Carbide? 16 A. Since 1986, I believe. 17 Q. Did you hold another position with Union 18 Carbide before 1986? 19 A. Yes. I was then assistant corporate 20 medical director. 21 Q. How long did you hold that position? 22 A. I joined Union Carbide in July of 1982. 23 Q. So from July of '82 until '86 you were 24 the assistant corporate medical director, and now 25 you're the medical director? UCAREF00011436 5 1 A. Well, not exactly. 2 Q. What exactly? 3 A. I was assistant corporate medical 4 director; I'm now medical director of the Chemicals 5 and Plastics Group, which is a business group of 6 Union Carbide. 7 Q. And when you were assistantmedical 8 director, who was the corporate medical director? 9 A. Dr. Thomas Lincoln. 10 Q. And while you were assistant corporate 11 medical director, was there a medical director for 12 the Chemicals and Plastics Group? 13 A. We were differentlystructured inthose 14 days, and there was an assistant medical director - 15 assistant corporate medical director -- who had 16 responsibilities for the Chemicals and Plastics 17 Divisions; but there was no business group as such. 18 You know, it's all to do with the corporate 19 structure. 20 Q. Let's ju81 talk about that for a second. 21 You got to Union Carbide in 1986; correct? 22 A. 1982. 23 Q. Excuse me. And when you arrived at Union 24 Carbide, since you were the assistant corporate 25 medical director, I take it there was a Corporate UCAREF00011437 6 1 Medical Department? 2 A. That's right; and there were other 3 assistant corporate medical directors. I was not 4 the only one. 5 Q. As assistant corporate medical director 6 in 1982, were you responsible for any particular 7 division of Union Carbide? 8 A. Yes. I had responsibility for -- I'm 9 trying to think back -- Carbon Products Division, 10 for the Home and Automotive Division, Battery 11 Products Division, and Specialty Polymers and 12 Composites Division. 13 Q. Did any of those divisions you just 14 mentioned have anything to do with the asbestos 15 products of Union Carbide? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Who was it that had that responsibility 18 when you got there? 19 A. That was Dr. Fortney, F-o-r-t-n-e-y. 20 Q. Is that Guy Fortney? 21 A. That's the one. 22 Q. Does he still work for Union Carbide? 23 A. He does, yes. 24 Q. What is his position? 25 A. He's corporate medical director. UCAREF00011438 7 1 Q. And you held the position of assistant 2 corporate medical director from 1982 until 1986?. 3 A. Right. 4 Q. And then in 1986 you became a medical 5 director for the Chemicals and Plastics Group? 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q. And Dr. Fortney, somewhere along the way, 8 became the corporate medical director? 9 A. About the same time. 10 Q. What happened to Dr. Lincoln? 11 A. He retired. 12 Q. Does that mean in the overall chain of 13 command here you somehow report to Dr. Fortney or - 14 A. No, I don't report to Dr. Fortney. He is 15 at the corporate level; I'm in a business group. 16 I report to the director of Occupational 17 Health, Product Safety and Liability in the Chemical 18 Plastics Group. 19 Q. Does Union Carbide still make any 20 products or sell any products that have an asbestos 21 component, to your knowledge? 22 A. Not as far as I'm aware. 23 Q. So between 1982 and 1986, it would have 24 been Dr. Guy Fortney -- if I'm right about this - 25 who was involved with the asbestos products? UCAREF00011439 8 1 A. Yes; it was his division. 2 Q. What division was that? 3 A. I think it was Metals Division in those 4 days . 5 Q. You do have some experience with 6 asbestos; do you not? 7 A. Yes, I do. 8 Q. And it goes back, as I understand it, to 9 the 1960s * 10 A. It does. 11 Q. -- when you were a member of the 12 Pneumoconiosis Medical Panel in England? 13 A. In Manchester, England. 14 Q. Can you tell us what that panel was all 15 about? What did it do? 16 A. Well, the panel was part of the ministry 17 of pensions and national insurance, as it was known 18 in those days, and its functions were twofold, 19 basically. 20 One was to review claims made by workers 21 in different industries for -- I'm trying to think 22 of the word -- for what the benefit was called -- 23 industrial insurance injuries benefits. 24 Q. Like a Workers' Compensation? 25 A. Like a Workers' Compensation. They made UCAREF00011440 9 1 the claims. The lay administration then decided if 2 they had to be reviewed or not by members of the 3 panel; and then the members of the panel would 4 examine the claimants, review their cases, and make 5 a diagnosis upon which the lay administration then 6 determined what amount of compensation should be 7 paid. 8 The second function of the panel was to 9 carry out initial and periodic medical examinations 10 under the provisions of the Industrial Insurance 11 Injuries Act. So we went to asbestos factories, we 12 went to quarries, potteries, and examined newly 13 hired employees and active employees periodically to 14 determine, first of all, in the case of newly hired 15 employees, whether there was any reason why they 16 should not do that particular job because of any 17 medical or physical reason; and in the case of 18 active employees, to determine whether they were 19 suffering from any work-related effects which would 20 entitle them either to compensation or prompt us to 21 suspend them from that aspect, because we had that 22 priority. 23 Q. Since the title of this panel was the 24 Pneumoconiosis Panel, I take it one of the things 25 you were looking for was asbestosis in the workers? UCAREF00011441 10 1 A. in the asbestos workers, we were looking 2 for two things. 3 In the initial examination, we were 4 looking to see that people newly hired in the 5 industry didn't have any medical contraindications 6 if they were potentially exposed; and examining the 7 workers to see if they weren't suffering from any 8 ill effects. 9 Q. One of which would have been asbestosis? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And what years are we talking about? 12 13 A. 1963 to 1966. 14 Q. What was it about a person that would 15 disqualify them from working in an asbestos 16 environment under the guidelines of the 17 Pneumoconiosis Panel? 18 A. Any preexisting chest disease that might 19 have made them more susceptible or less able to cope 20 in a dusty job or a job where there was potential 21 for dusty exposure. 22 Q. Such as -- 23 A. Such as tuberculosis, active 24 tuberculosis, or severe chronic bronchitis, severe 25 heart disease in which the lungs were likely to be UCAREF00011442 11 1 comprised and not able to function effectively 2 because of a heart problem; things like that. 3 Q. So you did not want a person whose either 4 lung function or heart function was already 5 comprised to be working in an asbestos environment? 6 A. Correct; or somebody who already had 7 worked previously in an environment of that kind, 8 coal mines or any other dusty job which could also 9 have comprised them. 10 Q. So a person, for example, coming from, 11 say, a coal mine in Kales into an asbestos factory 12 in Manchester - 13 A. -- would be carefully looked at. 14 Q. Would he have to exhibit some type of 15 dust-related disease before you would have 16 disqualified him, or would the history alone 17 disqualify him? 18 A. No, the history alone would not 19 disqualify him. He had to have some evidence of 20 being impaired in some way. 21 Q. Is it fair to say that, to your 22 knowledge, in a period of time 1963 to 1966 that 23 asbestosis was a recognized disease associated with 24 asbestos ? 25 A. Yes . UCAREF00011443 12 1 Q. Was there at that time, in 1963 to 1966, 2 a recognized association -- by that I mean one which 3 would be recognized by people with your expertise - 4 between asbestos exposure and lung cancer? 5 MR. GARRARD: I'm going to object to your 6 question. Dr. Lewinsohn is not here as a state of 7 the art witness, was not employed by Union Carbide 8 at that time, and that is a question that is outside 9 any relevance of his testimony whatsoever. 10 Q. You can answer the question. 11 A. Can you just repeat it please? 12 Q. My question inartfully stated was -- if I 13 can try to recall it -- was that in this period, 14 from 1963 to 1966, did experts in the occupational 15 disease area such as yourself at the time recognize 16 an association between asbestos exposure and lung 17 cancer? 18 MR. GARRARD: Same objection. 19 Q. And I mean bronchiogenic carcinoma. 20 MR. GUYTON: I'll further object. This 21 witness has not been listed as an expert witness in 22 this case. 23 A. I'm going to make a comment. At that 24 time I would have hardly had been an expert in that 25 area; but to answer your question, I believe that UCAREF00011444 13 1 in -- by that time the association between asbestos 2 exposure and the development of lung cancer had been 3 recognized, although perhaps not universally 4 accepted. 5 Q. Was there a time in the late sixties or 6 early seventies -- we keep going back in time, 7 okay -- but when there was an acceptance of the 8 association between lung cancers and exposure to 9 asbestos? 10 MR. GARRARD: I object to your question 11 again, because he is not here as an expert on state 12 of the art matters. I think that's what you were 13 inquiring into. And I'm going to direct the doctor 14 not to answer the question. 15 MR. CARUSO: Well, the question goes to 16 what everybody knew about asbestos at a particular 17 time, which in turn relates to what each individual 18 company's obligation is to warn; and secondly, to 19 the question of whether or not thi3 product under 20 the law is unreasonably dangerous for its intended 21 use. Where he was is of no consequence. 22 MR. GARRARD: He was not an employee of 23 Union Carbide at the time. What he may or may not 24 have thought at that time is not relevant as to 25 Union Carbide. UCAREF00011445 14 1 MR. CARUSO: Well, I'm not asking him 2 what he thought; I'm asking him - 3 MR. GARRARD: He is also not put forward 4 as an expert on state of the art matters by Union 5 Carbide, has not been listed as an expert, and I 6 think it's outside the field of inquiry permissible 7 as to this witness. 8 MR. CARUSO: I'm going to reserve my 9 right to go back to that and possibly call the 10 Judge. 11 Q. Doctor, over the years you have studied 12 and kept up, I take it, with information dealing 13 with asbestos and its association with various lung 14 diseases ? 15 A. Up to a point in time. 16 Q. Would it be fair to say, then, in the 17 late 1960s and early 1970s this was a subject that 18 you were keeping abreast of, the relationship 19 between asbestos and asbestos-related diseases? 20 A. Yes, that's fair enough. 21 Q. And it is true, is it not. Doctor, that 22 in that period of time between the late 1960s - 23 we'll talk about, say, 1965 up until about 1975 - 24 articles were published by various individuals and 25 groups demonstrating the association of asbestos UCAREF00011446 15 1 with certain illnesses? 2 A. Yes, there was literature containing such 3 articles. 4 Q. And there were articles that were 5 published at that time that linked asbestos with 6 asbestosis; is that correct? 7 A. Yes . 8 Q. And there were articles that were 9 published that linked asbestos with lung cancer? 10 A. Yes 11 Q. And there were publications that came out 12 as early as 19 60 by Dr. Wagner linking asbestos 13 exposure with a disease process known as 14 mesothelioma; is that correct? 15 A. Ip refer the use of the word "associated" 16 rather than "1 inking"; yes. 17 MR. GARRARD: Excuse me. Did you say 18 chrysotile asbestos? 19 MR. CARUSO: No; I said asbestos. 20 Q. In the articles associating asbestos with 21 mesothelioma which appeared in the sixties -- the 22 early sixties, did those articles draw a distinction 23 between crocidolite and chrysotile as a cause of 24 mesothelioma, if you can recall? 25 MR. GARRARD: I'm going to object to your UCAREF00011447 16 1 question unless you tell him what articles you are 2 talking about. There is a lot of literature in the 3 time frame that you are mentioning. Also, I further 4 object that he is not listed as an expert, and you 5 are at this point in time doing nothing but a state 6 of the art examination of this witness. 7 He is not a state of the art expert in 8 this case. He also was not an employee of Union 9 Carbide at that time. 10 Q. I don't even know what that means, okay; 11 but I'll do it this way. 12 After you left the Pneumoconiosis Panel 13 in 1965 or -'6 - 14 A. '66. 15 Q. -- you went to work for an outfit called 16 Turner Brothers? 17 A. Turner Brothers Asbestos Company, 18 Limited. 19 Q. And where is Turner Brothers Asbestos 20 Company, Limited, located? 21 A. In Rochdale, Lancashire, England. 22 Q. And what was your job with Turner 23 Brothers Asbestos Company, Limited? 24 A. When 1 went there I went as a medical 25 officer. UCAREF00011448 17 1 Q. And what were your job duties as a 2 medical officer? 3 A. To do initial and periodic examinations 4 of employees working with asbestos and -- also to 5 see any other workers that needed my advice and 6 counsel. 7 Q. You were what we call the company doctor? 8 A. That's right; I ran the medical 9 department. 10 Q. There was a doctor there also named Knox? 11 A. Dr. Knox retired in 1965. 12 Q. And did you, in essence, take his 13 position when you went there? 14 A. Yes -- not fully. I took the title of 15 medical officer; Dr. Knox had had the title of chief 16 medical officer. 17 He remained on as a consultant even after 18 retirement, so there was still another notch on the 19 ladder. 20 Q. You said Turner Brothers Asbestos 21 Company. What was the business of Turner Brothers 22 Asbestos Company? Did it make asbestos products? 23 A. Turner Brothers Asbestos Company in 24 Rochdale, plant in Rochdale, manufactured asbestos 25 textiles . UCAREF00011449 18 1 Q. So it was a textile manufacturing plant? 2 A. In Rochdale, yes. 3 Q. Now, was there another Turner Brothers 4 plant that wasn't in Rochdale that did something 5 else? 6 A. There was another one in Hindley Green, 7 also in Lancashire, which made asbestos textiles; 8 also made -- they made -- there was glass fiber 9 there; it was a glass fiber plant. And there was a 10 plant in Dungannon, which is in Northern Ireland, 11 which made glass fiber. 12 And there was a plant in the south of 13 England in, S-l-o-u-g-h, I think it was in Slough, 14 that also made glass fiber. 15 Q. Now, were you the medical officer for all 16 these plants? 17 A. Well, I was the medical officer for 18 Turner Brothers Asbestos Company, Limited; and as 19 such I had, if you like, oversight or supervisory 20 responsibilities for all these plants, yes. I 2 1 didn't go to all these plants to perform my hands-on 22 duties there. 23 Q. You had other doctors - 24 A. There were other part-time -- mostly 25 part-time -- contract positions. UCAREF00011450 19 1 Q. How long did you hold this job at Turner 2 Brothers ? 3 A. Well, I was -- I became -- I was with the 4 Turner and Newall group of companies in which Turner 5 Brothers Asbestos Company was a subsidiary for a 6 period of approximately ten years; from 1966 to 7 1976. Then I became the group medical advisor to 8 Turner and Newall Company, I think about 1969; but I 9 don't remember the dates offhand. Maybe later; I 10 just don't remember. 11 Q. Now, in that period of time, between 1966 12 and 1976, since you were a medical officer for an 13 asbestos-related concern, I take it it was up to you 14 to keep abreast of what was going on in the medical 15 and scientific community regarding asbestos and the 16 possible health effects associated with asbestos; is 17 that fair? 18 A. Yes; that was expected. 19 Q. The type of asbestos fiber that was being 20 used by Turner Brothers in this period of time, what 21 type was it? Do you know? 22 A. Turner Brothers? 23 Q. Yes. 24 A. They basically were usingchrysotile 25 asbestos fiber; but they also used some crocidolite. UCAREF00011451 20 1 Q. You said Turner Brothers, and you nodded 2 your head at me. Has there some other one of these 3 plants that was using something else besides - 4 A. Hell, we talked about Turner Brothers 5 Asbestos; not about Turner and Newall as a 6 corporation. 7 Q. Here they doing something different than 8 Turner Brothers Asbestos? 9 A. Yeah. They were a large corporation and 10 involved in other areas of the asbestos business. 11 Q. Like -12 A. They had mining business and they had 13 asbestos cement interests. 14 Q. Now, where were theirmines? 15 A. When I first went there, of course, they 16 were still operating the mine in Southern Rhodesia, 17 which is now Zimbabwe. Then Rhodesia declared its 18 unilateral declaration of independence, and that 19 source of supply was cut off. 20 They had mines in north British Columbia, 21 Cassiar, and there was a mine in Swaziland. 22 Q. Now, did you have anything to do with 23 these mines by way of your medical directorship? 24 A. Well, I knew about them, and I visited 25 both of them. I didn't visit Rhodesia because of UCAREF00011452 21 1 the political situation. 2 Q. Was there a medical person at the mines 3 who was reporting to you? 4 A. Not reporting to me, no; reported to my 5 management. I didn't really have very much direct 6 contact with the people overseas. 7 Q. So you were not being given any reports 8 or anything about any incidents of illnesses or 9 deaths or anything arising from the mine operations? 10 A. I wasn't, no. 11 Q. Your medical responsibilities at Turner 12 Brothers and then with Turner and Newall dealt 13 mostly with the asbestos-manufacturing aspect as 14 opposed to the mining aspect? 15 A. That's hard to say. Basically, my duties 16 were in the United Kingdom in the mines there; but I 17 also gave advice and service to all of the 18 corporation, which included all its operations 19 worldwide. I didn't, again, necessarily get 20 involved in the day-to-day problems of those 21 organizations. 22 Q. Were you ever questioned -- or your 23 advice sought is probably a better way to ask that 24 question -- by the corporation of Turner Brothers 25 and/or Turner and Newall with regard to the health UCAREF00011453 22 1 effects associated with asbestos exposure? 2 A. I believe I was. 3 Q. Do you know, how did that come to pass? 4 A. How? 5 Q. Yes. 6 A. Hell, as part of my job I sat on a 7 committee known as the Health Committee where these 8 matters were regularly discussed. 9 Q. Has the question of asbestos as a 10 possible cause of mesothelioma ever discussed? 11 A. Yes, it was. 12 Q. And do you know approximately when that 13 would have been? 14 A. Hell, when I joined Turner Brothers in 15 1966, by that time I believe that the issue had 16 already arisen. 17 Q. Did you ever advise anyone at Turner 18 Brothers or Turner and Newall between 1966 and 1976 19 that chrysotile asbestos would not cause 20 mesothelioma? 21 MR. GARRARDs I'm going to object to your 22 question in terms of what, if anything, he advised 23 Turner Brothers or Turner and Newall, which is not 24 relevant; they're not a part of this lawsuit. 25 Just object; it's not relevant to any UCAREF00011454 23 1 issue in this case. And I ask you, Doctor, if you 2 try to recollect anything back that far, I ask you 3 not to speculate in terms of whatever may have been 4 said or done. 5 A. I have no intention of speculating on 6 what I specifically advised or didn't advise at that 7 point in time. Unless you could refresh my memory, 8 I would prefer not to speculate. 9 Q. Well, Doctor, do you think in the period 10 of time between 1966 and 1976 that the body of 11 medical science available to you as a director of 12 medical services at Turner Brothers would have 13 allowed you to tell your company that chrysotile 14 asbestos had been eliminated as a cause of 15 mesothelioma in man? 16 MR. GARRARD: I again object to that 17 because you begin trying to play state of the art 18 with this doctor who has not been listed as a state 19 of the art expert and was not an employee of Union 20 Carbide at that time. 1 also do not think it is an 21 answerable question in its current form. 22 Q. Can you answer it? 23 A. If those are the words that you think I 24 would use, no, I can't. 25 Q. I'm not saying that's^the word you would UCAREF00011455 24 1 use; I'm asking can you answer that question as I've 2 posed it? 3 A. I just don't believe it's a question 4 that's -- that is answerable. I think it's badly 5 framed and to me somewhat unintelligible. 6 MR. CARUSO: Let's see what's 7 unintelligible about it. Read it back, please. 8 (The record was read by the reporter.) 9 A. I still don't think I can commit myself 10 to answer a question like that. I just don't 11 believe that it's giving me a viable opportunity to 12 tackle the issue, it really isn't. 13 Q. What's wrong with the question? 14 A. I think you're using words and you're 15 making a definitive statement, which I'm not 16 prepared to argue about because I don't think it's 17 valid or viable. 18 Q. What isn't valid or viable? 19 A. Well, you use words like "eliminated"; I 20 don't know what that means. Can you tell me what 21 that means? 22 Q. Well, I haven't got a dictionary here; 23 but "eliminate" generally means that you've taken it 24 out of the picture, you've taken it away, you've 25 eliminated it. UCAREF00011456 25 1 A. But you know for yourself that that's not 2 the case; there is even today debate as to whether 3 chrysotile is involved in the production of 4 mesothelioma. 5 Q. So you would agree with me that even as 6 of today there is still a debate going on as to 7 whether or not chrysotile is or is not associated 8 with mesothelioma? 9 A. There is -- yeah, I would say that there 10 is a debate going on, you know, between experts. 11 Q. And is that debate today more intense 12 than it was back in the late sixties, early 13 seventies, middle seventies? 14 A. I think the debate today has served to 15 clarify a number of the -- what in the early sixties 16 and seventies were rather vague assumptions. 17 Q. Do you know a man named I. C. Sayers, 18 S-a-y-e-r-s ? 19 A. No, I do not. No. 20 Q. I'm going to show you a document that is 21 entitled Asbestos as a Health Hazard in the United 22 Kingdom by I. C. Sayers -- and you say you don't 23 know the man. Let me ask you if you've ever seen 24 this document before? 25 A. Yes, I've glimpsed at this document; I UCAREF00011457 26 1 haven't read it. 2 Q. You say you've glimpsed at it. In what 3 context were you called upon to glimpse at that 4 document ? 5 A. I believe among some of the items I was 6 shown by Mr. Garrard here in preparation for this 7 deposition, this is one of the documents produced; 8 but I haven't read it. 9 Q. Did Mr. Garrard represent to you that 10 this document was a Union Carbide document? 11 A. No; he gave me no indication as to where 12 that document originated or what its purpose was. 13 Q. Had you never seen this before 14 Mr. Garrard showed this to you today? 15 A. That's correct. 16 Q. So you don't know whether or not this 17 document which is referred to as Asbestos as a 18 Health Hazard in the United Kingdom is, in fact, a 19 Union Carbide document? 20 A. I don't know the origin or the purpose of 21 it, no. 22 Q. And you've never heard of I. C. Sayers 23 before this deposition? 24 A. (Witness shakes head negatively.) 25 Don't know who he is. UCAREF00011458 27 1 Q. Now, this document has a date on it of 2 1967, okay? So now we're going back another time 3 capsule again to 1967 - 4 MR. GUYTONi I'll object to that. Prom 5 what I can see on the front of that, that 1967 is 6 not printed in any fashion. Somebody apparently has 7 written that on that. 8 Q. Let's assume it's written in 1967, 9 subject to counsel's objection here. And in this 10 document there is a paragraph which is numbered 6.1 11 under the title Moral Issues, and it says: "There 12 seems little doubt that the toxic effects of our 13 Coalinga product is still largely unknown. There is 14 a general inference that crocidolite is more liable 15 to produce mesothelioma. Exoneration of chrysotile 16 has not been made, however. A discussion with Dr. 17 W. Taylor with the Department of Social Medicine, 18 Queens College, two years again revealed that 19 concern over asbestosis is still increasing and that 20 chrysotile is definitely implicated along with other 21 types of asbestos." 22 Now, with regard to the statement 23 contained in that report -- this is 1967, okay - 24 "there is a general inference that crocidolite is 25 more likely to produce mesothelioma. Exoneration of UCAREF00011459 28 1 chrysotile has not been made, however." 2 Does that generally, to your 3 recollection, reflect accurately the state of 4 knowledge at that time of the difference between 5 crocidolite and chrysotile as an associated fiber 6 with mesothelioma? 7 MR. GARRARD: I'm going to object to your 8 question in that your question, once again, goes to 9 a state of the art question; and this doctor is not 10 put forward as a state of the art expert, nor was he 11 an employee of Union Carbide in 1967. 12 MR. CARUSO: I am not asking him for an 13 expert opinion. 14 MR. GARRARD: But you asked him if that 15 comports with his opinion as to what the literature 16 showed at that time. 17 MR. CARUSO: This man was working in the 18 field at that time. 19 MR. GARRARD: He was not an employee of 20 Union Carbide. 2 1 MR. CARUSO: Doesn't make any difference. 22 MR. GARRARD: Yes, it does. 23 MR. CARUSO: Makes no difference 24 whatsoever. 25 MR. GARRARD: You're not entitled to UCAREF00011460 29 1 elicit opinions from him unless he is listed as an 2 expert to give opinions; and that's the problem I've 3 got, is he's not. He is here as a factual witness 4 in relation to his experience with Union Carbide. 5 MR. CARUSO: That's why you brought him 6 here, but that's not why he's here. I can ask him 7 anything I want. 8 MR. GARRARD: No. He's not here as an 9 expert. 10 MR. CARUSO: I'm not asking for an expert 11 opinion 12 MR. GARRARD: I think that's an expert 13 opinion 14 MR. CARUSO: It's not. If I was asking 15 for his expert opinion, I would ask him that. 16 I have a man here who is a historical 17 reference. He was working with this stuff at that 18 time, and I want to know if based on what he can 19 recall at that time is this statement made by this 20 fella at Union Carbide, whoever he may have been, 21 accurately reflecting what the state of the medical 22 knowledge was in 1967. He's a doctor; he should 23 know. 24 MR. GARRARD: Which is his opinion. 25 MR. GUYTON: I'll object on the same UCAREF00011461 30 1 basis, because it is asking his opinion of what the 2 opinion was; and that calls for an expert opinion 3 based upon his reference to all the knowledge as 4 stated at the time. It also asks him to speculate 5 about what someone else knew or what someone else 6 had written. 7 MR. GARRARD: I don't want to unduly 8 object; it's not my style. I'm going to let him 9 answer the question; but if you keep going on that, 10 then I'm going to stop him from answering questions 11 on that. 12 He is not here as an expert -- I'm not 13 trying to be difficult, but he is not here as a 14 medical expert to render opinions. 15 Go ahead. 16 Q. If there is any possible way you can 17 remember the question, can you answer it or would 18 you like to hear the question again? 19 THE WITNESS: I'd like to have it read. 20 Q. The question I'm trying to ask you is 21 this: If you and I had been back in 1967 together 22 and I would have handed you this piece of paper and 23 said. Dr. Lewinsohn, would you take a look at this 24 Paragraph 6.1, 1 -- which you can do now, by the 25 way, if you want to look at it again -- would you UCAREF00011462 31 1 take a look at that; and when they're talking about 2 crocidolite being implicated as a cause of 3 mesothelioma and chrysotile has not been exonerated, 4 would you agree with that as of 1967? 5 MR. GARRARD: Same objections without 6 restating them. 7 MR. CARUSO: Fine. 8 A. The reason I hesitate to give you an 9 answer is because you're trying to condense into one 10 question and to base on -- you know, on one person's 11 opinion a yes-or-no answer where there isn't a 12 yes-or-no answer possible. 13 In order to answer your question, I would 14 have to go back and review a great deal of the 15 literature at that moment in time to tell you 16 whether in 1967 there was -- this was a valid 17 statement to make. It's very difficult to answer 18 it. 19 However, you know, if I give it my best 20 shot, then what this seems to be saying is that in 21 1967 there was a belief in some sectors -- and it 22 doesn't say whose belief it was, whether it was a 23 majority opinion or a minority opinion or whether it 24 was a consensus of opinion -- that there was a 25 gradation or effect somehow or another between the m UCAREF00011463 32 1 association of different types of asbestos fiber in 2 the production of mesothelioma and that at that 3 moment in time in 1967 this individual who wrote the 4 report believed that crocidolite was more liable to 5 produce mesothelioma, but that chrysotile had not 6 been eliminated as a cause, to use your word. 7 That's the best 1 can answer it. 8 Q. Now, you came aboard at Union Carbide in 9 1982? 10 A. Yes, that's correct. 11 Q. By corporate medical? 12 A. Yeah. 13 Q. And have you ever sincecoming aboard 14 with Union Carbide been involvedwith the asbestos 15 products between 1982 and the present in any way? 16 MR. GARRARD: What do you mean by 17 " involved"? 18 MR. CARUSO: Well, whatever, in his job 19 category with any of the asbestos product divisions 20 or anything like that. 21 A. Only in view of the fact that when I 22 joined Union Carbide it was known that I had spent a 23 lot of time working in the asbestos industry. From 24 time to time I would be asked for assistance, yes. 2 5 Q. And who would ask you for that UCAREF00011464 33 1 assistance? 2 A. Well, that varied. It might be 3 Dr. Fortney, who wanted to know how to respond to an 4 inquiry; or it might have been somebody in the 5 management of the division that wanted to talk to me 6 about asbestos or chrysotile asbestos or matters of 7 that kind. 8 Q. Were you ever called upon for assistance 9 by a man named Harrison Rhodes? 10 A. I'd more likely call on him for 11 assistance; but I did know Harry Rhodes, yes. 12 Q. During the course of your tenure with 13 Union Carbide between 1982 and the present, were you 14 ever involved in any discussions with a man from 15 Montello Corporation, Ken Campbell? 16 A. Don't know him. 17 Q. Don't know him? 18 A. (Witness shakes head negatively.) 19 Q. Let me show you this Materials Safety 20 Data Sheet from the Calidria Corporation that's 21 dated 12/13/84. Let me ask you first of all: What 22 i8 the Calidria Corporation? 23 A. That was the name of the part of the 24 Metals Division that rained and marketed the Coalinga 25 fiber. UCAREF00011465 34 1 Q. It's a part of Union Carbide? 2 A. It was a part of Union Carbide. 3 Q. Now, could you tell us, if you know, what 4 is the function of a Materials Safety Data Sheet? 5 A. The Materials Safety Data Sheet basically 6 is to provide information to people handling or 7 using a product relating to its physical properties, 8 its health hazards, first aid treatment in the event 9 of acute exposures, and any other relevant matters 10 in order to insure the safety of the product. 11 Q. In the Union Carbide operation, who would 12 receive from Union Carbide copies of the Material 13 Safety Data Sheet, if you know? 14 MR. GARRARD: Doctor, if you know. 15 A. I don't believe I'm qualified to answer 16 that. 17 Q. Now, this publication, which is of 1984, 18 has two parts I'd like to ask you about. 19 MR. GARRARD: Which section are you 20 referring to? 21 MR. CARUSO: Chronic Effects of 22 Overexposure. 23 Q. It says: "Overexposure to chrysotile 24 asbestos has caused damage to lungs (Asbestosis, 25 lung cancer, and mesothelioma of the pleura and the UCAREF00011466 35 1 peritoneum.) " 2 Mr. Rhodes testified in his deposition 3 that this entry that was placed into this Materials 4 Safety Data Sheet was made after discussions with 5 you. 6 Let me ask you first of all, is Mr. 7 Rhodes' recollection correct about that? 8 A. I know I was involved in the drafting of 9 this particular section, yes. 10 Q. Who else was involved in it besides 11 yourself? 12 A. That I don't remember; but -- I think at 13 that time this was -- may well have been partly 14 drafted by somebody in our Toxicology Information 15 Services Group under Mr. Marvin Huffman and that it 16 could have been referred to me from them; or it 17 could have been referred to me from somebody at the 18 division. But I know that the final form of this is 19 probably designed by Mr. Marvin Huffman's group. 20 Q. Marvin Huffman? 21 A. Yeah. 22 Q. And you say "Mr. Marvin Huffman's group." 23 Who was Mr. Huffman? 24 A. Well, he works in the -- in those days I 25 think it was still called Corporate Applied UCAREF00011467 36 1 Toxicology; he worked in that area. It doesn't 2 really matter how he fits into it, but he -- his 3 group, which now is down to himself and someone 4 else, they basically assist the divisions in 5 formatting the Material Safety Data Sheet and do a 6 lot of the literature reviews and that sort of 7 thing. 8 Q. Was it you who suggested that 9 mesothelioma be placed in that paragraph dealing 10 with chronic effects of overexposure? 11 A. I don't know whether, you know, I would 12 put it -- it was I who suggested it. I can only say 13 that this is a combined effort; but probably my 14 input was significant. 15 Q. And do you agree with it as it's written, 16 that overexposure to chrysotile asbestos has caused 17 damage to lungs, (Asbestosis, lung cancer, and IB mesothelioma of the pleura and the peritoneum)? 19 A. I think that in 1984 when this was 20 written -- bearing in mind this is sort of a generic 2 1 type of statement talking about chrysotile asbestos 22 and not distinguishing in any way between the types 23 of chrysotile, bearing in mind the state of 24 knowledge at the time when this was drafted -- there 25 was by that time some evidence basically from the UCAREF00011468 37 1 Canadian chrysotile mines and mills -- and I think 2 possibly from elsewhere; I'm not sure, from 3 Cypress -- of cases of mesothelioma that had been 4 described in persons who had, as far as could be 5 ascertained from, historically worked with 6 chrysotile asbestos. 7 So in that context, I think that at that 8 moment in time it was probably a reasonable 9 statement to make. 10 Q. Would it have been reasonable - 11 MR. GARRARD > Did you finish your 12 answer? 13 A. I think that if this were to be rewritten 14 now, evidence which has come to light within the 15 last four years probably might make one want to 16 modify that statement; because it would appear 17 from -- as I understand the few articles that I've 18 kept up with -- it would appear now that the 19 likelihood of pure chrysotile inducing a 20 mesothelioma is very small, if any, and that most 21 chrysotile which has been incriminated in the 22 Canadian people and in Cypress is contaminated with 23 an amphibole fiber known as tremolite; and so it 24 would probably be written differently today. 25 In other words, it would be -- it's UCAREF00011469 38 1 unlikely that chrysotile asbestos would cause 2 mesothelioma of the pleura in the light of this 3 evidence. 4 Q. You would just take mesothelioma out of 5 this statement today if you were writing this? 6 A. I don't think I would take it out; I 7 think you'd have to give some descriptive 8 explanation as to why this particular product would 9 be unlikely to cause it. 10 Q. But you wouldn't take it out yet? 11 A. I wouldn't take it out; but I'd have to 12 qualify it, I'd have to give a qualifying statement. 13 Q. Would you take out the part about 14 asbestosis where it says. Overexposure to chrysotile 15 asbestos -- 16 A. No . 17 Q. Would you take out thepart of lung 18 cancers ? 19 A. No. 20 When I'm talking about chrysotile -- 21 Q. Right; the chrysotile this is directed 22 to, this Coalinga chrysotile. 23 A. No, I'm not saying that. I think this 24 particular statement is a generic statement that was 25 written in -- because there was no way I believe of UCAREF00011470 39 1 writing a statement like this specifically for 2 Coalinga; so the statement was written as is not 3 uncommon in Material Safety Data Sheets to cover 4 chrysotile asbestos. 5 This was to serve the purpose of the 6 Material Safety Data Sheet, which is as a health 7 warning. And if subsequently it were to be shown 8 that Coalinga fiber had the same potential 9 properties as any other form of chrysotile asbestos, 10 then this would be an acceptable statement. 11 Q. Well, are you saying, then, that Coalinga 12 chrysotile -- __ 13 A. No, I'm not saying anything about -- 14 Q. -- is different than any other 15 chrysotile? 16 A. Yes, it is. 17 Q. Okay. 18 A. That's not what I'm saying at the 19 moment. What I'm saying at the moment is in 20 preparing a Material Safety Data Sheet where the 2 1 evidence is not always complete for the particular 22 chemical or substance that you're writing the 23 Material Safety Sheet, if there is other evidence in 24 the literature for products of a similar kind, then 25 it's reasonable to adapt that in a health hazard UCAREF00011471 40 1 statement, which is really what has taken place 2 here. 3 Q. So if you're going to make a mistake - 4 A. But there are certain differences between 5 Coalinga fiber and other forms of chrysotile 6 asbestos. 7 Q. What are the differences? 8 A. It's a very unique fiber, as I understand 9 it and as I understood it when I was involved. 10 It's -- it really doesn't require any mining; it's 11 almost a surface deposit. And it's -- again, as I 12 understand it and from what I've been told, a form 13 of chrysotile fiber which is purer in the sense that 14 it isn't contaminated by amphiboles, and it has a 15 very characteristic fiber size and shape. It's 16 unusual in that it's a short fiber for a chrysotile 17 and it's a thin fiber. I believe that most of the 18 fibers are less than 5 microns in length; and I 19 don't know what the diameter is but the diameter is 20 certainly very small. 21 Q. You're not saying all of the fibers are 22 less than 5 microns? 23 A. I'm saying the majority. 24 So that has certain implications with 25 regard to the carcinogenic properties of this fiber. UCAREF00011472 41 1 Q. Well, in 1984 when you all wrote this 2 Material Safety Data Sheet, you were trying, I take 3 it, to give as accurate a description as possible of 4 the product that you were selling; were you not? 5 A. In that the product that was being sold 6 was a form of chrysotile asbestos, and given the 7 deficiency on specific health information related to 8 that product, a statement was devised which appeared 9 to be an appropriate health warning. 10 Q. Now, have you developed any information 11 between 1984, the time this was written, and today 12 that shows that the Coalinga chrysotile does not 13 cause asbestosis? 14 A. Huh-uh. I've had no involvement -- I 15 haven't developed personally any information. 16 Q. What about the company? 17 A. As far as I'm aware, that particular 18 company no longer belongs to Union Carbide; so I 19 don't know what they've done. 20 Q. Have you seen any studies that shows that 21 Coalinga chrysotile is not associated with lung 22 cancer? 23 A. I haven't seen any studies that say it 24 is . 25 Q. Have you seen any that says it isn't? UCAREF00011473 42 1 A. I haven't seen either. 2 Q. So the statements that you made here in 3 this 1984 Material Safety Data Sheet, as far as we 4 know through today, are accurate? 5 MR. GARRARD: Hold it. I object to the 6 form of your question in that he has already 7 indicated to you that as to mesothelioma he would 8 change that today; and I think that's a misstatement 9 of what he said. I'm sure you didn't mean to do 10 that, but I object to the form because that's not 11 what he said. 12 MR. CARUSO: You're right. 13 Q. With regard to the asbestosis and the 14 lung cancer, that statement in this Material Data 15 Sheet of 1984, if you were writing it today, you'd 16 write it the same? 17 A. I don't know whether I would; because I 18 know a little bit more about the fiber now than I 19 did then. I also know from my own personal 20 observation of the employees at the King City mine 21 that no evidence has been found to date of -- at 22 least as of the time when I last was involved -- no 23 evidence had been found of asbestosis among the 24 miners. And as far as I'm aware, no excess cancers 25 of the lung had been found, either. So it may well UCAREF00011474 43 1 be that with developing knowledge over the last five 2 years since 1984 it might even be possible to modify 3 the statements with regard to lung cancer and 4 asbestosis; not that I could say that asbestosis or 5 lung cancer will not occur, because I haven't got 6 sufficient evidence for that; but that -- based upon 7 what I do know, it's unlikely that they would occur. 8 Q. Well, you wouldn't be willing to make a 9 statement like that just based on an informal 10 statement -- survey of workers that worked at that 11 mine; would you? 12 A. No, no -- 13 MR. GARRARDt Let him finish. 14 MR. CARUSO: I'm letting him finish; just 15 relax. 16 A. I would not make a statement based purely 17 on that one issue alone. I think that the statement 18 that the information goes further than that is 19 experimental evidence available -- as well as I'm 20 not sure that I was aware of in 1984 but I now am 21 aware of in which this fiber has been shown not to 22 produce significant -- a significant incidence of 23 tumors in the animals. 24 Q. Well, there is also medical evidence that 25 shows that chrysotile fibers does produce tumors in UCAREF00011475 44 1 animals; isn't it? 2 A. Yes; but I am talking of the Coalinga- 3 fiber as opposed to chrysotile asbestos in general. 4 It is a unique fiber, it's different, and it has 5 been studied on its own. 6 Q. In 1966 you all sent some of this stuff 7 over to Mellon for survey. Have you ever seen this 8 report before, the Mellon Institute? 9 A. I don't remember whether I was shown this 10 or not. 11 Q. Take a look at that. 12 MR. GARRARD: Take your time. Doctor. 13 (A recess was taken.) 14 A. May I just ask you if these codes refer 15 to CMS 100 is what? 16 Q. I don't know. It's not my report. 17 MR. GARRARD: I can't answer that 18 question. Doctor. 19 (A discussion ensued off the record.) 20 Q. You looked at this report. Were you able 21 to identify which fibers were fibers from the 22 Coalinga mine? 23 A. No. 24 Q. You can't tell from looking at this? 25 A. No; I don't know where these fibers come UCAREF00011476 45 1 from. 2 Q. Mr. Rhodes testified in hisdeposition 3 that the Coalings fibers - - a sample of the Coalinga 4 chrysotile was sent to the Mellon Institute and they 5 acted just like every other chrysotile fiber. And I 6 asked what does that mean, and he said they produced 7 tumors. 8 You don't know about that? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Let me ask you about thisthing here. 11 What is this "Warning: Cancer Hazard" over here in 12 precautionary statements? What is that for? 13 MR. GARRARD: If you know. Doctor. 14 Q. If you know. 15 A. You know, I had no part in, I don't 16 think, in writing that, and I don't know how these 17 warnings were developed. Must have been some 18 convention that they use when they write these 19 Material Safety Data Sheets as to whether they 20 have -- "Warning: Cancer Hazard" or "danger" or 21 different terms that are used in these things. 22 Q. What is Union Carbide saying? Is this 23 what they want to be put on the bags that the men 24 would actually receive? 25 MR. GARRARD: Doctor, if you know an UCAREF00011477 46 1 answer, give him an answer; but do not speculate. 2 A. I don't know the answer. This is a 3 Material Safety Data Sheet. Labels are something 4 that are dealt with by a specialized group of people 5 who design and wordsmith the labels. I don't have 6 anything to do with that. 7 Q. So this wording here under "Special 8 Precautions" would not necessarily appear on the 9 bags of the product that the men were receiving? 10 A. I don't -- I just don't know. 11 Q. You don't know? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Are you still at this time in your life a 14 subscriber to the Lagg Aphroism? 15 A. uh-huh. 16 Q. Would you tell the ladies and gentlemen 17 of the jury what Lagg Aphroism is? 18 A. Which one? There are four of them. 19 Q. I'll read you one which I like. 20 "Every worker should know something of 21 the materials that he works with and to which he is 22 exposed and the hazards of such materials and not 23 find out for himself, sometimes at the cost of his 24 life. " 25 A. Yes, I agree with that. UCAREF00011478 47 1 Q. is chrysotile asbestos a carcinogen? 2 A. Yes, I believe it's classified as a 3 carcinogen. 4 Q. When did it first get that 5 classification? Do you know? 6 A. That I don't know; because it would -- it 7 depends on who classified it. And I can't tell 6 you -- it's classified as a carcinogen. 9 Q. You said "it depends on who classified 10 it." How many different entities - 11 A. International Agency for Research and 12 Cancer, and the EPA, and -- you know, everybody has 13 their own ideas about classification. I'm not quite 14 sure when it would uniformally be classified, 15 especially in the United States of America. 16 Q. When you got to Union Carbide in 1982, 17 had it been classified as a carcinogen, if you know? 18 A. I don't know. If you're asking me 19 officially, in any official way, I don't know. 20 Q. When you got to Union Carbide in 1982 and 21 took the position as medical director -- excuse me, 22 assistant medical director -- is that right in 1982? 23 A. Assistant corporate medical director. 24 (A discussion ensued off the record.) 25 Q. When you took that job as the assistant UCAREF00011479 48 1 corporate medical director in 1982, did you have an 2 opinion at that time as to whether or not chrysotile 3 was a carcinogen? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. What was your opinion? 6 A. Chrysotile is a carcinogen. 7 Q. Now, we talked just a second ago about 8 the Lagg Aphroism, which I think is A-p-h-r-o-i-s-m; 9 and in comparing the material which is contained in 10 the Safety Material Data Sheet, the information and 11 a warning label, which has been represented to us to 12 have been on the Coalinga product handled by the 13 Plaintiff in this case, Mr. Soignet, can you tell 14 us. Doctor, whether or not this labeling in light of 15 what's on your Material Safety Data Sheet and the 16 information contained in the Material Safety Data 17 Sheet fulfills Lagg's Aphroism? 18 MR. GARRARD: I'm going to object to the 19 question. He is not here as an expert testifying 20 about warning labels nor their contents, and I'm 21 going to instruct him not to answer the question. 22 MR. CARUSO: That's an instruction not to 23 answer? 24 Q. Doctor, if you have a man who is handling 25 a carcinogen and you do not warn that person UCAREF00011480 49 1 directly that the product he is handling is a 2 potential carcinogen, in your view. Doctor, has the 3 corporation fulfilled its duty to warn that 4 individual of the risks associated with the use of 5 that product? 6 MR. GARRARD: I'm going to object to that 7 question in that you're again asking him for 8 opinions, number one, in terms of whether someone 9 has fulfilled a duty; and number two, you are 10 blankly asking him his opinion concerning the 11 contents of a warning. And I'm going direct him not 12 to answer the question. 13 MR. CARUSO: Please note that we're 14 reserving all objections to his objections for 15 discussion with the Judge. I'm reserving my right 16 to retake this deposition if I have to retake it 17 during the course of this trial. 18 Q. Were there ever any discussions that you 19 know of that took place at Union Carbide to identify 20 the Coalinga asbestos product as a carcinogen on its 21 labels ? 22 MR. GARRARD: Could you read that back? 23 I'm -- 24 Q. Let me ask you again. 25 From the time you arrived at Union UCAREF00011481 50 1 Carbide until the time the mine was sold and Union 2 Carbide got out of the business, were there ever any 3 discussions in which you participated where it was 4 discussed that a label should be put on the bags 5 containing the Coalinga product identifying it as a 6 possible carcinogen? 7 A. I don't recollect participating in any 8 such discussions personally. 9 Q. Do you know of any such discussions 10 having taken place in which you did not participate 11 personally? 12 A. That, again, I can't tell you; I don't 13 know. 14 Q. Mr. Rhodes told us that he thought there 15 were discussions around 1970 about that question. 16 Did you ever - 17 A. I wasn't there then. 18 Q. I know that; but did you ever see any 19 memoranda, documents, or anything dealing with the 20 question of whether or not to identify this product 21 as a possible carcinogen? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Does UnionCarbide today sell any 24 products that have been classified as a carcinogen? 25 A. Probably. UCAREF00011482 51 1 Q. Do you know what they are? 2 A. (Witness shakes head negatively.) ,, 3 Well, you said "sell products"; that I 4 don't know, okay? We have probably in our 5 manufacturing facilities products that might be used 6 in formulations, et cetera, that are classified as 7 carcinogens. 8 For example, I believe one chloride is 9 classified as a carcinogen, and there are a number 10 that are suspected as being carcinogenic. 11 Q. With regard to the ones that are 12 suspected as being carcinogenic, are the people who 13 work with those substances warned by Union Carbide 14 of the potential carcinogenicity? 15 A. I believe everyone who works with these 16 substances knows of the hazards associated with 17 them. 18 Q. Where do they get that knowledge from? 19 A. They get it through their training, 20 through their job safety data sheets, and through 21 the free availability of the Material Safety Data 22 Sheets to all employees. 23 Q. So they actually are getting some of it 24 from the manufacturers of the substance? 25 A. If it happens that the carcinogen is one UCAREF00011483 52 1 you can buy from someone else, then the vendor's 2 Material Safety Data Sheet would be part of the 3 information. If the substance is one of our own 4 product, then it would be our Material Safety Data 5 Sheet. But there is also active employee training 6 continuously going on. 7 Q. Do you all label it, put a label on 8 the -- 9 A. That I don't know. There is a labeling 10 system, you know, the diamond with different things 11 in it; that's basically I think what I've seen. 12 Q. Do you know or know of a man named C. U. 13 Darnehl? 14 A. Dr. Darnehl? 15 Q. Yes. 16 A. I have met him on one occasion. 17 Q. Do you know what his relationship to 18 Union Carbide was or is? 19 A. He had long since retired by the time I 20 got there, and I believe that he had some -- he had 21 an appointment as a medical director; I don't know 22 exactly what his title was. 23 Q. Let me show you a letter of June 7th, 24 1967, which appears to have been penned by Dr. 25 Darnehl to a Mr. Hall, T. J. Hall, Union Carbide, UCAREF00011484 53 1 Europa, and ask you if you've ever seen this letter 2 before? 3 A. No, I haven't seen this letter before. 4 It's barely ledgible. 5 Q. I know. 6 Do you know who Mr. Hall is? 7 A. No. 8 Q. While you were on thePneumoconiosis 9 Panel in England, did you have an opportunity to 10 note an increase in lung cancer associated with 11 people suffering from asbestosis? 12 A. Did I have an opportunity? If you ask it 13 that way, I have to say no; because I wasn't doing 14 any studies. 15 Q. What about the panel itself? Did the 16 panel perform a study? 17 A. Well, the panelspublished their findings 18 annually -- they were usually about two years behind 19 -- in which it was shown that the incidence of 20 asbestosis was increasing, or diagnosed cases of 21 asbestosis by the panels in certain regions was 22 increasing, and also that the -- now, I don't know 23 whether they actually showed the instance of lung 24 cancer to be increasing as well; I can't remember 25 that. But I know that there was this report that UCAREF00011485 54 s 1 came out every year in which the latest statistics 2 were given. I know they were concentrated on 3 asbestosis. 4 The reason was that asbestosis was a 5 prescribed disease; in other words, you could get 6 compensated for asbestosis. Lung cancer in an 7 asbestos worker was not a prescribed disease, 8 because it was a requirement for compensation that 9 asbestosis also be present. So consequently, they 10 didn't tally up the lung cancer cases; they tallied 11 up the asbestos cases. 12 Q. Were you familiar with a report submitted 13 by Dr. Buchannon at the 1964 Academy of Sciences 14 Conference in New York which indicated that in the 15 experience of the cases diagnosed by the 16 pneumoconiosis medical panels in Brittain as 17 suffering from asbestosis, 50 percent of those died 18 of lung cancer as well? 19 A. Right; that was the prerequisite of 20 asbestos and lung cancer. That was a paper that was 21 presented by Dr. Buchannon. I'm familiar with 22 that. The one problem with that paper is that A, it 23 was not a controlled studied, there were no 24 controls; and B, smoking histories were 25 unavailable. UCAREF00011486 55 1 As you know, there is a synergistic 2 effect between asbestos exposure and cigarette 3 smokers, and asbestos workers who smoke cigarettes 4 have a greater chance of developing lung cancer than 5 those who don't. 6 Q. Just to make sure we're on the same page 7 here, you testified that it was your belief that 8 there was possibly a difference between the Coalinga 9 chrysotile and all other chrysotile. 10 I want to make sure I'm getting this 11 right. Is that correct? 12 MR. GARRARD: I've got to object to the 13 form of your question. He didn't say there possibly 14 was; he said there was a difference. 15 A. In the physical properties. 16 Q. Insofar as the disease-causing aspects of 17 these fibers, does chrysotile asbestos, chrysotile, 18 in your view, cause asbestosis? 19 A. Chrysotile asbestos as a generic term? 20 Q. Right. 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Does the Coalinga chrysotile cause 23 asbestosis? 24 A. All I can say is that -- and I'm only 25 going on my personal experience -- is that I haven't UCAREF00011487 56 1 seen it. 2 Q. Does chrysotile, generic chrysotile 3 let's change again -- is chrysotile associated with 4 lung cancer? 5 A. Yes, it is. 6 Q. Is Coalinga associated with lung cancer? 7 A. Again, I must answer the same way. My 8 personal experience, I haven't seen it. 9 Q. Now, how long did Union Carbide have that 10 mine? Do you know? 11 A. I don't know for sure; but I believe it 12 was started up sometime in the sixties. I just 13 don't know for sure. 14 Q. So it would be fair to say that as of 15 1985 when Union Carbide got rid of the mine that 16 since that's only a 20-year period that there might 17 be cases of asbestosis and lung cancer that would 18 come in years to come based on the latency of those 19 diseases; isn't that true? 20 A. Well, whether it's true or not I don't 21 know; but there is a possibility that followup of 22 that population over a long period of time, if there 23 were going to be an effect might reveal it because 24 of the latency. 25 Q. Now, with regard to the issue of UCAREF00011488 57 1 chrysotile asbestos and mesothelioma, my question to 2 you is: Is there an association at this point in 3 time of any kind between chrysotile and 4 mesothelioma? 5 A. The number of cases of mesothelioma in 6 the literature attributed to exposure to chrysotile 7 asbestos is extremely small; and in a recent - 8 well, let's put it this way: These cases have 9 recently been reviewed by a number of people, and it 10 would appear that the consensus of opinion is that 11 the production of mesothelioma by chrysotile is 12 consistent with the -- is consistent with the 13 contamination of chrysotile by an amphibole fiber 14 known as tremolite. 15 Furthermore, the cases that have been 16 associated and reviewed in the literature following 17 alleged chrysotile exposure only in most instances 18 have been shown to have been probably heavily 19 exposed as indicated by the lung burden of 20 chrysotile fibers; and particularly where -- in the 21 later reports that I've seen, it's possible to look 22 at both tremolite and chrysotile and look at the 23 ratio of the tremolite to the chrysotile in the 24 lung, and the chrysotile disappears from the lung; 25 it doesn't stay in the lung very* readily. But the UCAREF00011489 58 1 tremolite is there, and this ratio of treraolite to 2 chrysotile is a good indicator of the extent of 3 exposure. If there is a lot of tremolite, there has 4 been a heavy exposure to chrysotile. 5 But I think to answer your question, the 6 census of opinion today is that any mesothelioma 7 allegedly due to exposure to chrysotile have 8 probably more likely resulted from the contamination 9 of the chrysotile with tremolite. 10 Q. So does that mean that in your own mind 11 you have eliminated pure chrysotile as a cause of 12 mesothelioma? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Pure uncontaminated chrysotile? 15 A. I haven't eliminated; because Ithink 16 that there is one factor that still needs 17 consideration in that a population of -- has not 18 been studied exposed to pure chrysotile, if there is 19 a pure chrysotile that is suitable for study. 20 Q. Onion Carbide contends that this material 21 is pure uncontaminated chrysotile. Mr. Soignet was 22 one of the folks -- type of person who worked in the 23 oil fields in southeast Louisiana and onshore 24 warehousing who was in contact with this product. 25 How many people would it take to make up UCAREF00011490 59 1 a cohort of people similarly situated to Mr. Soignet 2 to begin a study on this question, if you know? 3 MR. GARRARD: Can you rephrase your 4 question? I'm not sure when you say "to begin a 5 study" that it's an answerable question. And I'm 6 not trying to tell you how to ask your question; you 7 may mean to do a study. I mean, you can begin a 8 study with anything -- ' 9 MR. CARUSO: You're absolutely right; 10 you're much smarter than I am. To do a study, 11 right. 12 Q. If I wanted to do a study, how many guys 13 like Blackie Soignet would I have to go get to make 14 up the cohort? 15 A. Well, a study on asbestos workers were 16 about 300; but at that time he wasn't limiting 17 himself to looking at any particular effect; he was 18 looking at asbestos workers because'it had been 19 brought to his attention that they were suffering 20 from asbestosis. 21 I think it depends on what you want to 22 do. I think this is a question for an 23 epidemiologist. And the number of -- the fact that 24 mesothelioma is a very rare tumor still and that its 25 incidence in the general population is only about UCAREF00011491 60 1 one in a million, its natural incidence. in order 2 to do a study which has any power of reaching 3 statistical significance would require quite a large 4 population. But that's my humble, you know, 5 opinion. 6 Q. So we would be looking for people in the 7 thousands? 8 A. I don't know. 9 Q. You don't know; but it would take a lot 10 of guys? 11 A. I think that would also depend on the 12 potency of the substance that you're looking at. If 13 you had a material that was a very potent 14 carcinogen, you would need fewer people, because you 15 would have more of them affected. 16 Q. We're talking about studying chrysotile, 17 this product, okay? 18 A. I think as far as this product is 19 concerned, you'd probably look forever and not find 20 any. 21 Q. Well, I've already found one. 22 MR. GARRARDi Objection. 23 A. That's your opinion. 24 MR. CARUSOt Thank you. That's all the 25 questions I have. UCAREF00011492 61 1 DIRECT EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. GUYTON: 3 Q. Doctor, when you said that asbestos has 4 been classified by others generally speaking as a 5 carcinogen, you do not mean by that that - 6 MR. GARRARD: Chrysotile, you mean? 7 MR. GUYTON: Let me restate that 8 question. 9 Q. Did you state previously that chrysotile 10 had been classified as a carcinogen by someone? 11 A. I believe that's correct, yes. 12 Q. You didn't mean by that that chrysotile 13 was a carcinogen in every particular type of cancer 14 or circumstances; did you? 15 MR. CARUSO: I object to the leading form 16 of the question. 17 A. I'm not sure what you mean "in every type 18 of --" 19 Q. Well, chrysotile, for instance, doesn't 20 cause skin cancer; does it? 21 A. Oh, I see what you mean. 22 Well, no, not in general. What I was 23 referring to was lung cancer. 24 Q. Specifically it has been'classified as a 25 carcinogen as lung cancer? UCAREF00011493 62 1 A. Well, it's classified a carcinogen based 2 upon the fact that it has been demonstrated to cause 3 lung cancer in humans. 4 MR. GUYTON: Pass the witness. 5 RECROSS-EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. CARUSO: 7 Q. Are you a stockholder in Union Carbide? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Have you seen this before, a copy of the 10 1987 10K from Union Carbide, a copy of the 1987 11 stockholder's report? Have you ever seen those 12 before? 13 A. I may have seen some of them; but I don't 14 get them. 15 Q. You don't get those, though? 16 A. (Witness shakes head negatively.) 17 MR. CARUSO: I have nothing else. Thank 18 you . 19 Having concluded this deposition, at this 20 time I reserve the right to reconvene it after I've 21 had an opportunity to receive a transcript and argue 22 the objections that were made by Mr. Garrard, 23 particularly with regard to his particular 24 25 /// UCAREF00011494 63 1 instructions to the witness not to answer certain 2 questions. 3 (Deposition concluded at 3:55 p.m.) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UCAREF00011495 64 1 2 3 CERTIFICATE 4 5 STATE OF GEORGIAS 6 COUNTY OF FULTONs 7 I hereby certify that the foregoing 8 ' transcript was taken down, as stated in 9 the caption, and the questions and answers 10 thereto were reduced to typewriting under 11 my direction; that the foregoing pages 1 12 through 63 represent a true, complete, and 13 correct transcript of the evidence given 14 upon said hearing, and I further certify 15 that I am not of kin or counsel to the 16 parties in the case; am not in the regular 17 employ of counsel for any of said parties; 18 nor am I in anywise interested in the result 19 of said case. 20 This, the 10th day of March 1989. 2.1 22 K - dO --*___ 23 BT K. WILSON, CCR-B-1108 commission expires on the 24 th day of September, 1990. 25 UCAREF00011496 65 1 DEPOSITION OF DR. HILTON C. LEWINSOHN/JAN I do hereby certify that I have read all 2 questions propounded to me and all answers given by me on March 9, 1989, taken before 3 Janet K. Wilson, and that: 4 _____ 1) There are no changes noted. ____ 2) The following changes are noted: 5 Pursuant to Rule 30 (7)(e) of the Federal 6 Rules of Civil Procedure and/or Georgia Code Annotated 81A-130 (B)(6)(e), both of which read in 7 part: Any changes in form or substance which you desire to make shall be entered upon the 8 deposition...with a statement of the reasons given...for making them. Accordingly, to assist you 9 in effecting corrections, please use the form below: 10 Page No. ____ Line No.___ should read: 11 12 And the reason for the change is : 13 Paae No. 14 Line No. should read: 15 And the reason for the change is : 16 17 Page No. Line No. should read: 18 19 And the reason for the change is : 20 Page No. ______ Line No.____ should read: 21 22 And the reason for the change is : 23 24 Page No. Line No. should read: 25 * UCAREF00011497 66 1 DEPOSITION OF DR. HILTON C. LEWINSOHN/JAN And the reason for the change is*______________________________ 2 Page No. Line No. should read: 3 4 And the reason for the change is : 5 6 Page No. Line No. should read: 7 8 And the reason for the change is : 9 Page No. 10 Line No. should read: 11 And the reason for the change is : 12 13 Page No. Line No. should read: 14 15 And the reason for the change is : 16 Page No. 17 Line No. should read: 18 And the reason for the change is t 19 20 Page No. ______ Line No.____ should read: 21 22 And the reason for the change is : 23 Page No. ______ Line No.____ should read: 24 25 UCAREF00011498 67 1 DEPOSITION OF DR. HILTON C. LEWINSOHN/JAN And the reason for the change is : 2 Page No . Line No should read: 3 4 And the reason for the change is : 5 6 Paae No. Line No. should read: 7 8 And the reason for the change is: 9 Pace No. 10 Line No. should read: 11 And the reason for the change is: 12 13 Paae No. Line No. should read: 14 15 And the reason for the change is : 16 Paae No. 17 Line No. should read: 18 And the reason for the change is : 19 20 Paae No. Line No. should read: 21 22 And the reason for the change is : 23 Page No. 24 Line No. should read: 25 UCAREF00011499 68 1 DEPOSITION OF DR. HILTON C. LEWINSOHN/JAN And the reason for the change is : 2 Page No .______ Line No.____ should read: 3 4 And the reason for the change is : 5 6 If supplemental or additional pages are necessary, 7 please furnish same in typewriting annexed to this deposition. 8 9 DR. HILTON C. LEWINSOHN 10 Sworn to and subscribed before me, this the ______ day of . 1989. 11 12 Notary Public. My commission expires: 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UCAREF00011500 70 1 2 3 4 AMENDED CERTIFICATE 5 6 7 STATE OF GEORGIA: 8 COUNTY OF FULTON: 9 I hereby certify that in addition to the 10 certification made on Page 64 of the transcript, 11 this deposition is being filed pending the witness' 12 right to review said deposition within 30 days, 13 which time has not elapsed. 14 This, the 10th day of March 1989. 15 16 17 18 JANJtT K. WILSON 19 Certified Court Reporter and 20 Notary Public. 21 22 23 24 25 UCAREF00011501 ^ac- -.v'i IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY Civil Action No. LITIGATION (No. VI) MDL 875 .................................................................................. -.............................x UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FIFTH DIVISION DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA x CONWED CORPORATION, Plaintiff, Case No. - against - 5-92-88 UNION CARBIDE CHEMICALS AND PLASTICS COMPANY, INC., (f/k/a UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION), Defendant, - and- UNION CARBIDE CHEMICALS AND PLASTICS COMPANY, INC., (f/k/a UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION), Third-Party Plaintiffs, - against - OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION, WALKER JAMAR COMPANY, A.W. KUETTEL, SONS, INC., API, INC. and MacARTHUR COMPANY, Third-Party Defendants. ................................................................................................................................................................. February 15, 1994 HILTON C. LEWINSOHN Doyle Reporting, Inc. Walter Shapiro. CSi Charles Shapiro CS CERTIFIED STENOTYPE REPORTERS COMPUTERIZED TRANSCRlPTlQr 3B9 Lexington Avenue New York, N Y. 10017 Tel. (212) 067-0220 Fax (2121 206 35. UCAREF00011502 2 February 15, 1994 9:50 a .m. Deposition of Center for Occupational and Environmental Health at Exeter Hospitals, Inc., by HILTON C. LEWINSOHN, taken by Plaintiff, pursuant to notice at the offices of Kelley, Drye & Warren, Esqs., 101 Park Avenue, New York, New York, before Marianne D'Amico, a Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State of New York. *** UCAREF00011503 Appearances: 3 KELLEY DRYE & WARREN, ESQS. Attorneys for Union Carbide 101 Park Avenue New York, New York 10178 BY: ALAN J. GERSON, ESQ., - and - of Counsel FOLEY & LARDNER, ESQS. First Wisconsin Center 777 East Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202-5367 BY: TREVOR J. WILL, ESQ., of Counsel STITCH, ANGELL, KREIDLER & MUTH, ESQS. Attorneys for Conwed The Crossings, Suite 120 250 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 BY: ROBERT D. BROWNSON, ESQ., - and - of Counsel RUDNICK & WOLFE, ESQS. 203 North La Salle Street Chicago, Illinois 60601-1293 BY: MICHAEL R. GOLDMAN, ESQ., of Counsel UCAREF00011504 Appearances: (Cont'd) 4 Also Present: VIRGINIA M. RUSZCZYK, Legal Assistant Kelley Drye & Warren, Esqs. * * it UCAREF00011505 5 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and among the attorneys for the respective parties hereto, that all rights provided by the C.P.L.R., including the right to object to any question except as to the form, or to move to strike any testimony at this examination, are reserved; in addition, the failure to object to any question or to move to strike testimony at this examination shall not be a bar or waiver to make such motion at, and is reserved for, the trial of this action. IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the within examination may be sworn to by the witness being examined before a Notary Public other than the Notary Public before whom this examination was begun, but the failure to do so or to return the original of this examination to counsel shall not be deemed a waiver of the rights provided by Rules 3116 and 3117 of the C.P.L.R., and shall be controlled thereby. IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the filing and sealing of the original of this examination are waived. ** UCAREF00011506 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 HILTON C. LEWINSOHN, having been first duly sworn by a Notary Public of the State of New York (Marianne D'Amico), was examined and testified as follows: EXAMINATION BY MR. BROWNSON:' Q. Dr. Lewinsohn, my name is Bob Brownson, as I told you, and I represent a company called Conwed Corporation, which is the plaintiff in the lawsuit against Union Carbide out in Minnesota, which is now out in Philadelphia, if you can understand that progression. We are here today to take your deposition in connection with that case, and as I'm sure Trevor has told you, or as you probably already know, at the deposition, you've got to answer out loud and audibly. You can't shake your head or mumble or say "uh-huh," because then we have a hard time transcribing it. And, secondly, if you don't understand a question or the question is not clear to you, make sure you tell me that before you answer it, so that we get a record of answers and DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011507 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 7 and responses to questions that you understood. Is that ine? A. Yes. Q. And finally, try not to talk when I talk, and I'll try not to talk when you talk, so she just has one person talking at a time. A. Okay. Q. Dr. Lewinsohn, first of all, are you presently employed? A. Yes, I am. Q. where are youemployed? A. The Center for Occupational and Environmental Health abbreviated, COEH, at Exeter Hospital. The address is P.0. Box 1050 and the street address is 108 High Street, in Exeter, New Hampshire. MR. WILL: Off the record. (Discussion off the record) MR. WILL: Back on the record. Q. Do you have a curriculum vitae or resume that we can have? MR. WILL: I'm having it photocopied. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011508 1 Lewinsohn 8 2 MR. BROWNSON: So maybe we can 3 dispense of it. 4 MR. GERSON: It will be here in two 5 minutes. 6 Q. Your full name is Dr. Hilton 7 Lewinsohn? 8 A. Hilton, middle initial is C, for 9 Cecil, Lewinsohn. 10 Q. How long have you been at the Center 11 for Occupational Environmental Health at Exeter, 12 New Hampshire? 13 A. Since November 1992. 14 Q. What sort of institution is that? Is 15 that a teaching hospital or - 16 A. No, the hospital is a community 17 hospital, about 100 beds. 18 And the Center for Occupational 19 Environment Health is a department of the 20 hospital. 21 Q. And how is it that a hundred-bed 22 hospital in Exeter, New Hampshire has a Center for 23 Occupational Health? 24 Is there some plant in the area? How 25 did that come about? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011509 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewins ohn 9 A. The center has been there for about eight years, I believe. It started off actually with a nursing program that was set up by a very energetic occupational health nurse in the area, to provide nursing services to local employers in the industry. And it was very successful. They grew. They then got a medical director, and enlarged eventually to get an industrial hygiene services as well, employer assistance program, and it developed into a comprehensive hospital - based occupational health program. It isn't an industrial area per se, but there are some medium sized companies in the area and some subsidiaries of large companies. And we provide on-site medical direction to some of those companies. We provide on-site nursing. We have a clinic where we would see injured employees to preplacement, physical exams, urinal examination for drug screening, that kind of thing. Q. Does the Center for Occupational and DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011510 1 Lewinsohn 10 2 Environmental Health do research as well? 3 A. Oh, no. 4 Q. Or is it treating of patients? 5 A. It's hospital based. It has 6 basically a clinical function. 7 Q. Are you currently doing any research 8 of your own, or have you since you've joined that .9 center? 10 A. No. 11 Q. At the present time, or since 1992, 12 let me put it that way, since 1992, have you been 13 following any group of patients, or have you been 14 continuing any research of any kind that you had 15 done in the past? 16 A. No. 17 Q. And as I understand it, you left 18 Union Carbide in July of 1992, is that correct? 19 A. That is correct. 20 Q. Did you retire at that point? 21 A. It was a retirement, you know, 3 22 retirement package that I was given at the time. 23 as a result of a downsizing that was taking place . 24 at Union Carbide. 25 Q. And I should ask you this. What is DOYLE REPORTING, INC. {212)867-8220 UCAREF00011511 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 11 your current age? A. 65 . Q. What happened then, as you retired from Union Carbide at, I guess, at the age of about 63? Would that be correct? A. Yes . Q. That was as a result of some corporate downsizing? A. That is correct. Q. Where they were giving early retirement packages to people? You're shaking your head? MR. WILL: You need to say "yes." A. Yes, I'm sorry. THE WITNESS: I thought it was a rhetorical question. MR. WILL: I thought so, too. Q. Let me just ask you one more thing about your current position. Are you seeing any patients or doing any work in the area of pneumoconiosis or asbestosis in particular, or pneumoconiosis in general? A. No. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011512 1 Lewinsohn 12 2 Q. We've been given a copy here of your 3 curriculum vitae, and I'll just have the reporter 4 mark this as Exhibit 1. 5 (Curriculum vitae marked as 6 Lewinsohn Exhibit 1 for identification, as 7 of this date.) 8 Q. I'll show you now what has been 9 marked as Lewinsohn Exhibit 1, and ask you if that 10 is a copy of your current curriculum vitae? 11 A. Yes, it is. 12 Q. And is that complete and up to date 13 as far as you know? 14 A. Yes, as far as I know. 15 Q. It indicates that you're originally 16 from South Africa, is that correct? 17 A. That's correct. 18 Q. You went to university at 19 Witwatersrand Medical School? 20 A. Well, the correct -- Witwatersrand. 21 Q I was close. 22 And what was the degree that you 23 obtained? 24 A. The degree is MB, BCh. It's the 25 Latin for bachelor of medicine and bachelor of DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011513 Lewinsohn 13 surgery, which is comparable to the M.D. degree in the United States. Q. And you obtained that in 1952? A. Correct. Q. And when did you move from South Africa to England? A. 1956 . Q - You then obtained this diploma in industrial health in 1968? A. Correct. Q- What did you do when you moved to England in '56? Did you have employment or were you in school, or what were you doing? A. No, I worked for a year in a hospital in Kent, Farnborough, Kent, in the chest medicine unit there. And then I went to the London Chest Hospital. And I was at the London Chest Hospital, I believe, as a registrar, which is, I suppose, equivalent to a resident. And then I was a senior registrar and the resident medical officer as the country resident, medical resident assistant physician, I DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011514 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 14 forget what the title was. May I just look at this? MR. WILL: Sure. A. Resident assistant physician at the London Chest Hospital, Country Branch. And then I left in '61 to come to the United States. Q- Now, at some point along the way, you were a medical officer at Turner Brothers Asbestos. A. Yes, that wasn't until 1966. Q. So did you go back to Britain then? A. I went to Britain in '63, after being here from '61 to '63, at Albert Einstein College of Medicine. Q. In New York City? A. In New York City. And then from '63 to -- MR. WILL: Wait for him to ask you another question. THE WITNESS: Sorry. Q What did you do in 1963? A. That's when I went to the pneumoconioses medical panel in Manchester, in DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011515 1 Lewinsohn 15 2 England. 3 Q. And that is listed on your CV as 4 "Pneumoconiosis Medical Officer, Ministry of 5 Pensions and National Insurance? 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q. In Manchester? 8 A. That's correct. 9 Q. Did you that from '63 to '66? 10 A. Yes . 11 Q. 12 Brothers ? And then in 1966, you came to Turner 13 A. That's correct. 14 Q. Is that correct? 15 A. Yes, that's correct. 16 Q. Let me back up and go back to your 17 time in South Africa. 18 You obtained your medical degree in 19 '52, correct? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And while you were in medical school, 22 in other words, up until 1952, did you see any 23 patients who had been exposed to asbestos? 24 A. I don't remember. 25 Q. And when you obtained that medical DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212;)867- 8220 UCAREF00011516 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 16 degree in 1952, was that what we would call a. general medical degree, or had, at that point,, you specialized in some area? A. No, that was my general medical qualification. Q. Prom 1952 until you came to England in 1956, what were you doing? A. I had to do a year as an intern in South Africa. That meant you had to do six months internal medicine and six months in surgery. To fulfill that, six months, a house physician at the Chamber of Mines Springkell Sanatorium, which was near Johannesburg, and did six months orthopedics at the Addington Hospital in Durban. I then stayed on at Addington for a further six months as a senior house physician to do some further internal medicine training. And then went back to Johannesburg and worked at a casualty officer in the Johannesburg General Hospital of my teaching hospital for six months. And then, by that time, I felt that I would like to pursue further studies in chest DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011517 , . 1 Lewinsohn 17 2 diseases, and went back to the Chamber of Mines 3 Springkell Center Sanatorium as a resident medical 4 officer for a year. 5 Q. Where was that located? 6 A. That was near Johannesburg. 7 Q; And following your year's- work there, 8 is that when you went to England? 9 A. Then I went to England, yes. 10 Q. Let me ask you then, during the 11 period 1952 to 1956, after you obtained your 12 medical degree, but before you left for England, 13 during that time period, did you see patients with 14 any asbestos - related disease of one sort or 15 another ? 16 A. I don't remember seeing any. 17 Q. Let me just go through the different 18 things you did one year as an intern. 19 You did six months as intern in 20 medicine, and six months in surgery. 21 In the internal medicine portion of 22 that, what sort of patients would you see? 23 Were they just general patients that 24 would come into the hospital? 25 A. Yes. I suppose mostly patients with DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011518 Lewinsohn 18 cardiovascular lesions, neurological conditions, you know, the run of the mill general internal medicine patients. Q. Did you see any miners during that period of time? A. Let me just correct something. Are we talking about 1953 now? Q. Yes. I'm talking about your first year as an intern. A. Okay, I'm sorry, let me just correct that. The first year when I was at the six months that I spent at Springkell Sanatorium, that was run by the Chamber of Mines, and in order for a patient to be admitted to that sanatorium, that patient would have to be a miner. Now, these in Johannesburg were gold miners, basically. I don't believe I saw any other miners. During that period of time, I saw many cases of silicosis as a result of mining exposure, and many of those also were complicated with TB. Q. So what you were seeing as an intern DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011519 1 Lewinsohn 19 2 then was gold miners? 3 A. Gold miner. 4 Q. Among those gold miners, you saw some 5 silicosis? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Other than the silicosis, were there 8 any other pulmonary conditions caused by the gold 9 mining that you treated or that you saw? 10 A. I don't know of any other conditions 11 besides silicosis, as I said, complicated by TB. 12 Q. Did you have any understanding at 13 that time, or any knowledge at that time, that 14 there was any cancer among these gold miners of 15 one sort or another that was related to their work 16 in the mines? 17 A. Silicosis was not considered a 18 carcinogen. 19 Q. Were you seeing any lung cancer? 20 A. Yes, I saw lung cancer. But I 21 would -- yes, I saw lung cancer. 5 22 Q. Let's go to your next stint, and that 23 would be in Addington, where you were a senior y 24 house physician for six months? 25 A. I was a -- you skipped the DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011520 1 Lewinsohn 20 2 orthopedic. . 3 Q. I skipped the orthopedic? 4 A. Senior house physician, again, that 5 was a general run of the mill internal medicine 6 ward with heart cases, emphysema, bronchitis, 7 neurological cases, run of the mill stuff. 8 Q. Did you see any pneumoconiosis among 9 patients at that hospital? 10 A. I don't remember seeing any. 11 Q. Were there any miners seen? 12 A. No, not at Addington. 13 Also, unless, of course, somebody had 14 been a miner, but it wasn't specifically set up to 15 see miners. 16 Q. Next you were at Johannesburg as a 17 casualty officer. Would that be an emergency - type 18 situation? 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. In that situation, you would see 21 anyone who would come in with injury or disease? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Following that time, you went to back 24 to the Chamber of Mines, 1955. 25 That was in '55? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011521 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 21 A. I went back to the Chamber of Mines Springkell Sanatorium. Q. That is where you had been earlier? A. That is where I had done six months as a house physician in 1953. Q. Was it at that point in 1955 that you decided to concentrate or specialize in chest diseases ? A. I believe it was. Q. What was it if you can recall that far back that brought you into that specialty? why was it that you decided to specialize there? A. I think that my six months in 1953 had interested me in the subject, and that once I had completed my, you know, the further training that I felt I wanted to do, I went back to it. I went back to it and the training process in the British system is somewhat different from here, where you graduate from medical school and then go into an internship and residency program, which turns you out as one form of specialist or another at the end. And whereas, in the British system, DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011522 1 Lewinsohn 22 2 you, I suppose, gravitate to eventually what your 3 interest is, but the early years of training are 4 sort of nonspecific. 5 And that is how I -- so in 1955, I . 6 had decided that I would like to continue to learn 7 more about chest diseases. 8 Q. So if we could summarize your medical 9 training up until 1955, it would be general 10 medical training nonspecific to any specialty, and 11 1955 was when you focused on chest diseases? 12 Is that fair to say? 13 A. That is fair to say, I think, yes. 14 Q. And again, going back to the Chamber 15 of Mines, describe for us exactly what that was. 16 Was this a sanatorium or a hospital 17 which just treated the gold miners or what was 18 that? 19 A. Yes. It's a long time ago, so you 20 must forgive me. I don't remember all about it 21 but - - 22 Q. As best you recall. 23 A. It was owned by the Chamber of Mines, 0 24 as I told you previously. 25 It treated, it admitted patient9 who DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011523 1 Lewinsohn 23 2 either were gold miners or had been, gold miners 3 and were in receipt of a pension from the Chamber 4 of Mines, and treated them for chest diseases. 5 It specialized in chest diseases. 6 The name implies it started off as a sanatorium 7 for the treatment of TB, because one af the major 8 complications of silicosis is pulmonary TB. 9 By 1953, when I went to work there, 10 it was admitting patients with TB, was being 11 treated with the new antibiotics and chemotherapy 12 and was being brought under control and was 13 treatable. 14 People weren't spending three, four, 15 five years of their lives in sanatoriums while on 16 bed rest getting well. They were being treated 17 with drugs and getting out and being discharged. 18 So the bed they had been occupying 19 were available for other sorts of chest cases. So 20 the sanatorium also admitted some cases with heart 21 disease that were operable, and it admitted other 6 22 chest cases with other types of chest conditions 23 for investigation and treatment that were not 24 necessarily silicosis. 25 Q. So you still saw silicosis, I take DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011524 1 Lewinsohn 24 2 it, but you were also seeing other things at that 3 t ime ? 4 A. Yes, we were. 5 Q. Maybe you told us this -- I guess you 6 were there for maybe one year, is that right, or 7 was it more than that? 8 A. In 1953, it was six months, and then 9 1955, '56, was one year. 10 Q. During the time that you were in 11 South Africa until you left for England, you told 12 us earlier, I think, that you hadn't seen any 13 patients during that time who were suffering from 14 any asbestos - related disease. 15 Is that fair to say? 16 A. I don't remember having seen any. 17 Q. And during that period of time, 18 during the entire course of that training going 19 back to your medical degree and then up through 20 '56, had you studied or learned anything about 21 asbestos or other asbestos - related conditions as 22 part of your medical training? 23 A. As part of my medical training, I had 24 heard and been told and taught about asbestos. 25 But I don't recollect having DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011525 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 25 personally seen a case. Q. And was it your understanding, again, taking you back into those years up until 1956, if you recall, if you don't, just tell me so, in those years, was it your understanding that there was any asbestos occurring or that had occurred in South Africa, or was this something that you studied about occurring in Britain? A. I don't remember, quite honestly, whether I was aware at that time of South Africa as a country with a problem related to asbestos. Q. Let me ask you this: You were aware, of course, that there were various asbestos mines and pits in South Africa, I take it? A. Not necessarily aware of it. Q. Well, then let me rephrase it Until 1956, were you aware of the fact that there was asbestos mining activity in South Africa? A. I can't say I was. Q. But I take it, you never saw any of the workers from those mines during that time? A. I did not. Q. And were you familiar with Dr. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011526 Lewinsohn 26 Wagner, Chris Wagner, before you left South Africa? A. I think I had met Dr. Wagner before I left South Africa. Q. And again, I - 7 A. South Africa. Sorry, let me just 8 say, yes, I had met Dr. Wagner in South Africa. 9 Q. So that would be before 1956 at some 10 point ? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Do you recall in what context you met 13 him in South Africa? 14 A. Yes, I met him while I was at 15 Springkell Sanatorium, and Dr. Wagner was one of 16 the pathologists that used to do autopsies. 17 Q. And again, before you left South 18 Africa, had you heard of the conditions of 19 mesothelioma? 20 A. No. 21 Q. And going back to this meeting or 22 meetings with Dr. Wagner when he was doing 23 pathology for you, did he mention, if you can 24 recall, at any of those meetings that he was 25 looking, or that he was seeing any mesotheliomas DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 - UCAREF00011527 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 27 in patients? . A. Not that I recall. Q. Do you recall when the first time was that you heard of Dr. Wagner's findings or reports of mesothelioma among South African miners? A. I believe that it was when I was at the London Chest Hospital between 1957 and 1958, that period of time. Maybe even '57 to '59. I can't be precise on the date. When the pathologist at the London Chest Hospital, whose name was Dr. Hinson, told me that he had a meeting with a fellow South African, Dr. Wagner, who had been over to see him to discuss his findings of cases of mesothelioma in asbestos workers in South Africa. Q. Let's just see if I've got this straight. At some point when you were at the London Chest Hospital from '57 to '59, your pathologist, Dr. Hinson, had spoken to Dr. Wagner? Is that correct? A. That is correct. Dr. Hinson was a world-renowned pulmonary pathologist. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011528 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 28 Q. So you didn't speak to Dr. Wagner directly during this period? A. I did not speak to Dr. Wagner directly. Q. Do you recall what it was that Dr. Hinson reported to you about Dr. Wagner's findings ? A. I don't -- no, I don't recall. Except that, you know, I think he told me about his meetings as a matter of interest, because we were both South Africans. Q. Did you understand from those understandings with Dr. Hinson that Dr. Wagner had found mesothelioma among asbestos miners, or were these factory workers, or do you have any recollection of that? A. No. Q. What you do recall is simply the report to Dr. Hinson that Dr. Wagner had seen mesotheliomas? Would that be fair to say? A. Yes, Dr.Wagner was over to discuss these cases with Dr. Hinson, Dr.' Hinson being an authority on pulmonary pathology. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011529 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 29 Q. And this, of course, would be before Dr. Wagner published those cases. Would that be fair to say? A. Yes, I don't think the cases were published until 1959. Q. When they were published, did you read Dr. Wagner's paper about the cases? Do you recall that? A. I don't recall reading those cases at that point in time. Q. Do you recall when the first time was that you did read those cases in the published literature? A. I would say, probably not until just either before or at the time just before I left to go back to England in '63, or after getting back to England in '63, and joining the pneumoconiosis medical panel did I do any reading about mesothelioma and Dr. Wagner's cases. Q. Now we're jumping ahead a little bit here. But at the time that you did read about those, can you remember the context? In other words, was this in DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011530 1 Lewinsohn 30 2 connection with some research you were doing,,or a 3 meeting you were attending, or did you just happen 4 to read about them, or how did that come about? 5 A. No, I was at - - I believe it would be 6 when I joined the Pneumoconiosis Medical Panel in 7 Manchester. 8 And I obviously had to be familiar 9 with, and up to date with all of the latest 10 developments in occupational lung diseases. 11 So, at that time, I read in greater 12 depth about mesothelioma. 13 Q. And that would be just generally in 14 connection with bringing yourself up to date on 15 the various diseases in connection with your work 16 at the pneumoconiosis unit? 17 A. Yes, because part of my role there 18 was diagnosing occupational diseases. 19 Q. Let me now go back to, I think we 20 were in 1956, you left South Africa. 2 1 You went to England and you spent one 22 year in the hospital at Kent, is that correct? 23 A. That's correct. 24 Q. And while you were at that hospital, 25 I'm just trying to find it here in your CV, let's DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011531 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 31 see here. Let's go back a little further. Senior house officer, Department of Medicine at Farnborugh, Kent. It said, you were attached to the chest unit, is that correct? A. That is correct. Q. And what sort of conditions were you seeing or treating during that year in Kent? A. This was a TB ward, basically. Q. Were you seeing any pneumoconiosis of any sort at that time? A. Not that I can recollect. . Q. Were there any, you have to pardon my geography of England, but was there any coal mining around Kent? A. No. Q. So that wasn't the coal mining area? A. No . Q. So you weren't seeing any coal miners? A. No. Q. Any mining of any kind that you were seeing, of any kind? A. No. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011532 1 Lewinsohn 32 2 Q. Then you went from '57, or in '57, 3 you went to the Pinewood Hospital in Wokingham in 4 Berkshire, correct? 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. What sort of work were you doing 7 there? 8 A. That was a two-month stint as a local 9 tenant. 10 Q. As a what? 11 A. Locum Tenens, just like a temporary 12 job. And that was a TB sanatorium. 13 Q. And did you see any pneumoconiosis 14 there? 15 A. No, I did not. 16 Q. Then you went to the London Chest 17 Hospital in '57, from '57 to '58 as a medical 18 registrar. 19 What did that involve? 20 A. That's equivalent to a resident in 21 the American system. 22 And the London Chest Hospital 23 admitted cases from basically the east end of 24 London, mostly chronic obstructive pulmonary 25 disease, bronchitis, emphysema. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. {212)867-8220 UCAREF00011533 Lewinsohn 33 There was still quite a lot of TB around, lots of cases of lung cancers, and we also did cardiovascular surgery at the London Chest Hospital, so there were various heart diseases there for the treatment. Q. And then during the next year, from '59 to '60, you were the senior registrar at the London Chest Hospital. I take it, that was the same place? A. No, this was at the Country Branch Arlesey, Beds. That -- I was actually the senior physician on the house staff there, and in charge of this hospital, which was again largely TB, where the TB cases from London were sent. The ones that were going to take longer to get better were sent out to the country for, you know, to be treated long term, and also did some surgery out there. Q. During this stint in Britain from '56 to '60, did you learn anything further about asbestosis, other than the knowledge you had gained back in South Africa? A. That's a difficult question to answer, because I don't know how I can say what I DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011534 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 34 specifically learned at what time. Q. Let me do this. Taking yourself up to the time you left for New York, the period of time you were in England the first time, you say you can't specifically recall if you learned anything further about asbestosis. Would that be fair to say? A. I didn't exactly say that I didn't learn anything further. I said that I couldn't place it within a time frame. Q. Okay. A. It's difficult to do that. I know that I knew more about asbestosis by the time I left to come to the United States than I had known when I probably - when I started to work in England. The reason I say that, to answer your question, is that I -- and you'll see that in my resume -- I had a course in advanced medicine at the London Hospital in January '61 to March '61. Q. Let's see, I'm trying to find that. Yes, here it is. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011535 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 35 A. And I obviously knew something about asbestosis then because I can remember seeing a case, being shown a case in the wards to discuss and being able to discuss. Q. So during your course in advanced medicine in '61, when you say you saw a case, there actually was a patient there with asbestosis or was it - - A. It was a demonstration case by one of the teachers of the course and, you know, the way they teach in medicine is to pull some poor student out the crowd and ask him or her to examine the case and venture a diagnosis. And I was that poor student, so that's how I remember it so well. Q. How was the diagnosis made in that case? Was it on x-ray or was it pathologic? A. It was a clinical diagnosis and then, obviously, history, asking questions, then being -- then being prompted by the teacher, what else would you like to know, and asking for an x-ray, et cetera. Q. Since you were the student who was DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011536 1 Lewinsohn 36 2 pulled out of the crowd for that case, do you_ 3 recall what the clinical history was that was . 4 being given by the patient? 5 A. No, I honestly don't recall that. 6 Q. Do you recall if that patient was a 7 worker in a British asbestos factory? 8 A. No, I don't recall the occupational 9 history. 10 Q. 11 A. Do you recall what the diagnosis was? The diagnosis was asbestosis. 12 And I believe that man also had lung 13 cancer, but I really am taxing my memory. 14 Q. I understand that. We're going back 15 a long ways. 9 16 If you don't understand any of this, 17 tell me so, but I am trying to get what you do 18 recall. 19 A. I do remember that case. 20 Q. Let me stop you there then, as long 21 as we're on the topic of that case. 22 By that point in time, 1961, had you 23 come to learn or understand that there was some . 24 relation between asbestos exposure or asbestosis 25 and lung cancer? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011537 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 37 A. Yes, I had. Q. And do you recall where you had gained that knowledge? A. I suppose primarily, from the literature. Q. Did you know Dr. Gerrit Schepers at that point? A. No, I never met Dr. Schepers. Q. I take it, you've heard of him in recent years, but I'm wondering, back in those years, had you ever heard of him? A. I heard of Dr. Schepers when I was at Springkell Sanatorium. I believe Dr. Schepers was somehow or other connected with the Chamber of Mines and had some administrative responsibilities for the miners that we admitted to the sanatorium for the administration of their benefits and that sort of thing. Q. Let me take you back to the patient with the asbestosis which you were plucked out of the crowd to discuss in 1961. Was it you who that made the diagnosis of asbestosis, or had that diagnosis DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867,8220 UCAREF00011538 1 Lewinsohn 38 2 previously been made by someone else and they were 3 testing you to see if you could get it correct? 4 A. This was a documented case of 5 asbestosis that was probably admitted for that day 6 and paid to come in, just to be a case for the 7 students to examine and talk about. 8 Q. And did the patient have lung cancer 9 at the time that this discussion took place on the 10 date when he came in? 11 A. I believe he did. 12 Q. And did you have any understanding at 13 that point that that patient's lung cancer was 14 related to his asbestos exposure? 15 A. I knew at that time that there was an 16 association between lung cancer and the disease 17 asbestosis. 18 Q. And did you understand at that time 19 that if a person had asbestosis, that there was an 20 increased risk or increased probability that he 21 could get lung cancer as a result of that? 22 A. I think that's what I just said. 23 Q. Was it also your understanding at 24 that time that an asbestos - exposed individual 25 needed to have clinical asbestosis before there DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011539 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 39 was an increased probability risk of him getting lung cancer, if you recall? MR. GERSON: Could you repeat the question? A. I think you're asking - MR. BROWNSON: I better ask her to repeat it, so I can get it accurately. (Record read) MR. WILL: I think you need to rephrase it. A. I think you need to rephrase it. MR. BROWNSON: If you want to take a break at any time, just tell me and we'll do so. Let me rephrase that question. Q. What I was getting at is, taking yourself back to that case in 1961, at that point in time, if you recall, did you have any understanding that an asbestos-induced or an asbestos - related lung cancer could be found in a patient who did not have asbestosis? A. At that time, I believe it was generally held that it was a prerequisite for asbestosis to be present in order for the lung DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011540 I 10 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 40 cancer to be considered related. Q. And if you can recall, what was the clinical definition of asbestosis at that time? A. I can't recall. Q. Let me ask you this: Was the diagnosis of asbestosis at that time, in 1961, made based upon an x-ray? A. The diagnosis of asbestosis, as far as I'm concerned, is never made on the basis of any single finding. Q. What were the diagnostic criteria at that time, if you can recall? A. The clinical criteria were symptoms of breathlessness, shortness of breath, aggressive shortness of breath, the presence of fine crepitant rales, usually at the lung base and extending up to the aveoli which did not disappear on coughing, mainly the inspiratory phase of respiration, with or without the presence of clubbing of the fingers and toes. And with radiological appearances which, in those days, one referred to as -- I'm trying to think of the term - - Q. Shadows? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011541 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 41 A. No, I'm crying to chink of the terminology, it's gone for the moment, a shaggy heart border on the x-ray, and lower zone infiltrates. I guess that is as close as I can get. That, I would say, would be the diagnosis was made on those clinical criteria. Q. And the lower zone infiltrates on the x-ray, that would be some actual visible fibrosis on the x-ray? A. Yes, I didn't call it fibrosis, but that is what it would be, yes. Q. Was it required at that time, as part of the diagnostic criteria, that this lower zone infiltrates or fibrosis be bilateral? A. Oh, yes. Usually bilateral. Q. And let me ask you this: Was the rales a required part of the criteria; in other words, if that was not present, the diagnosis could not be made, or how did that work? A. Well, for a c/ linician to make a diagnosis of pulmonary fibrosis, which is what asbestosis is, in those days, when the stethoscope DOYLE REPORTING, INC. {212)867-8220 UCAREF00011542 Lewinsohn 42 was still very much respected as a diagnostic instrument, the presence of bilateral found crepitant rales was one of the essentials of making a diagnosis. Q. Clubbing was not, in other words, 7 clubbing was something that was looked for, but 8 not essential? 9 A. Clubbing was the not a pathopneumonic 10 of asbestosis, but it often was found in 11 conjunction with it. 12 Q. And do you remember if this 13 particular individual had any clubbing of the 14 fingers ? 15 A. Yes, this particular individual did 16 have clubbing of the fingers. 17 Q. Was this the first actual case of 18 asbestosis you had seen, as you think back on it? 19 A. Probably. That is probably why I 20 remember it so clearly. 21 Q. At least it sticks out in your mind 22 because you were plucked from the crowd to discuss 23 it? 24 A. It does. 25 Q. Again, let me take you back to that DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011543 1 Lewinsohn 43 2 time, 1961. 3 You mentioned that you were familiar 4 with the association of the lung cancer and 5 asbestosis at that time. 6 Do you remember what literature or 7 reports you had read up to that time on that topic 8 of lung cancer and asbestosis? 9 A. I think the report that I that I knew 10 about was the work of Richard Doll, which had been 11 published in 1955, in fact, where he showed 12 increased incidents in excess of lung cancer in 13 asbestos textile work as had been exposed for a 14 long period of time and eventually asbestosis. 15 A. I need to take a break. 16 Q. Sure. 17 (Recess taken.) 18 BY MR. BROWNSON: 19 Q. Dr. Lewinsohn, we were talking about 20 1961 in this asbestosis case that you were 21 reviewing in London. 22 And I think the last question and 23 answer was that this was, as you recalled it, the 24 first asbestosis case that you had seen, as you 25 sit here today and think back on it. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011544 1 Lewinsohn 44 2 Would that be fair to say? 3 A. That's fair to say, yes. 4 Q. Now at the time you saw this case in 5 1961, as I understand it, you were aware of the 6 work of Dr. Wagner and the mesothelioma, at least 7 from your conversations with the pathologist, is 8 it Hinson? 9 A. Hinson, yes. 10 Q. Right. 11 But as I understand it, you had not 12 actually read Dr. Wagner's paper at that time. 13 Would that the be fair to say? 14 A. Not that I can remember. 15 Q. But you had read Sir Richard Doll's 16 paper about the asbestos textile workers and lung 17 cancers? 18 A. I was aware of that, yes. I had read 19 it. 20 Q. That's what I wasn't clear on, if you 21 had actually read his paper at that time, or had 22 just heard about it? 23 A. That's difficult to say whether I 24 read about it or heard about it, but -- I knew 25 about it. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011545 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 45 Q. You, of course, were familiar with Dr. Richard Doll, knew who he was and such? A. Yes, knew who Richard Doll was because of his work on smoking and cancer. Q. I shouldn't say "Dr." A. He was, at that time. Dr. Richard Doll. He wasn't knighted until later. Q. Before the "Sir." A. Right. Q. Would it be fair to say that, by 1961, when you saw this asbestosis patient, it was commonly held in, at least where you sat in England, that lung cancer could be related to asbestosis? A. Could you just repeat that? Sorry. Q. As of 1961, when you saw this asbestosis patient, would it be fair to say that it was commonly held in the medical community that lung cancer could be related to asbestosis? MR. WILL: Bob, I don't know if you have established that he has a basis for all of this, but he can go ahead, subject to that objection. MR. BR0WNS0N: That's why I am DOYLE REPORTING, INC. {212)867-8220 UCAREF00011546 1 Lewinsohn 46 2 asking. 3 A. My answer to that would be that 4 asbestosis was probably not a very common disease 5 which most of the medical community would have 6 been familiar with. 7 But that those people specializing in 8 chest diseases would have known about. 9 Q. When you say it was not a common 10 disease, in the year 1961, would that be 11 because -- strike that. 12 Would it be fair to say that 13 asbestosis was never a common disease in England? 14 A. I suppose that if you put asbestosis 15 in relationship to something like bronchitis and 16 emphysema, that which would have been the common 17 chest disease in England, it was a relatively - 18 it was a relatively small proportion of cases that 19 chest physicians would see. 20 Q. And as of 1961, did you have any 21 understanding, or had you gained any understanding 22 of the latency period between exposure to asbestos 23 and any onset of lung cancer? 24 A. No, because in 1961, you know, I. 25 really wasn't studying in any great depth the DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011547 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 47 diseases of occupations, although I was interested in them. Q. Did you have any understanding, in 1961, that with the -- how would I put this - with the demise of TB and with the factory regulations in England, that there was an increase of the tumors or cancer seen among asbestos - exposed individuals because they were living longer? A. That is a formative period in my career, and I was probably learning about things. And where at this moment in time, I can't recollect what my precise knowledge was, I can't answer that question. Q. Did there come a time when you gained an understanding along those lines? A. Did there come a time? Q. Right. A. When I gained anunderstanding that? Q. Well, I don'twant to rephrase that whole question, but the point I'm trying to get at was, did you gain an understanding at some point in time that tumors or cancers were showing up among asbestos-exposed individuals in large part DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011548 1 Lewinsohn 48 2 because the serious pulmonary diseases had been 3 taken care of to some extent, so these patients 4 were living longer and tumors were starting to be 5 seen at later points in their life? 6 A. I don't know where you get that 7 information from, but that's never been part of my '8 thinking. 9 Q. Well, I get it from reading some of 10 the early literature in England where statements 11 are made to the effect that, in the early days, 12 particularly before the British factory 13 regulations in 1931 and such, and even after that, 14 that there were the heavy exposures and people 15 were getting serious pulmonary diseases and dying 16 of these diseases. 17 And in the later years, as those 18 things were brought more under control, these 19 people were living longer and they were starting 20 to see the cancers appear. 21 A. Okay. 22 I think what threw me in your 23 question was your general terminology of people. 24 What I would say is that - 25 Q. What I mean to say is asbestos DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011549 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 49 workers. A. If you were to say asbestos workers, then, yes, I believe there came a point in time when it was my feeling that as the severity of asbestosis decreased and, in fact, the incidents of asbestosis declined, there was a greater opportunity for the development subsequently of tumors in those individuals who had survived beyond the time span that they would have survived in the earlier days. Q. That's the point I was trying to make . Do you remember when you gained that understanding? A. I would say that some time in between joining the Pneumoconiosis Medical Panel and going to work at Turner Brothers Asbestos in Rochdale. Q. Again, among people in the field, that would be people, I guess chest physicians who dealt with occupational diseases, was this a view that was held in the field during those years, . early sixties up until the time you started with Turner Brothers in, I guess, '66? A. I don't think that the run of the DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011550 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 50 mill physician in the field was terribly concerned with those issues, particularly clinicians. I think that these were issues that were being considered by the epidemiologists, people doing research into the manifestation, incidents and development of disease. Q. And among the people doing the research at that time, in the early or by the early sixties, was certainly Sir Richard Doll was involved in that field? Would that be fair to say? A. I would say Sir RichardDoll was certainly involved in that field. Q. Who else in England, during those times, early 1960s, were involved in that field? A. well, I think there were people in government, in the -- Q. Factory inspector? A. The factory inspector. I believe that people at the Medical Research Council in Penart, in Wales, could have been -- were involved, like Dr. Gilson. I think that Dr. Wagner was, by that time, working in England as well. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011551 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 51 So those were some of the people that I could think of. Q. How about Dr. Timbrell, was he involved in that? A. Well, I can't speak for Dr. Timbrell. I don't know when he became involved. Q. How about Dr. Robert Murray, do you know if he was involved with the factory inspectorate in those years, in the early sixties? A. Again, I didn't know Dr. Robert Murray in that period of time, in 1961. In fact, I did not meet Dr. Robert Murray until I went to Turner Brothers, which was my first meeting with him. I would say that anybody working for the factory inspectorate suddenly was aware of the asbestos-related diseases and of the epidemiology, because they would acquire that knowledge as part of their job. Q. Would it also be fair to say that, as of the early 1960s, before you went to Turner Brothers, that anyone dealing within the area of pneumoconiosis would be familiar with the work of Sir Richard Doll and the work of the factory DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011552 1 Lewinsohn 52 2 inspectorate, Dr. Meriwether? 3 MR. WILL: Can you be a little more 4 specific as to what time you are talking 5 about ? 6 Are you talking about in the United 7 States, at Albert Einstein? 8 MR. BROWNSON: Let me back up. 9 Q. Let me take you back to 1961, when we 10 were talking a little while ago about that 11 asbestosis. 12 Did you understand that there was a 13 factory inspectorate at that time? 14 A. I knew there was a factory 15 inspectorate, yes. 16 Q. Were you familiar with the literature 17 coming out of the factory inspectorateby that 18 time, 1961, dealing with the asbestos textile 19 factories in England? 20 A. No. 21 Q. When was the first time that you 22 became familiar with that literature? 23 A. Probably not until the period of time 24 that I was either with the Pneumoconiosis Medical 25 Panel, or shortly after I went to Turner Brothers. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011553 1 Lewinsohn 53 2 Q. Just so we can put a date on it, when 3 had you started at the Pneumoconiosis Panel, in 4 ' 63 ? 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. So at that point, in the 1963 to '66 7 time period, you became familiar with that work? 8 A. Well, '63 and onwards, even maybe 9 after '66, when I went to Turner Brothers, but I 10 can't place a - - 11 Q. Let me ask you this: When you began 12 in the Pneumoconiosis Panel, you told us that it 13 was at that point that you read, for example, Dr. 14 Wagner's paper about the mesotheliomas. 15 Is that correct? 16 A. When I went to the Pneumoconiosis 17 Medical Panel, I had to familiarize myself with 18 mesothelioma and other occupational lung diseases. 19 Q. Of course, you already knew about 20 asbestosis at that time? 21 A. I knew about asbestosis. 22 Q. Do you recall if, at that time when 23 you started at the Pneumoconiosis Panel, that you 24 read, for instance, the papers by Dr. Meriwether 25 dealing with the asbestos workers? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011554 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 54 A. No, I did not read Dr. Meriwether's paper at the time I was with the Pneumoconiosis Medical Panel. Q. When you began at the Pneumoconiosis Medical Panel in 1963, did you -- strike that. As I understand it, the purpose of that panel was to - - I don't know what the proper word was -- was to qualify or rate people for pensions? Is that fair to say? Disability pensions. ' A. The Pneumoconiosis Medical Panel had a number of functions, one of which was to medically evaluate persons claiming industrial injuries benefits for pneumoconiosis, and to make a diagnosis. And after making a diagnosis, to give an estimate of the degree of impairment, so that these people would then receive a pension based upon that medical opinion. Q. Okay. A. That was one of our functions. Q. When you were on the panel from '63 to '66, were you actually engaged as a physician DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011555 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 55 during that work, or were you on some sort of administrative task? A. No, that was my role. Q. And there - - A. There were five of us doing that. Q. And the five of you who did that, was that just in the Manchester office or would that be throughout the country? A. No, we worked in the region that the office covered. It was a regional office and it took us into most of Lancashire, work parts of Yorkshire-Bersk Bershire, and parts of Northern Ireland. Q. So there were five of these medical officers on the regional panel, and you were one of the five? A. And one of whom was the, I guess, the senior medical officer who had responsibility for the administration of the medical aspects of the panel's work. Q. During those three years that you were a medical officer in the Pneumoconiosis Panel, I assume you saw, for instance, coal DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011556 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 56 miners? ,, A. Yes. Q. And did you also see any asbestos workers during that three-year period? A. Yes. Q. Were these asbestos worke-rs who you saw out of some particular plant or facilities, or were they just kind of a helter-skelter group of people? Let me put it another way. Within your region, were there certain asbestos plants or facilities out of which you saw workers making claims for benefits? A. Yes, there were. Q. What were those plants or facilities that were in your region? A. There was the Turner Brothers Asbestos Company Limited, which had two plants. There was another Turner York Company. Turner Asbestos Cement, which had, if I recall correctly, two plants. There was a company called Small & Parkes, which made brake linings. I think they DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011557 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 57 were a Cape Asbestos subsidiary. There was, in addition, a shipyard in a town called Barrow -In-Furnass, up in Bedfordshire, where we used to see cases. That's probably enough. There were some others Q. Let me, before we get into that, let's back up a minute. When you went to the United States, as I understand it, from '62 to '63, you were in the United States? A. '61 to ' 63 . Q. '61 to ' 63? A. Yes. Q. And were you at Albert Einstein College for that two -year period? A. I did a residency at the Bronx Municipal Hospital Center, which is the teaching center for Albert Einstein. I was on a residency in pulmonary diseases. Then I had a fellowship in cardiopulmonary physiology at Albert Einstein. Q. During that time period, did you see any asbestos - related disease in the Bronx or at DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011558 1 Lewinsohn 58 2 Einstein? 3 A. I don't remember seeing that. 4 Q. I suppose I should ask you, although 5 I think I know the answer to this, did you ever 6 meet Dr. Selikoff during those years? 7. A. 1961 to '63? 8 Q. To '63 . 9 A. No, I did not. 10 Q. Let's go back when you were on the 11 Pneumoconiosis Panel from '63 to '66. 12 You mentioned that you saw workers 13 from Turner Brothers and, as I understand it, 14 Turner Brothers had two plants in your region? 15 A. Two plants, yes. 16 Q. And which two plants were those? 17 A. There was the Rochdale factory and 18 there was one at a factory called Hindley Green 19 near Wigan in Lancashire. 20 Q. Was the Rochdale factory still in 21 operation during those years? 22 A. Oh, yes. 23 Q. When had that factory begun, as you .V 24 had understood it? 25 A. Well, it had started its life as a DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011559 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 59 cotton mill, and I believe after the turn of the century, the first asbestos was brought to Rochdale. Q. Do you know -- again, I don't want to dwell on these early years, but in the early years of the Rochdale plant, what it it was using the asbestos for? A. It was using it for textile. It was a textile plants. Q. Was it a textile plant throughout the year, or did they get into other products? A. Well, it was always atextile plant, but they did have other products there as well. Q. So let's go up through the year 1963, when you were on the Pneumoconiosis Panel. Were they still making asbestos textiles at Rochdale? A. Yes, they were. Q. And in addition to that, by 1963, were they making any other products, other than the textiles at Rochdale? A. Yes, they were. Q. What was that? A. They had variousrubber composite DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011560 1 Lewinsohn 60 2 products that they were making. 3 Q. What would these be like sheet goods? 4 A. Rubber sheeting, Hindley Green -- I'm 5 sorry, Rochdale, sheeting. 6 I don't remember precisely, but there 7 was a rubber department. 8 Q. And during the time you were on the 9 Pneumoconiosis Panel from '61 to '63, did you ever 10 visit the Rochdale plant? 11 A. No. When I was on the panel? 12 Q. When you were on the panel. 13 A. Yes, it was part of my job. 14 Q. During that time period '61 to '63, 15 did you see or did you examine workers from the 16 Rochdale plant as part of your duties on this 17 Pneumoconiosis Panel? 18 . A. Yes. Part of our duties on the panel 19 was to do initial and periodic examinations of 20 workers in certain industries to qualify them 21 medically for working in those industries. 22 And then, you know, so we could see 23 them initially, and then follow them periodically 24 to see that they were still qualified over the 25 time that they were getting ill. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011561 . W 1 Lewinsohn 61 2 Q. So I had asked you initially about 3 this business of seeing patients for purposes of 4 determining medical pensions. 5 But in addition to that, as I 6 understand it, you also gave them qualifying 7 scales and periodic scales? 8 A. That was a statutory requirement. 9 Q. When you would do that for the 10 workers at Turner Brothers and Rochdale, would you 11 go to Rochdale and do it at the plant or was there 12 a hospital there? 13 A. Yes. 14 The regulations require that the 15 employer make available the necessary 16 accommodation, and Rochdale had a very well 17 equipped medical facility on-site. 18 Q. Right at the plant? 19 A. At the plant. 20 Q. As I understand the physical exams 21 that you would do for the workers at Rochdale from 22 '61 to '63, if a new worker was hired, they had to 23 have a qualifying exam before they began. 2 4 Is that correct? 25 A. It had to be done within, I believe, DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011562 1 Lewinsohn 62 2 three months of hire. 3 Q. What did that exam consist of, this 4 qualifying exam? 5 A. It was a physical -- a history, usual 6 medical and occupational history, and then a 7 physical examination. 8 Q. And was there anything in a person's 9 medical history that would disqualify them for 10 work at Rochdale during those years? 11 A. I believe we had certain criteria. I 12 can't remember exactly what they were. 13 For example, active TB, presence of 14 . preexisting pneumoconiosis, some of these people 15 had been coal miners, worked in other industries, 16 but preexisting pneumoconiosis, severe chronic 17 lung disease. 18 Q. I'm curious. Were you still seeing 19 active TB in '61 to '63? 20 A. Certainly. 21 MR. WILL: I think he misspoke. I 22 think you meant '63 to '66? 23 MR. BROWNSON: '63 to '66 is what I 24 meant to say. 25 THE WITNESS: Yes. DOYLE REPORTING, INC 212)867-8220 UCAREF00011563 1 Lewinsohn 63 2 A. Not frequently but yes. 3 Q. So would it be fair to say that the 4 British factory regulations from '63 to '66 5 required the qualifying exam to work in an 6 asbestos textile plant? 7 A. The silicosis and asbestosis medical 8 arrangement scheme of 1931 required that the 9 Pneumoconiosis Medical Panel examine workers in 10 certain industries to determine their suitability 11 for employment in those industries. 12 Q. And one of those industries would be 13 asbestos textile? 14 A. As best -- well -- 15 Q. Or asbestos generally? 16 A. Well, it was -- there were the 17 regulations for asbestos were the asbestos 18 industry regulations of 1931, and there were 19 certain criteria established under those 20 regulations to determine where they were 21 applicable. 22 And wherever those regulations were 23 applicable, the panels were required to provide 24 these examinations. 25 Q. So as of '63 to '66, it was the 1931 DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011564 1 Lewinsohn 64 2 regulations that were still in effect? 3 A. That is correct. . 4 Q. And those regulations applied to the 5 Turner Brothers Rochdale textile plants? 6 A. They did. 7 Q. And did they apply because asbestos 8 was being used there, or did they apply for other 9 reasons as well? 10 A. No, the asbestos regulations industry 11 applied because of the use of asbestos. 12 Q. Were there other 13 pneumoconiosis-producing dusts or regulated dusts 14 in that plant from '63 to '66 other than asbestos? 15 A. No. 16 Q. You mentionedthat, early on, that 17 had started its life as a cotton mill. 18 When did that end? Do you know? 19 A. Oh, I would say, probably before the 20 first World War, maybe earlier. 21 Q. So from 1931, at the time the factory 22 regulations went into effect, up until 1966, when 23 you joined Turner Brothers, would the regulated 24 dust or the pneumoconiosis-producing dust at 25 Rochdale have been asbestos? ' DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011565 1 Lewinsohn 65 2 A. Yes, it would have. 3 Q. Were there any other, than the 4 asbestos, during those years? 5 A. No. 6 Q. In addition to thisinitial 7 qualifying exam, if I can call it that, were 8 periodic scales also required of the men at 9 Rochdale when you were on the Pneumoconiosis Panel 10 f rom '63 to '66 ? 11 A. Men and women, yes. 12 Q. What was the requirement for the 13 periodic exams? 14 A. The statutory requirement was that 15 they had to be conducted periodically at least 16 every two years. 17 Q. And again, would that be the same 18 sort of examination or clinical pulmonary 19 examination? 20 A. Yes, it was basically limited to an 21 examination of the heart and lungs of the chest 22 and a history. 23 Q. And would that include x-rays? 24 A. X-ray was not a requirement, but if 25 the examining physician wanted an x-ray, he could DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011566 1 Lewinsohn 66 2 ask for one. 3 Q. And during the years you were on the 4 Pneumoconiosis Panel, from '63 to '66, did you ask 5 for x-rays for any of the Rochdale workers? 6 A. I didn't have to, because at 7 Rochdale, they had their own medical surveillance 8 medical program running concurrently, and their 9 physician would examine their employees every two 10 years as well. 11 So that they would examine in the 12 intercurrent years between the two years required 13 by the panel and then the company's requirements. 14 And they were all x-rayed, and when 15 we went out as representing the panel to do these 16 exams, we were provided with their x-rays. 17 Q. So - - 18 A. So atthat particularfacility, we 19 did not have to request x-rays. They were given 20 to us. 21 Q. So atthe Rochdale plant forTurner 22 Brothers, Turner Brothers would do medical exams 23 every two years and they would take an x-ray as 24 part of that exam? 25 A. Right. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011567 1 Lewinsohn 67 2 Q. And then you would come in on the odd 3 year? 4 A. That's correct. 5 Q. And do your own exam, correct? 6 A. Yes . 7 Q. So these men and woman actually were 16 8 seen once a year, one year by you and the next 9 year by Turner Brothers? 10 A. That's correct, unless either the 11 panel or the Turner Brothers physician wanted that 12 frequency increased. 13 Q. And did the frequency of exams have 14 anything to do with the type of work that the 15 workers were doing, or did it apply equally to all 16 of the workers in the plant? 17 A. It applied equally to all of the 18 employees who were in what we would call the 19 scheduled areas. Those were the areas where the 20 asbestos industry regulations of 1931 apply. 21 Q. And the x-rays that were taken then 22 of the Rochdale workers were taken by the Turner 23 Brothers medical staff, and then when you would 24 come in for your bi-annual reviews on the 25 Pneumoconiosis Panel, you would request the most DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011568 1 Lewinsohn 68 2 recent x-ray for the workers, is that correct? 3 A. We were given the package. 4 Q. So this would - 5 A. We didn't have to request at 6 Rochdale. 7 Q. Would the package then include all of 8 the x-rays that had been taken? 9 A. All of the serial x-rays that had 10 been taken. 11 Q. And what was it, or what criteria 12 were there on these periodic exams that you did on 13 the Pneumoconiosis Panel that could disqualify a 14 worker from working in the plants? 15 A. Well, some, I already mentioned to 16 you. 17 The presence of TB or development of 18 other chest diseases, et cetera, that, in our 19 opinion, made these people appear to be more 20 susceptible to the development of asbestosis, or 21 perhaps if not more susceptible, because they were 22 already compromised more severely should they 23 develop any of these diseases. 24 We were also looking for the clinical 25 findings that were associated with asbestosis. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011569 1 Lewinsohn 69 2 And we took the finding of the basal crepitant 3 rales as being extremely significant, even in the 4 absence of clear-cut radiological findings. 5 Q. So would it be fair to say that 6 during those years, from '63 to '66, when you were 7 on the Pneumoconiosis Panel, that when: you were a looking at workers from the Turner Brothers 9 Rochdale plant, a determinant factor in 10 determining whether that worker had asbestosis was 11 whether there was basal crepitant rales? 12 A. That was a significant factor, yes, 13 not the only one, but a significant one. 14 Q. And in the absence of basal crepitant 15 rales during those years from '63 to '66, could 16 you make or did you make a diagnosis of 17 asbestosis? 18 A. We would probably have beenreluctant 19 to do so. 20 Q. Do you recall ever making a diagnosis 21 of asbestosis during those years for any of the 22 Rochdale workers who did not have basal crepitant 23 rales? 24 A. I don't recollect. 25 Q. Let me ask you this: Was the DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011570 1 Lewinsohn 70 2 presence of basal crepitant rales a criteria, for 3 disqualifying a worker from working in the 4 scheduled areas from '63 to '66? 5 A. Not just -- I think I said earlier 6 on, one criteria would not have been sufficient. 7 The Pneumoconiosis Panel looked for a 8 number of criteria and a combination of any two 9 would have been sufficient. 10 And those included basal rales, 11 radiological appearances, an occupational history 12 of exposure, adequate occupational history of 13 exposure. 14 Q. So if you had any two of those three 15 criteria, that would disqualify you from working? 16 A. That would usually be sufficient to 17 consider a diagnosis of asbestosis. 18 And if you had made a diagnosis of 19 asbestosis, then we had the right to suspend an 20 employee from further employment in that 21 particular occupation where he was considered to 22 be -- where he continued to be exposed. 23 Q. From '63 to '66, when you were on the 24 pneumoconiosis unit, did you, Dr. Lewinsohn, 25 suspend or ask that any workers be suspended at DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011571 1 Lewinsohn 71 2 the Rochdale plant because of a diagnosis of; 3 asbestosis? 4 A. To the best of my recollection, I 5 did. 6 That was usually a decision made by 7 two physicians, not simply by one. 17 8 Q. Two physicians on the Pneumoconiosis 9 Panel? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Would all five of you on the panel. 12 from '63 to ' 66, go to Rochdale , or were there 13 just certain ones who would? 14 A. No, we all rotated through Rochdale. 15 Q. And in the three years that you were 16 on the panel, from '63 to '66, can you tell me how 17 many workers the Pneumoconiosis Panel suspended 18 from work at Rochdale because of asbestosis? 19 A. No, I can't tell you that. I don't 20 remember. 21 Q. But do you recall at least personally 22 doing that on one or more than one occasions? 23 A. I do, yes. 24 Q. And if you had to estimate the number 25 of workers who were suspended by the DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011572 1 Lewinsohn 72 2 Pneumoconiosis Panel from '63 to '66, can you give 3 me any ballpark estimate of how many that would 4 be? 5 MR. WILL: Excuse me, Bob. 6 He would know how many he 7 participated in, but not necessarily if 8 some other panel went to the plant and he 9 wasn't involved. 10 MR. BROWNSON: Let me rephrase the 11 question. 12 Q. Do you know how many workers, can you 13 estimate for us how many workers you suspended, or 14 a panel that you were a part of suspended from the 15 Rochdale plants from '63 to '66? 16 A. Probably not more than one or two. 17 Q. And do you know if there were other 18 workers suspended during those years by other 19 members of the Pneumoconiosis Panel at Rochdale? 20 A. I can't say that I know that. 21 I can say that there probably were. 22 Q. Let me talk about these workers that 23 you do recall suspending from the work in the 24 scheduled areas from Rochdale when you were on the 25 Pneumoconiosis Panel. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011573 1 Lewinsohn 73 2 I take it that these workers were 3 suspended because a diagnosis of asbestosis was 4 made in those workers, is that right? 5 A. I can't get into that depth of, you 6 know, reasoning. 7 I just don't know, at this moment in 8 time, why they were suspended, but there were a 9 number of reasons why they could have been 10 suspended, and that's the best answer I can give 11 you. 12 Either they may have had asbestosis 13 or been - - had criteria consistent with the 14 diagnosis of asbestosis. 15 They may have been suspended for 16 other reasons. In other words, other physical 17 reasons which we considered made them more 18 susceptible. 19 Q. During the years '63 to '66 that you 20 were on the panel, do you recall seeing any new 21 cases of asbestosis diagnosed at Rochdale? 22 A. Do I recall? I'm thinking very hard 23 and I'm sure there were. 24 But I, in my own mind, can't picture 25 them, if you know what I mean. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011574 1 Lewinsohn 74 2 Q. Let me ask you this: Would it be 3 fair to state that there were cases of asbestosis 4 diagnosed at Rochdale that occurred as a result of 5 asbestos exposure after 1931? 6 A. Definitely. 7 Q. And do you know of any patients who 8 died of asbestosis from exposure at Rochdale after 9 1931? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And how many such patients are you 12 aware who died of asbestosis from exposure that 13 they sustained at Rochdale after 1931? 14 MR. WILL: Excuse me. 15 Do you mean was he aware of when he 16 was on the panel or is he aware of now? 17 MR. BROWNSON: That's a good point. 18 Q. Let me ask you this, that you're 19 aware of now. 20 A. How many? 21 Q. Yes. 22 A. Without going back to statistics, I 23 wouldn't like to hazard a guess. 24 Q. Do you know if there were more than 25 three workers who have died from asbestosis as a DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011575 1 Lewinsohn 75 2 result of exposure incurred after 1931 at 3 Rochdale? 4 A. Do I know of more than three? 5 Q. Right. 6 A. There were obviously more than three, 7 because otherwise, Richard Doll's epidemiological 8 studies would not have been done, and other 9 mortality studies could not have been done at 10 Rochdale. 11 Q. During the time you were on the 12 Pneumoconiosis Panel from '63 to '66, are you 13 aware of any asbestos death that occurred during 14 that period of time from workers at Rochdale? 15 A. I'm aware therewere deaths, yes. 16 Q. During the years you were on the 17 Pneumoconiosis Panel from '63 to '66, did you see 18 lung cancers among workers at Rochdale that you 19 considered to be related to asbestosis? 20 A. That's such a small corridor of time. 21 Q. Right. 22 A. And I subsequently went to work for 23 10 years at Rochdale, that to separate - 24 Q. I know you did. 25 A. -- what I saw on the panel from what DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011576 1 Lewinsohn 76 2 I saw when I worked in the company, I find .. 3 virtually impossible. 4 Q. I'm going to talk in a minute about 5 what you saw during the years that you worked at 6 Turner Brothers. Maybe we'll expand those 7 questions. 8 But let me ask you this: Did you see 9 any, during the years you were on the 10 Pneumoconiosis Panel, did you see any cases of 11 mesothelioma from workers at Rochdale? 12 A. At Rochdale? 13 Q. Yes. 14 A. I can say no. 15 Q. How about from other asbestos plants? 16 A. I can answer yes to that. 17 Q. And what causes of mesothelioma did 18 you see arising among workers in asbestos plants 19 when you were on the Pneumoconiosis Panel from '63 20 to '66? 21 A. I can recollect seeing my very first 22 case of pleural mesothelioma in that period. 23 And, as far as I'm aware, I probably 24 saw personally at least one other case. 25 Q. Was this a pleural or a peritoneal DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867.- 8220 UCAREF00011577 1 Lewinsohn 77 2 mesothelioma? 3 A. i believe they were probably both 4 pleural. 5 Q. And do you know what work history the 6 two workers had who had the pleural mesotheliomas 7 that you saw when you were on the panel from '63 8 to '66? 9 A. I can't tell you about the other one, 10 if there were any others, I can't tell you about 11 those. 12 But I do certainly know about the 13 first one, because again, that was my first and 14 I'll always remember that case. 15 And - - 16 Q. What do you recall about that case? 17 A. He was a very unusual case because he 18 worked at Ferodo, which was a brake lining 19 manufacturing or friction materials company, 20 perhaps, I should call it, also belonging to the 21 Turner and Newall organization. 22 And this particular man had worked 23 there for a long time and was the first case of 24 mesothelioma, or I believe almost, of 25 asbestos - related disease, that had occurred from DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011578 1 Lewinsohn 78 2 that particular plant. 3 Q. You mentioned earlier that there were 4 these three diagnostic criteria for asbestosis 5 that you used from '63 to '66 when you were on the 6 panel. 7 And as I understand them, they were a 8 crepitant rales, number one, number two was 9 findings on x-ray, and number three was a history, 10 occupational history of asbestos. 11 And I am - - 12 A. I don't remember whether we, at that 13 time, also looked at lung pulmonary function to 14 see whether there were changes of -- restricted 15 changes in pulmonary function, but we certainly 16 did in some cases, do have pulmonary function 17 tests done. 18 Q. So you recall, during the year '63 to 19 '66, you were doing pulmonary function tests on 20 asbestos - exposed workers? 21 A. Only if indicated. 22 Q. What were you looking for at that 23 time, restrictive? 24 A. Restrictive changes and a reduction 25 in the diffusing capacity. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011579 1 Lewinsohn 79 Q. And what would indicate to you tha pulmonary function test was in order during tho 4 years? 5 A. I guess if there was any doubt about 6 the diagnostic criteria; in other words, if we 7 felt that the radiological changes were minimal, 8 were absent and yet some of the other criteria 9 were present, we may have wanted to do some 10 pulmonary function test, just to give us another 11 method of assessing the individual's impairment, 12 basically. 13 Q. Do you remember suspending any 14 workers from Rochdale while you were on the panel 15 from '63 to '66 as a result of a result of 16 pulmonary function deficit? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Do you remember any workers from 19 Rochdale during those years - 20 A. I beg your pardon? 21 Q. Okay. 22 A. Let me give you -- I think, you know, 23 let me explain something to you. 24 People who were suspended, the 25 individual did not necessarily have to stop DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)967-8220 UCAREF00011580  ~. 1 Lewinsohn 80 2 working. 3 Q. No, I understand that. 4 As I understand it, he was suspended 5 from working in a scheduled area, is that right? 6 A. But he could refuse, he could go on 7 working if he refused to be suspended. 8 Q. Oh, okay. 9 A. It wasn't an absolute suspension. 10 That is one thing, however, and in those people 11 who we suspended, we always advised them to put in 12 a claim for asbestosis. - And in order to get asbestosis, they 14 had to appear before a Pneumoconiosis Medical 15 Board consisting of two members of the panel. 16 And when they were boarded, when they 17 came -- and they weren't boarded at Rochdale, they 18 were brought into Manchester for boarding. 19 When they had the board, at that 20 time, we would do a spirometry on them. We would 21 also x-ray them again. 22 So when they were seen in Manchester, 23 they had a more thorough examination and that 24 included a test of lung function. And what we were looking for there in DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011581 1 Lewinsohn 81 2 an asbestosis case was restrictive defect. 3 However, we were also looking for any 4 other pulmonary defect, because under our 5 regulations, somebody who had an aggravating 6 factor, had asbestosis, but also had some other 7 aggravating factor that contributed to- the 8 disablement, and wouldn't have done so had they 9 not had the asbestosis. 10 That was added on as a supplementary 11 rating, and that was often based upon the finding 12 of lung function of concomitant construction. 13 Q. Let me see if I have got this 14 straight. You'll have to bear with me. 15 As a member of the Pneumoconiosis 16 Panel from '63 to '66, you could recommend 17 suspension of a worker from a scheduled area at 18 Rochdale, and that worker could choose to accept 19 that or not? 20 A. Correct. 21 Q. But you would also recommend, if one 22 of you recommended suspension, that the worker put 23 in a claim for compensation? 24 A. Correct. 25 Q. And in your experience, when you DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011582 1 Lewins ohn 82 2 recommended suspension of a worker at Rochdale for 3 asbestosis, did those workers then make claims for 4 compensation 5 A. Some did and some did not. 6 Q. And of those who did, they then would 7 have to go to Manchester and appear before two 8 members of the Pneumoconiosis Panel? 9 A. Who constituted a board. 10 Q. Who constituted a board. 11 And that is what you called being 12 boarded? 13 A. Right. 14 Q. And at that time the worker appeared 15 before the two members of the panel on this board, 16 and he would again be examined? 17 A. Correct. . 18 And the two members of the board 19 examining that person would probably not be the 20 same, not have -- one of the persons that 21 originally suspended them and seen them would not 22 be a member of that board. 23 It would be two other members of the 24 panel. 25 Q. Do you recall being a member of one DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011583 1 Lewinsohn 83 2 of those board panels at Manchester for the 3 Rochdale workers? 4 A. Oh, yes. 5 Q. And on occasions, when you were a 6 member of that board panel, or a board panel from 7 '63 to '66, do you recall doing spirometry or 8 pulmonary function testing on some of the Rochdale 9 workers in connection with their compensation 10 claim? . 11 A. That is where I have difficulty. 12 I can't answer that, other than the 13 spirometry that was done when they were boarded. 14 Q. So you recall that spirometry was 15 done when they were boarded; you just can't recall 16 whether you did it or not yourself? 17 A. No, I'm saying, I can't recall going 18 on and doing a whole battery of lung function 19 test. Spirometry was going on. 20 Q. You recall doing the spirometry? 21 A. Yes, we did not have facilities for 22 doing any more than that. 23 Q. Okay, now I'm clear. 24 Do you recall recommending or 25 granting, whatever your powers were, compensation DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011584 235 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ............................. ..................................................-.............................x IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY Civil LITIGATION (NO. VI) MDL 875 ...................................................................................................................... Thia Document Relates to: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FIFTH DIVISION DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA ..................................................................................................................... CONWED CORPORATION, ' Plaintiff, 5-92-88 - against - UNION CARBIDE CHEMICALS AND PLASTICS COMPANY, INC., (f/k/a Union Carbide Corporation), - and- Defendant, UNION CARBIDE CHEMICALS AND PLASTICS COMPANY, INC. (f/k/a Union Carbide Corporation), - against - OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION, et al., WALKER JAMAR COMPANY, A.W. KUETTBL & SONS, INC., API, INC., and MacARTHUR COMPANY, Third-Party Defendants. ..................................................................................................................x October 18, 1994 HILTON C. LEWINSOHN (Cont'd) Doyle Reporting, Inc. CERTIFIED STENOTYPE REPORTERS Total Litigation Support WALTER SHAPIRO. CSR CHARLES SHAPIRO. CSR 369 LEXINGTON AVENUE NEW YORK. N Y. 10017 (212) 867 8220 UCAREF00011740 1 Lewinsohn 85 2 Q. Let me put the question to you then, 3 and I'll ask you to explain it to me, which would 4 be better. S How would this compensation for 6 aggravation of a pulmonary condition work when you 7 sat on that board from '63 to '66? 8 A. It's a long time ago. But from my 9 recollection, if somebody had asbestosis, and as a 10 result of the examination that we conducted, and 11 the findings on the spirometry, and whatever else 12 we considered, we decided, for example, that the 13 disability was 20 percent, but that he also had 14 evidence of chronic bronchitis, and that the 15 presence of the chronic bronchitis would increase 16 his disability to 30 percent, then he would be 17 given something for that bronchitis as an 18 aggravating factor because it was making his 19 asbestosis worse. 20 Q. I follow you. 21 And this was a function of the 22 Pneumoconiosis Board - 23 A. Right. 24 Q. Can you give me someexamples that 25 you can recall, other than bronchitis, that would DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 . UCAREF00011586 1 Lewinsohn 86 2 cause aggravation of an asbestosis case that- you 3 saw as a member of that board? 4 A. Well, it could work the other way 5 around as well. 6 If somebody had asbestosis, but also 7 was found to have, say, a heart condition, the 8 development of the pulmonary fibrosis would 9 aggravate that heart condition. 10 Q. And would then that worker get 11 some - - 12 A. That worker could possibly get some 13 additional benefits because he was worse than he 14 would have been had he not had the asbestosis. 15 Q. So would it be fair to say that, as 16 long as the asbestosis caused a portion of a 17 worker's disability, that other aggravating 18 circumstances could - - 19 A. Were taken into account. 20 Q. -- circumstances be aggravated by the 21 asbestosis would increase the disability? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And ones you can recall then would 24 be, for example, bronchitis and heart condition? 25 A. Heart conditions. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011587 1 Lewinsohn 87 2 Q. Anything else that you can recall? 3 A. Well, yes, things like asthma, any 4 preexisting pneumoconiosis. 5 Say, the man had been a coal miner 6 and there was evidence of a mixed pneumoconiosis. 7 I can't remember too exact. 8 Q. As a general proposition, would it be 9 fair to say that, by the time you were on the 10 Pneumoconiosis Panel from 1963 to 1966, you 11 recognized that asbestosis caused by asbestos 12 exposure could aggravate a number of other 13 pulmonary problems? 14 A. Yes. I would say, that's a 15 reasonable statement. 16 Q. And would it also be fair to say that 17 by the time you were on the Pneumoconiosis Panel 18 in 1963 to 1966, you recognized that it was good 19 practice that men working in the asbestos plant 20 needed to have these qualifying exams before they 21 should be working in that plant? 22 A. Oh, yes, that was recognized in 1931. 23 Q. And that they should have periodic 24 exams during the course of their work in the 25 scheduled areas of the plants? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011588 1 Lewinsohn 88 2 A. That was established practice. 3 Q. Let me just make sure I'm clear on 4 what the schedules there were. 5 As I understand it, the factory 6 regulations of 1931 established what these 7 scheduled areas were? 8 A. Well, I don't think they called them 9 scheduled areas, but they sort of established the 10 conditions under which these regulations, to which 11 these regulations apply. 12 Q. Let's take the Turner Brothers 13 Rochdale plant as an example. 14 From 1963 to '66, when you were on 15 the Pneumoconiosis Panel, I take it, there were 16 certain scheduled areas within that plant where 17 the regulations apply. 18 Correct? 19 A. Well, they applied throughout the 20 textile plant because it was where asbestos was 2 1 being handled in the raw state. 22 It was being opened. It was being 23 braided. It was being woven, spun. 24 All of those were criteria. 25 Q. So would it be fair to say that the DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011589 1 Lewinsohn 89 2 regulations applied wherever the asbestos was 3 being used in the plant? 4 A. In that plant, yes. 5 Q. Right. 6 And would they apply, for example, to 7 the men who were unloading the asbestos as it 8 arrived at the plant? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And let's stop there and talk about 11 that a little bit. 12 How would the asbestos arrive at the 13 Rochdale plant? 14 A. When? 15 Q. Prom '63 to '66, when you were on the 16 Pneumoconiosis Panel. 17 A. At that time, the fiber wasshipped 18 in burlap bags, Hessian bags, as we called them. 19 And they would officially, all 20 asbestos was imported -- Rochdale used largely 21 chrysotile from Rhodesia, some chrysotile from 22 Canada, but most of the chrysotile from Rhodesia. 23 This would come in these bags which 24 were handled at the docks. They were just loose 25 bags. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011590 1 Lewinsohn 90 2 Apparently, in those days, they were 3 useful as ballasts, so that when ships were latent 4 to bring the asbestos fibers from whichever 5 country was exporting them, they could -- the bags 6 could be placed all over the ship's hull as 7 ballasts. 8 They were handled on the docks with 9 men by hooks. They would plunge their hooks into 10 the bags and then sling them onto the ships. 11 And they would plunge the hooks onto 12 the bags and unload them from the ships. 13 And then they would pluck their hooks 14 into the bags and put them on trucks or whatever, 15 rail cars, and they would arrive at the plant with 16 holes in them, and with fiber spilling out of' 17 them. 18 And they really weren't a pretty 19 sight at that period in time. 20 Q. So I'm trying to stick in this period 21 1963 to 1966, and I realize it's hard for you to 22 distinguish that period. 23 A. Well, I'm talking about that period. 24 Q. So during that period of time, from 25 1963 to 1966, the asbestos would arrive at the DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011591 1 Lewinsohn 91 2 Rochdale plant by truck or rail? 3 A. Yes . 4 Q. And first of all, was it atruck or 5 was it rail? 6 A. I don't remember. 7 Q. So a truck or rail,it would arrive 8 at the plant, and it would be packed in these 9 burlap Hessian bags. 10 And what were they, about 100 pound 11 bags? 12 A. I don't know what they weighed. I 13 can't tell you. I don't remember. 14 Q. So the fiber would be packed in these 15 bags and arrive at Rochdale, and Rochdale workers 16 would have to unload the bags of asbestos fiber 17 out of the truck or rail car, I take it, and bring 18 them into the plant? 19 A. Yes, there was a big hoist in the 20 plant, and at one time, the trucks actually used 21 to drive into the hoist. 22 This wasn't in 1963 to 1966. This 2 3 was 1963 to '66. 24 I'm not sure how they got the bags 25 into the plants, because I wasn't working at that DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011592 1 Lewinsohn 92 2 time there, but I saw the bags there. 3 Q. In any event, workers at Rochdale 4 would have to unload the bags off the truck or the 5 train in some physical fashion? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Are you telling us that the asbestos 8 regulations applied to the workers doing that 9 unloading? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And in your experience, from what you 12 saw, those bags they had these holes in them, and 13 you say they were not a pretty sight. 14 Why is that, because they were broken 15 open? 16 A. They were often damaged and finer 17 fiber would be coming out of them. 18 Q. And did you observe the damaged bags 19 being unloaded? 20 A. Not in that period of time. 21 Q. Let me jump ahead to a later period 22 of time, after you began working for Turner 23 Brothers. 24 Would you observe the bags, damaged 25 bags at Turner Brothers being unloaded? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011593 1 Lewinsohn 93 2 A. Well, I'm Crying to think And I 3 think, by the time I started working for Turner 4 Brothers, they were -- you know, I think there 5 were still bags coming in. 6 Whether I actually saw them being 7 unloaded myself, I don't remember. 8 Q. Let me ask you this. 9 At the time you were on the 10 Pneumoconiosis Panel, from '63 to '66, did you 11 recognize that handling, that workers handling 12 damaged bags of asbestos coming into the plant, 13 could be exposed to asbestos? 14 A. Yes, those workers the were handling 15 They were covered under those regulations. They 16 were handling the raw material. 17 Q. Do you know if the regulations, 18 during that time period, '63 to '66, would have 19 covered those workers if the bags were not 20 damaged; in other words, if they were just 21 unloading undamaged bags? 22 A. I guess, as with all regulations, 23 there is always some room for interpretation. 24 As far as I'm aware, at Rochdale, 25 they would have been brought into the scheme for DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011594 1 Lewinsohn 94 2 medical examination and been seen by the panel. 3 I can only speak for that. 4 Q. Are you aware of any, and I'll 5 broaden this question to any time from '63 up 6 after '66, when you worked at Turner Brothers. 7 From 1966, until you left Turner 8 Brothers, are you aware of any air measurements of 9 asbestos fiber levels at the Rochdale plant in the 10 area where bags were being unloaded? 11 A. The air measurements were made 12 throughout the plant at all areas where fiber was being -- where fiber could be generated to the 14 air. 15 Q. Do you know when those measurements 16 began? 17 A. Oh, dear. I did know precisely, but 18 sitting here like this, without anything in front 19 of me, I can't tell you. 20 Except to say that they certainly 21 began a long time before I ever went there. 22 Q. And they also began before 1963? 23 A. Yes. What would have changed 24 possibly is the method of counting because measurements may go back in time. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011595 1 Lewinsohn 95 2 In fact, they had described in lots 3 of the literature about Rochdale. 4 Q. And at the time, let's take the time 5 you began at Turner Brothers, 1963-'66, '59, that 6 t ime. 7 I take it, air measurements were 8 being made at the plant in Rochdale? 9 A. They were. 10 Q. Correct? 11 A. Yes . 12 Q. And do you know if they were being 13 made at that time in the area where workers were 14 unloading bags of asbestos off the trucks or the 15 train cars? 16 A. To the best of my recollection, yes. 17 Q. And who was taking the air 18 measurements at that time in 1966? 19 A. We had a -- in 1966? 20 Q. Right. 21 A. There was a department known as the 22 Health Physics Department, under the supervision 23 of Dr. Holmes, Steve Holmes. 24 And his technicians would be taking 25 the measurements. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011596 1 Lewinsohn 96 2 Q. Is Dr. Holmes of Turner Brothers? 3 A. Dr. Holmes of Turner Brothers, Ph.D. 4 Q. Do you know, as of that time, 1966, 5 let's take that time, because maybe it will stick 6 out in your mind, because that's when you began 7 working for Turner Brothers. 8 As of 1966, do you know what the unit 9 of measurement was that was used for those air 10 measurements? 11 A. By 1966, they were doing fiber 12 counts. 13 Q. Were they doing - - 14 A. Fibers per millimeter. 15 Q. What fibers were they counting, PCC? 16 Do you know? 17 A. You mean - - 18 Q. Let me ask you this: How was the 19 fiber defined? 20 A. A fiber was defined as having a 3 to 21 1 length to diameter aspect ratio. 22 Q. And did it have to be greater than 23 any certain length or diameter? 24 A. That I don't remember. I don't 25 remember. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)067-8220 UCAREF00011597 ' 3 1 Lewinsohn 97 2 Q. You remember the 3 to 1 length aspect 3 ratio? 4 A. Right. . 5 Q. What technique was used in '66, do 6 you recall, to count the fibers? 7 A. It was a microscopic technique. 8 Q. Do you recall if they used the 9 membrane filter at that time, or the membrane 10 impinger? 11 A. They were using membrane filters. 12 Q. And - - 13 A. The membrane filter technique was 14 very much developed at Rochdale. 15 Q. And would it be fair to say that Dr. 16 Holmes was in charge of that? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Do you know when he developed or when 19 he began using the membrane filter technique to 20 count asbestos fibers at Rochdale? 21 A. I could only say in the early to 22 mid-sixties. 23 I don't know. That's my guess. I 24 wouldn't like to guess. 25 Q. As far as you recall, by the time you DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011598 1 Lewinsohn 98 2 began work at Turner Brothers in 1966, was that 3 technique in use for counting asbestos fibers at 4 Rochdale? 5 A. It was in use at Rochdale, yes. 6 Q. And then they were analyzed 7 microscopically, I take it? 8 A. Yes . 9 Q. And again, did Dr. Holmes do this? 10 A. He was in charge of it. 11 Q- Do you know the microscopy technique 12 that was used? . 13 A. There were always discussions about 14 that. 15 I believe that they used a grid 16 counting method, if that is what you want to know 17 Q. They used a grid counting method. 18 Do you know what magnification was 19 used? 20 A. No, I'm not an industrial 2 1 hydrogenist. 22 If I did know, I don't remember. 23 Q. Do you have any recollection, as you 24 sit here today, what the asbestos fiber levels 25 were at or about 1966 in areas where the asbestos DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011599 1 Lewinsohn 99 2 was unloaded into the plant? 3 A. Well, that probably would not have 4 been -- again, I doubt it would have been reported 5 as unloading. 6 It would have been grouped under a 7 heading in all that took place in what is known as 8 the fiberizing area and, you know, the bags 9 would -- or in the warehouse. 10 Q. Let me ask you this: What I am 11 trying to get at is -- I don't mean to cut you 12 off. 13 I'm trying to determine if you recall 14 what the fiber levels were at or about 1966 in 15 that time period. 16 A. Where? 17 Q. Before the asbestos was fiberized, in 18 other words, up to the point it was fiberized. 19 A. Not specifically, no. 20 Q. Do you recall generally what the 21 levels were within a range in that area, before 22 they were fiberized? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Do you recall them being less than 10 25 fibers per cubic centimeter? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. ( 212) 867 - 8220 UCAREF00011600 1 Lewinsohn 100 2 A . I don' t recall. 3 Q. Let me ask you this: I said I'd ask 4 you one more question, let me just finish this 5 train of thought. 6 At or about 1966, air measurements, 7 fiber level air measurements, were taken at 8 Rochdale, as you understand it, throughout the 9 process, correct ? 10 A. Yes . 11 Q. Do you have any recollection, as you 12 sit here today, of any of those measurements at 13 any step along the line? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Which ones do you recall? 16 A. I can probably -- I can recall that, 17 in the carting department areas, there would be 18 levels which ranged between 10 fibers per cc up to 19 20 or 30 fibers per cc on occasion- 20 Q. That would be in the carting 21 department? 22 A. Right. 23 Q. And you'll have to forgive me. I 24 don't know what the terms are for the process. 25 But I understand the asbestos was DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011601 Lewins ohn 101 brought into the plant and was fiberized by some method. 4 What was the original method used? 5 A. The fibers were dumped into a hasher. 6 By the time I went there, in '66, 7 this was done with exhaust ventilation over the 8 hopper, and it was dumped into a big drum, which 9 was totally enclosed, where it was just rumbled 10 around inside the drum. 11 I think they added some sort of a 12 mineral oil to it at one time, just to help to get 13 the fibers to break up. 14 Depending upon how much they wanted 15 the fibers opened, so they would regulate the 16 speed and the length of time that the drum 17 resolved. 18 And it would then go from the drum, 19 after having been preliminarily opened into-- I 20 forget what they called the machines - - but other 21 machines that -- like hammer mills. 22 Q. Hammer mills? 23 A. Right, which opened them further. 24 Then once they were opened to the full extent that they wanted them open, they were DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011602 1 Lewinsohn 102 2 rebagged. 3 At that time, the bags that we used 4 for internal use were polypropane bags with nylon 4 5 impregnated, and they had nylon zip fasteners, so 6 that they were, for all intents and purposes, 7 impervious. 8 These bags were then taken to the 9 back of the carting engine, and then again, were 10 manually opened and the material dumped into the 11 back of the cart. 12 Q. And the carting engine is, generally 13 speaking, what sort of machine? 14 A. Well, the carting engine takes the 15 partially opened fibers, and then parses it 16 through rollers, two rollers, which are moving in 17 opposite directions. 18 One is going that way, and the other 19 is going that way, and they have got needles on 20 them. 21 And it teases the fibers and layers 22 all of the fibers in one direction. 23 Q. Okay. - 24 A. And sometimes there would be more 25 than one set of these rollers, depending upon how DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011603 1 Lewinsohn 103 2 much they wanted to open and fluff up this fiber. 3 And then it came off at the end of 4 the car as a fleece, which is called a -- I forget 5 what they call the fleece. 6 And then it could be parsed through 7 dividers and wound onto spools in thin strips, 8 called sliver. 9 Q. At or around the time you began at 10 Turner Brothers, were these operations done under 11 ventilation? 12 In other words, was there ventilation 13 equipment at the point of operation? 14 A. Yes, there was ventilation equipment 15 there. 16 But that was constantly being 17 improved upon, because it was recognized that this 18 was a difficult process from the dust control. 19 point of view. 20 So all of the time that I was there, 21 almost weekly, something different was added to 22 try to improve the ventilation. 23 Q. So during the time that you were at 24 Turner Brothers, and quickly, what time period is 25 that, '66 to what? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011604 1 Lewinsohn 104 2 A. '76. 3 Q. There was constant updating and 4 improvement of the ventilation equipment in the 5 dusty areas? 6 A. All the time. 7 Q. And do you know if are you familiar 9 with a type of equipment known as a cyclone? 9 A. Yes, I've heard of acyclone. 10 Q. Do you know if those were used at 11 Turner Brothers? 12 A. I think those are more useful for 13 ambient air and environmental type measurements 14 than for uses in a plant environment. 15 MR. GERSON: Could we just take a 16 break? 17 (Luncheon recess 12:55 p.m.) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011605 1 Lewinsohn 105 2 (Afternoon Session: 1:30 p.m.) 3 BY MR. BROWNSON: 4 Q. Let me take you back, Doctor, to at 5 or about 1966, when you began at Turner Brothers. 6 And in the Rochdale plant, you had 7 mentioned that air measurements, air fiber 8 measurements that you recall were in the 20 to 50 9 fiber cubic centimeter range, and those were in 10 the carting room, as you recall it? 11 A. I think I said they ranged from 8 to 12 10 up to 20 to 30. 13 I can recall seeing figures like 14 that. 15 Q. Do you recall if you mentioned that 16 was in the carting room or at the carting machine? 17 A. In the cart room by the cart -- well, 18 they tested by the carting engines where the 19 people worked. 20 Q. And do you know if the ventilation 21 was in operation at the time they were doing those 22 tests? 23 A. It should have been. 24 Q. And do you know if those air fiber 25 level measurements were attempted to approximate DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011606 Lewinsohn 106 the fiber level in the air that the workers would breathe? A. These were personal samples. Q. And by personal samples, you mean they actually put a sample on the man's lapel? A. Correct. 8 Q. And so it was an effort to get the 9 sample at or near the man's breathing zone? 10 A. Correct. 11 Q. Do you remember if, over time, over 12 the 10 years you were at Turner Brothers from '66 13 to '76, if these air fiber measurements were done 14 continuously over that period of time? 15 A. Yes, there was an ongoing monitoring 16 program. 17 Q. Do you know, was this required by law 18 in Britain at that time, or was it something that 19 Turner Brothers did on their own? 20 A. No, it wasn't required by law. 21 Q. Again, taking the area of thecarting 22 machine, do you know how those air fiber 23 measurements progressed over time? In other words, did they always stay at about the same level, or were improvements made DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011607 1 Lewinsohn 107 2 and they decreased over time? 3 A. Oh, they came down over time. Over 4 the 10 years I was there, they came down. 5 Q. Let's go up to, at or around 1976, 6 when you left Turner Brothers, at that point in 7 time, do you recall what those levels would have 8 been? 9 A. By that time, at Rochdale, I would 10 say, on most of the carting engines, they got the 11 levels down to below 5. 12 Sometimes -- when I say below 5, I 13 can't tell you how much lower, but below 5. 14 Q. Do you know if 5 fibers per cc was a 15 standard in Britain for asbestos in air? 16 A. There was never any promulgated 17 standard in Britain. 18 Q. Was there any sort of recommended 19 level? 20 A. At what point in time? 21 Q. Let's take 1966. 22 A. In 1966, as far as I remember, the 23 factory inspectorates were using the American 24 Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygiene 25 Standard, which was expressed in mills of DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011608 1 Lewinsohn 108 2 particles per cubic foot. 3 And I think, in 1966, that was 12 4 mill particles per cubic foot as measured by the 5 impinger technique. 6 Q. But at the same time, as I understand 7 it, Turner Brothers were doing their own 8 measurements using the membrane filter, and 5 9 percent per cc, as opposed to mills of particles 10 per cubic foot? 11 A. That's correct. 12 Q. And who was it who adopted or used 13 the ACGIH standard in Britain in 1966? 14 A. The factory inspectorate. 15 Q. And do you know, was the factory 16 inspectorate doing their own air measurement in 17 asbestos plants at or around 1966? 18 A. I don't know. I assume. This is an 19 assumption. 20 MR. WILL: Don't assume. 21 A. I assume, but I don't know. 22 MR. WILL: Don't guess. 23 Q. When you were with the Pneumoconiosis 24 Panel in 1963 to '66, do you recall there being 25 industrial hygenists employed by the factory DOYLS REPORTING, INC. (212)8.67 - 8220 UCAREF00011609 1 Lewinsohn 109 2 inspectorate employed by the asbestos plants? 3 A. The factory inspectorate had an 4 industrial hydrogen branch. 5 I don't recollect them -- what period 6 of time are you talking about now? 7 Q. '63 to '66. 8 A. I wouldn't know where they went, but 9 there was an industrial hygiene branch. 10 Q. Let me now move ahead to the time 11 period of 1966 to 19'76, when you were with Turner 12 Brothers Asbestos Company. 13 When you began with them, what was 14 your position with the company? 15 A. My title was medical officer. 16 Q. Were you the chief or head medical 17 officer for Turner Brothers - 18 A. Well, I was the only full-time 19 medical officer, but I didn't have the title of 20 chief medical officer at that time. 21 Q. So were you the de facto chief, but 22 without the title? 23 A. If you like. 24 Q. At that time, what facilities did 25 Turner Brothers have that you were concerned with DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011610 1 Lewinsohn 110 2 in your duties as medical officer? 3 A. You mean what type of facilities? 4 Q. Let me rephrase the question. 5 In 1966, I assume Turner Brothers had 6 more than one factory or facility, correct? 7 A. Using facility as factory? 8 Q. Right. Let's start with that. 9 What factories did Turner Brothers 10 have in '66? 11 A. They were the two factories I've 12 already mentioned to you, Rochdale and Hindley 13 Green. 14 There was a glass fiber plant in 15 northern Ireland in Dungannon, in Northern 16 Ireland. 17 Essentially that was it -- sorry, 18 there was a small cotton mill in a town called 19 Leigh. 20 Q. As medical officer, were you 21 concerned with, or did your duties require you to 22 have activities in all four of the plants? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And very briefly. on the cotton mill 25 in Leigh, did you see, during the time you were DOYLE REPORTING , INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011611 1 Lewinsohn 111 2 with Turner Brothers from '66 to '76, did you see 3 any sort of pneumoconiosis, byssinosis or anything 4 coming out of that cotton mill? 5 A. As far as I'm aware, there was no 6 byssinosis diagnosed at that mill during the 7 period I was there. 8 Q. Do you know had there been in prior 9 years? 10 A . I don't know. 11 Q. And this glass plant in Northern 6 12 Ireland, was there any sort of pneumoconiosis or 13 fibrosis among those workers during the years you 14 were at Turner Brothers? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Was there any asbestos used at that 17 plant? 18 A. No. 19 Q. That takes us to the two asbestos 20 factories that Turner Brothers had. 21 Were both of those factories in 22 operation during that 10-year period from '66 to 23 '76? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And did you oversee the medical DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011612 1 Lewinsohn 112 2 condition, if I can use that term, of the workers 3 in those two plants for those 10 years? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And was the British factory 6 inspectorate also doing the sorts of duties that 7 you told us that you were doing from '63 to '66? 8 A. The Pneumoconiosis Medical Panel? 9 Q. Right. 10 Did that continue after you became 11 medical director of Turner Brothers? 12 A. Oh, yes. 13 Q. So would it be fair say today that, 14 from '66 to '76, the workers at the Turner 15 Brothers Asbestos plants had the Turner Brothers 16 examinations every other year, and they also had 17 the Pneumoconiosis Panel examinations every 18 alternate year? 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. And I don't want to go through this 21 all again, but were those the same that they had 22 been during the '63 to *66 time period, in terms 23 of what was being done and what was being looked 24 for, or did that change? 25 A. It changed at Rochdale, basically. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011613 1 Lewinsohn 113 2 Q. What was the change at Rochdale?. 3 A. The x-rays used to be taken by a 4 mobile van that came and took them. 5 And when I came to Rochdale, we 6 purchased our own equipment, so we took our x-rays 7 on-site with our own equipment. 8 In fact, this was also portable 9 equipment. We tried to take it to Hindley Green. 10 It didn't work out very well. 11 The other thing at Rochdale was that 12 I established a pulmonary function lab on-site 13 that was capable of doing more than just 14 spirometry. 15 Q. What sort of pulmonary function work 16 could you do at that lab? 17 A. We could do lung volumes, and we 18 could do the carbon monoxide diffusing capacity. 19 We also measured the carbon dioxide 20 tension by an indirect method. 2 1 Q. Over the course of time from '66 to 22 '76, as far as you knew, did the British 23 Pneumoconiosis Panel criteria change for awarding 24 compensation in asbestosis cases, or was it the 25 same as what you told us about earlier? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011614 1 Lewinsohn 114 2 A. '66 to '76? 3 Q. Right. 4 A. I think it stayed essentially the 5 same. 6 Q. As far as you were concerned, from 7 the time period '66 to '76, were the diagnostic 8 criteria for determining whether a man should be 9 suspended or not, or recommended that he be 10 suspended or not, the same or did those change? 11 A. I think those stayed essentially the 12 same as well. 13 Q. At the Rochdale plant, from '66 to 14 '76, did Turner Brothers continue to use the 15 Rhodesia and the Canadian chrysotile? 16 A. Well, as you know, Rhodesia 17 proclaimed the unilateral declaration of 18 independence and there was a trade embargo and 19 sanctions imposed on Rhodesia. 20 And so the Rhodesian fiber was no 21 longer available after about '66 or '67, whenever 22 that occurred. 23 So that the amount of fiber that then 24 came from Canada increased after the inventory of 25 Rhodesia fiber was used up. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011615 1 Lewinsohn 115 2 Q. Would it be fair to say that, at the 3 time of the boycott on trade with Rhodesia, or 4 after that time, the fiber that was used at 5 Rochdale all came from Canada? 6 A. Some of it. Not all from Canada. 7 Some of it, I believe, came from Swasea. But the 8 majority was from Canada. . 9 Q. Let's take the time period at or 10 around 1966, when you began with Turner Brothers. 11 What was the volume of asbestos that 12 was being used at the Rochdale plants, in rough 13 figures ? 14 A. I don't know. 7 15 Q. Did that pretty much stay the same 16 over years or did it increase or go down in the 17 years that you were there up until '76? 18 A. It's difficult to answer that because 19 it obviously fluctuated with economic cycles. 20 Q. And where did the chrysotile come 21 from that was used at Rochdale? 22 A. I guess some of it came from Casio. 23 Some may have come from the Bell mines or they may . 24 have come from other companies, but most of them, 25 I think, were Casio or Bell mines. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. {212)867-8220 UCAREF00011616 1 Lewinsohn 116 2 Q. Weren't the Bell mines owned by 3 Turner and Newall at that time? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. But the Rochdale plant didn't 6 necessarily have to buy all of their chrysotile 7 from Bell, they could buy from other places? 8 A. Sure. 9 Q. Do you know if the Rochdale plant 10 ever used Union Carbide asbestos during the years 11 you were there? 12 A. Never saw it. 13 Q. Let me ask you this. I'm jumping 14 ahead a little bit here, but when was the first 15 time you heard of Calidria asbestos? 16 A. That's again a difficult question to 17' answer. But with certainty, when I joined Union 18 Carbide in '82. I can't tell you with certainty, 19 whether I heard of it before then. 20 Q. Let me go back to the time that you 21 were medical officer at Turner and Newall from '66 22 to '76. 23 During that period of time, what portion of your work or your time would be taken up with asbestos-related disease work? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011617 1 Lewinsohn 117 2 A. Most of my t ime . 3 Q. In other words, I'm just curious, 4 there other things you did. let's say if a 5 r had an injury or got his finger caught in a 6 machine? 7 A. We had a dispensary, first aid 8 department, where they treated those things. They 9 would call me in if they needed my business but 10 most of our injuries were sent off to the local 11 hospital right away, which was only a mile down 12 the road, so we didn't do anything major on our 13 premises. 14 But to answer your question, I was 15 involved in all sorts of things that an 16 occupational physician gets involved in, giving 17 advice about noise and hearing loss. 18 We had a glass fiber division at 19 Hindley Green where, as you know, glass fiber was 20 prone to cause itching and dermatitis. So I was 2 1 involved in all of the fields of occupational 22 medicine that a medical officer becomes involved 23 in. 24 However, our major hazard was 25 asbestos. And I suspect most of the largest DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011618 1 Lewinsohn 118 2 proportion of my time involved with matters 3 pertaining to asbestos. 4 Q. What did the medical department at 5 Turner Brothers consist of during those years '66 6 to '76 in addition to yourself? Were there others 7 or was it just you? 8 A. Well, when I went there, there was a 9 Dr. John Knox was still around as a consultant to 10 Turner and Newall, and he used to come in 11 periodically just to chat, talk about things. He 12 didn't do any work in the department. 13 And after I guess a few years, I'm 14 not sure how long it was, I was -- I had an 15 assistant for a short period of time. First full 16 time, then part time, then he quit and went into 17 practice in the area. So most of the time I was 18 single-handed. 19 There was a nursing sister, 20 registered nurse in charge of the medical 21 department in Rochdale and one at Hindley Green. 22 And at Rochdale, I believe there was another 23 registered nurse and then there were first aid 24 attendants. And I had a x-ray technician and a 25 lung function technician. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011619 1 Lewinsohn 119 2 Q. Was there also a medical library of 3 any sort there? 4 A. There was not a medical library. The 5 company had on the site its research and 6 development department, and in the research and 7 development department there was a scientific 8 library. And in the scientific library they used .9 to review the literature, scientific and medical 10 literature, and provide me with reprints, et 11 cetera, from that literature. 12 Q. And do you know if they subscribed to 13 medical journals at that library during the years 14 that you were there? 8 15 A. To the best of my recollection, they 16 subscribed to some medical journals. 17 Q. Do you know if one of the journals 18 that they subscribed to was the British Medical 19 Journal? 20 A. I really don't know because I would 2 1 have got the British Medical Journal myself. 22 Q. At the time you began as medical 23 officer at Turner Brothers Asbestos in 1966, did 24 you make any effort to go back and review prior 25 cases of asbestosis or other diseases that had DOYLB REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011620 1 Lewinsohn 120 2 arisen at Turner Brothers to familiarize yourself 3 with the situation? 4 A. You mean case by case? 5 Q. Well, I'm not sure how you might have 6 done it. In any sense. 7 A. When I went to Turner Brothers, Dr. 8 Knox brought me up to date with the work of 9 Richard Doll and the cohorts that had been 10 established and reported in the literature, and 11 explained to me how those had been -- how the 12 cohorts had been developed and what the findings 13 were . 14 Q. Did you become familiar at that time 15 with some of the old cases of asbestosis with 16 Turner Brothers, such as -- I've gone through the 17 literature and I've pulled out this case with this 18 Mrs. Kershaw back in the 20's that was reported by 19 Dr. Cook. 20 A. Well, I knew about Cook's case. 21 Q. That was Nellie Kershaw? 22 A. Well, I discovered eventually that 23 that was Nellie Kershaw. I don't remember all of 24 the details. If you have anything there that 25 describes it - - DOYLE REPORTING, INC. {212)867-8220 UCAREF00011621 1 Lewinsohn 121 2 Q. Actually, I went and pulled the 3 paper, which was a paper in the British Medical 4 Journal in 1924 called "Fibroses of the Lungs Due 5 to the inhalation of Asbestos Dust," by W.E. 6 Cooke, and now you've got it there. 7 I'm just curious if as part of your 8 your work or investigation or whatever you want to 9 call it after you became medical director, if you 10 went back and reviewed some of this old material 11 arising out of the Turner Brothers works. 12 A. No, I didn't actually go back and do 13 case reviews. 14 Q. Do you remember when this particular 15 case came to your attention? 16 A. I'm trying to remember where I read 17 about it, but I read a review, and I'm not sure 18 who had published it either, in which they 19 recounted the history of the development of the 20 recognition of asbestosis. And in that review, 21 which was shortly after I joined the company, I 22 read about these various cases, the Montgomery and 23 Cooke and Selher's cases, which were the early 24 cases described. 25 I never went back personally and DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011622 1 Lewinsohn 122 2 researched those cases. 3 Q. As I understand it -- let me back up 4 and just ask you this. 5 Is it fair to say that at least when ' 6 you began as medical officer at Turner Brothers in 7 1966, you did make some investigation into the 8 background of cases at the plant? 9 And I understand you didn't go case 10 by case and look at them all, but you did do some 11 checking, you spoke to Dr. Knox? 12 A. Yes. I brought myself up to date and 13 learned what was going on. 14 MR. BROWNSON: I suppose for the 15 record, let's just mark that since we've 16 been looking at it. 17 We'll mark this as Lewinsohn 2. 18 (Whereupon, medical case from Dr. 19 Cooke marked Lewisohn Exhibit 2 for 20 identification as of this date.) 21 MR. BROWNSON: Just for the record, 22 I had the reporter mark as Lewinsohn 23 deposition Exhibit 2, the medical case from 24 Dr. Cooke we were just looking at in July 25 26, 1924. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011623 1 Lewinsohn 123 2 Q. Now, as I understand it, shortly 3 after you began at Turner Brothers in 1966, there 4 was a study done of workers of the plant for 5 asbestosis; is that correct? 6 A. Well, as I told you, these cohorts 7 had been established for follow-up, and a study 8 had been published I believe in 1964 in the annals 9 of the New York Academy of Sciences. That was the 10 most recent one that I was aware of. 11 Q. The cohort presented at the New York 12 Conference in 1964, was this a cohort of Turner 13 workers? . 9 14 A. Well, the cohorts have been presented 15 the paper that was given I believe by Knox, 16 Holmes, Doll and Hill, was a follow-up of the 17 cohorts that had been established by Dr. Doll in 18 1955 . 19 Q. This was a cohort from Rochdale? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And what was being presented in 1964 22 at the conference of the New York Academy of 23 Sciences was a follow-up of that same cohort that 24 Doll had looked at, or was this new additional 25 people involved? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011624 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 124 A. Well, you know, a cohort, the cohort is a living thing, and it wasn't one cohort. There were different cohorts being followed. And what they were looking at was to see whether there were differences in the instance or in the causes of death. These were mortality studies. The incidents in the causes of death between people who had entered and worked in that factory at different periods of time. So there was the one cohort that consisted of people who had worked more than 10 years prior to 1931; people who had worked for more than 10 years after 1931. That type of comparison, to show that the incidents of asbestosis had declined. And in the 1964 paper, I believe, the inference was that the incidents of lung cancer in persons first exposed after 1931 had declined to the extent where it was no greater than for the general population. Q. Let me ask you this: Just to summarize this, at the 1964 conference sponsored by the New York Academy of Sciences here in New York City where we're sitting today, there was a paper presented concerning a cohort or group of DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011625 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 125 workers from the Turner Brothers Rochdale pLant, correct? A. Q. Correct. And that conference, ofcourse, was the conference that was chaired by Dr. Irving Selikoff and which was then published in the proceedings of New York Academy of Sciences or the proceedings of which were published in the annals of New York Academy of Sciences, correct? A. As a supplement. Q. As I understand it, though, the British Occupational Hygiene Society reviewed clinical and x-ray data on certain Turner Brothers employees who were employed in 1966. And my question is was this a different group or is that the same workers? A. Different. And it may have included some of the same workers, but this was not a mortality. The British Occupational Hygiene Society did not do a mortality, they did a morbidity study. Q. So they were just looking at the workers employed, a group of the workers employed at the factory at Rochdale at the time in 1966? DOYLE REPORTING, INC .212)867-8220 UCAREF00011626 1 Lewinsohn 126 2 A. Yes. What they did was -- yes,^ they 3 were looking at a group of workers that met 4 certain selection criteria with regard to 5 exposure, and that were I guess not necessarily 6 currently employed, but whose records were 7 available for examination. 9 Q. And as I understand it, at the time 9 you began as medical officer in 1966 you did some 10 follow-up surveillance of this group of workers, 11 would that be correct? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Let me work backwards. 14 15 16 17 18 19 I've got a paper here that you authored, entitled "The Medical Surveillance of Asbestos Workers," and it has even got a nice photo of you on the front here. MR. BROWNSON: We'll mark that as Exhibit 3 and we'll work from there. 20 (whereupon, paper entitled "Medical 21 Surveillance of Asbestos Workers" marked 22 Lewisohn Exhibit 3 for identification as of 23 this date . ) 24 MR. BROWNSON: We've now marked as 25 Exhibit 3 this paper entitled "Medical DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011627 1 Lewinsohn 127 2 Surveillance of Asbestos Workers. 3 Q. You're familiar with that paper, I 4 take it? 5 A. Yes, I am. 6 Q. It lists you as chief medical 7 officer, Tu rner Brothers Asbestos Company Limited, 8 Rochdale. And this was published in what journal? 9 A. I believe in the Journal of the Royal 10 Society of Health. Public Health. 11 Q. And - - 12 A. Royal Society of Public Health. 13 Q. It was published in 1972? 14 A. 1972 . 15 Q. What I am trying to figure out, and I 16 guess this is what I was trying to ask you before, 10 17 what group of workers are being reported upon in 18 this paper? 19 A. The people being reported upon in 20 this paper were current employees of Turner 21 Brothers Asbestos Company in Rochdale at that 22 time, which was in 1972. 23 If I may just take one minute. 24 Q. Sure take a look. 25 A. Let me just take a look and see. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011628 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 12 8 A. I would say that the report had reported on here were those that had passed through the medical department from May 1967 through -- I can't give you a definite end date, but 1972 sometime. Because that's what I am inferring from the information on page -- I can't see the page number, if there is one. Page 73 up in the top left-hand corner where the staple is. On page 73, in 1967 the company purchased its own x-ray unit, and since then all new employees have been x-rayed during the first week of employment, working in asbestos areas are now x-rayed annually, and it goes on to describe what is done. So therefore, in 1966 the company decided to equip a lung function lab which was operating by May '67, and I believe that this now, that the number reported on here are the numbers of people that were seen in that period of time. Q . ' 67 to '72? A. Yes. On the next page it says "preliminary results." Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the incidents of radiological changes in 10 years exposure groups, in 970 males and 317 females DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011629 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 129 exposed to asbestos. So these were current employees. Q. Right. A. They could well have included some of the people that were studied in the BOHS group of people, but they weren't necessarily the same group of people. Q. That's what I was trying to ask you before. A. There was an overlap. Q. Right. I'm sorry you had to go that long way around, but I had to make that clear to you. The British Occupational Hygiene Society studied a group of workers who were employed, as I understand it, as of 1966, is that correct? A. Again, without looking at the BOHS report to see what their criteria were, I can't say yes or no; all I can answer is that I was not involved in that particular study. Dr. Holmes, Dr. Knox and Dr. Holmes did it. But the records that were reviewed by Dr. Knox were from the medical department at Rochdale and the review was DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011630 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 130 done in 1966. Q. And then your study of workers which are reported in this paper on 1972 may or may not have included some of those people, but what it did include was the people who had been seen in your medical department from about May of '67 to 1972? A. Yes. And this is not a good paper. It isn't clear in its description of the population that was studied. That's the clearest I can give you based upon what I'm looking at now. Q. I am just looking for your own recollection - - A. Yes. Q. --of the people who are included in this paper. A. I think that's a fair recollection. Q. As I understand it. Great Britain adopted an asbestos standard in 1970 which for chrysotile was two fibers per cc. Is that correct? A. Not entirely. Britian adopted new regulations in 1969, but there was no standard. The standards that the factory inspectorate would DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011631 . 11 s- 1 Lewinsohn 13 1 2 uphold -- would enforce were published in the 3 separate document which was I believe called Notes 4 for the Guidance. 5 And they didn't carry the force of 6 law. But bearing in mind their origin, the 7 factory inspectorate probably would have been - - a What's the word I'm looking for? 9 Q. Strongly encouraged. 10 A. Strongly enforced by a court of law 11 or upheld by a court of law. 12 Q. And - - 13 A. And those notes for guidance adopted 14 the British Occupation of Hygiene Society's 15 standard, in effect. 16 There was some gray areas. 17 Q. Let me ask you this: The British 18 Occupation Hygiene Society standard that was 19 adopted, as I understand it, had a standard or had 20 a limit or standard or whatever you want to call 21 it, for chrysotile asbestos, is that correct? 22 A. The British Occupational Hygiene 23 published a recommended hygiene standard for 24 chrysotile asbestos in 1968, I think it was, or 25 ' 69 . DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011632 1 Lewinsohn 132 2 Q. Do you remember what that standard 3 was ? 4 A. That standard was 105 fibers per cc, 5 which meant when interpreted, that if you worked 6 for 50 years, you could work at 25 fibers per cc 7 to get up to 100 fibers per cc. It was a 8 cumulative dose. 9 Q. Would that also mean if you worked 10 for 10 years, you could have 10 fibers per cc? 11 A. Yes.I mean, that is the way you 12 could interpret it. 13 Q. I'm wondering, did people interpret 14 it that way? 15 A. No, not really. 16 Q. Because I guess the ultimate 17 extension of that is that if you worked for one 18 year you could be exposed to 100 fibers per cc, 19 and certainly nobody considered that reasonable, 20 did they? 21 A. No, that didn't make sense. 22 Basically 50 years was considered a working 23 1if etime. 2 4 Some people thought that that was too long. Very few people worked in the same job for DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011633 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 133 50 years. But nevertheless, 50 years, a working lifetime, two fibers per cc, 100 fibers per cc. Q. What I am trying to do is take you back, and if you can recall this, please tell us. If you don't, please tell us. I am trying to take you back to the time when you were medical officer at Turner Brothers Asbestos. Take the year '69, '70, when this standard was in effect. Was that generally considered at that time to be a practical or de facto or some sort of standard of two fibers per cc, or was it considered something else? MR. WILL: Excuse me. What do you mean by "generally considered"? Did he consider it? . MR. BROWNSON: That's a good point. Q. Let me askyou this. You've told us that the standard by the British Occupational Hygiene Society was 100 fibers per cc, which equates to two fibers per cc over a 50-year working lifetime. A. Yes. Q. And is that the way you understood it DOYLE REPORTING, INC.(212)867-8220 UCAREF00011634 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 134 at the time? A. Well, that's the way it was. Q. And my point is since you've told us that people really by and large weren't working 50 year lifetimes and people weren't exposed to 100 fibers per cc, what I am wondering is what did you consider to be the effect of that standard in terms of a limit that the workers should be at? Did you just use two fibers per cc or did you use something else? A. I thought that -- you're talking about my personal opinion? Q. Yes, back in those years. I thought that two fibers per cc was an achievable standard for most of the industry. And that based upon experience at Rochdale, which to some extent was not scientifically documented experience but based upon experience at Rochdale, wherein those departments where the levels had always been below two fibers per cc, the incidents of asbestos - related diseases had been, I would say negligible, if not entirely absent. And that was somewhat like the weaving shed. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011635 1 Lewinsohn 13 5 2 So it appeared to me to be a 3 reasonable standard and certainly a lot better 4 than anything that we had officially accepted 5 before. 6 But I did have, and I expressed some 7 doubts at the time, I did have some do-ubts on the 8 completeness of the study that had been done in 9 terms of the identification of the population and 10 the criteria which were used to determine what was 11 significant evidence of early disease, to relate 12 back to the dust levels that were available and to 13 correlate with those dust levels. 14 So it was the best available at the 15 time. 16 Q. . Let's do this. 12 17 Let's look at the tables that you 18 just referred to in your paper. Exhibit 3. I am 19 looking at figures 2 and 3. 20 They are discussed under the heading 21 of preliminary results in your paper, and what 22 you've done is you've grouped these workers in 23 24 10-year exposure groups. A. This is since first exposure. 25 Q. You've got one group of workers zero DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011636 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 136 to nine, under years since first exposure second group with 10 to 19 years, then 20 to 29 and 30 to 39 and 40 to 49, right? A. Yes. Q. Now, what I'm wondering is what is the difference between tables 2 and 3? A. Table 2 is males and table 3 is women. Q. So all other things are equal, in other words? A. Exposure is the commondenominator. Q. That is what Iwaswondering. The workers come from difference parts of the plants, or that sort of thing? A. Well, this isn't divided up by occupation; it's simply by exposure. In fact, an exposure meaning having worked there. Q. Did you use time of employment as your measurement of exposure in preparing these? A. I used years since first exposure. That doesn't mean to say that somebody who worked, who had the years since first exposure had been exposed for nine years, they could have been exposed for one year. But at the time that this DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-0220 UCAREF00011637 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 137 data was collected, it was nine years since that first exposure. They had survived nine years since first exposure. Q. Now I'm con Let's take zero to nine years since A. Let me expl Q. I am confus A. If you star work of nine years, you exposure and nine years first occurred. But if you worked at Rochdale and you start the same time as someone else who starts at the same time as you on the same date but only works for one year, is only exposed for one year, nine years later is nine years since first exposure. Q. A. Okay. Okay.But not total exposure. Total exposure was one year. Q . So - - A. It's ina way ameasure of latency DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (21.2 ) 867 - 8220 UCAREF00011638 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 138 rather than a measure of exposure. Q. Let's take your first category of workers, and we will look at figure 2 which is I guess the men. A. That's the men. Q. Let's look at figure 2. The men in the first group there of zero to nine years since first exposure . Some of those men might literally have had zero time since first exposure and some might have had nine years; is that the way we'd read that? A. That is the way you've read that. Q. Could we also read that as meaning there is an average exposure length of 4.5, or is it more to the 9 year end or the zero end? A. That I can't tell you because I don't think I did that. Q. Nobody really knows? A. Nobody really knows. Q. Let's look at the five bar graphs shown in that group, figure 2, men zero to nine years since first exposure. The first bar graph we see is normal x-rays? A. Correct. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. {212)867-8220 UCAREF00011639 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 139 Q. 90 percent of the men had normal x-rays, is that what that says? A. That is what that says. Q. How come it goes up to 140 percent instead of 100? A. Because there may have been some that would have been read more than once. Q- Some x- rays read more than once? A. Right. The number of findings exceeds the number of subjects, resulting in large percentage figures. Q. That is what I am wondering. If we look at that first bar graph of normal x-rays, when it indicates 90 percent, that doesn't necessarily mean that 90 percent of the men had normal x-rays? A. It means 90 percent of the x-rays read were normal. Q. Were normal. My question is what criteria were you using at that time to determine if an x-ray was normal? A. I was using UICC Cincinnati classification of the radiographic appearances of pneumoconioses. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011640 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 140 Q. Do you recall what that classification was - A. That is very simple. Q. -- in those years? A. That is very similar now to the current IOL classification. It was the early days of that classification. Q. If pleural thickening was seen on an x-ray under that classification, would that be classified as a normal or abnormal x-ray? A. Pleural thickening was actually - there were three categories of pleural thickening. Inconsistent with abestos exposure, consistent with asbestos exposure. There were two categories. They are barred separately in the graph. There are separate bars for pleural thickening. Q. See, here is what I can't figure out. I am looking at the key here to the table to the bar graphs here. The first one in the graph is normal x-rays and the second one is abnormal x-rays. Then under that there are two types of pleural thickening, pleural inconsistent and pleural consistent. And I understand pleural DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011641 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 IS 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 141 consistent is consistent with asbestos exposure, and pleural inconsistent would be something else? A. Yes. MR. WILL: Broken ribs? THE WITNESS: TB, something like that. MR. BROWNSON: Okay. Q. But what I am trying to find out is those are charted out as separate categories and they are not included either in normal x-rays or abnormal x-rays. They seem to be somewhere else. And what I am wondering is would that be considered - Let me ask you the question this way: If you saw pleural thickening consistent with asbestos exposure, would that be read as a normal x-ray or abnormal x-ray at that time? A. I don't know the answer to that, as I've charted it here, and it's a long time ago. It was a very crude descriptive statistical exercise . The best I can say is that pleural thickening was looked at separately. Q. Let me ask it this way if you know. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. {212)867-8220 UCAREF00011642 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 142 If we look at this first bar of normal x-rays which is approximately 90 percent of x-rays read, would those x-rays include any pleural thickening? A. I don't know. Q. So then the second bar in the first category of zero to nine years since first exposure among the men is abnormal x-rays; is that right? A. That's correct Q. And that indie ates that approximatel y 10 percent of the x-rays in those men were abnormal? A. Correct. Q. And I guess if we had approximately 90 percent of normal x-rays and approximately 10 percent of abnormal x-rays, those first two bars seem to cover all of the x- rays, would that be fair to say? A. They cover 100 percent. Q. But that might not be all of them? . A. It might not be all of the' x-rays, because as you can see, there is 140 percent. Q. But in any event, approximately 10 DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011643 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 143 percent of all of the x-rays read were abnormal in that category, zero to nine years first exposure? A. Yes. Q. Let's skip the third bar. The fourth bar is pleural thickening consistent with asbestos exposure. Is that what that is? A. If I'm going by the key, yes. Q. And that seems to indicate about a 35 percent, 30-some percent, let's say 35 of x-rays. Is that right? A. That looks as though you're right. Q. So could I then add approximately 35 percent of x-rays as having pleural thickening consistent with asbestos exposure and approximately 10 percent of x-rays being abnormal, and conclude that approximately 45 percent had some sort of change related to asbestos on them? A. Not necessarily. Q. Why can't I do that? A. Because there might be an overlap, as you already pointed out yourself. Q. There might or might not be? A. There might or might not be an DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011644 1 Lewinsohn 144 2 overlap. 3 Q. You can't tell? . 4 A. I don't know. 5 Q. What we do know for sure is . 6 practically 35 percent show up having pleural 7 thickening consistent with asbestos, and 8 approximately 10 percent show up as having 9 abnormal x-rays, right? 10 11 12 13 A. Yes. Q. And other than that, we can't draw further conclusions? A. Probably not. 14 Q. Now - - 15 A. Also, I think something you have to 16 recognize is that, and I don't know whether this 14 17 is so or not, but it's possible that there was 18 exposure at somewhere else other than Turner 19 Brothers Rochdale, that hasn't been counted. 20 Q. In these men? 21 A. In these men. 22 Q. But do you have any information that 23 that is so among the men - - r to A. No. 25 Q. -- on this paper? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011645 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 145 A. No. I don't know at this point in time whether that is so or not. Q. In 1966, when you began as medical officer at Rochdale, do you have an idea of what the average exposure to asbestos in the Rochdale plant was? A. The average exposure? Q. The average asbestos level in the air. MR. WILL: You mean just anywhere the plant? MR. BROWNSON: I assume it would vary. A. It varied by department. Q. You told us earlier that in the carting area it ranged from 8 to 10 fibers per up to 20 or 30? A. At one point in time. Q. At one point in time. years 3 And that that decreased over the A. Correct. Q. Now, is that the highest level of airborne asbestos in the plant that you can DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011646 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 146 recall, or were there areas that were higher than that? A. I don't recall anything much higher than that. . Q. So would it be fair to say that as a general proposition, that was at the high end of the level and then it went down from there? A. I think so. Q. And would it also be fair to say that over time that high end exposure level also decreased? A. Q. Yes. The ventilation got better and such? A. Correct. But then of course there was also low end. Q. Do you remember what the low end was? A. Well, the weaving shed was the area that was a prime example and - Q. Do you remember what the air levels were? A. The levels, they were below two fibers per cc. Q. So if we take the year 1972 as an example, could we say that at the Rochdale plant DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011647 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewins ohn 147 che low level of exposure was something below two fibers per cc and the high end was where? A. The low end I think was consistently below two levels per cc; the high end could fluctuate between 8 and 10 to 20 to 30. Q. Let me just go back to figure 2 here, men who had, as of 1972, who had 10 to 19 years since their first exposure were showing approximately 35 percent abnormal x-rays, is that right? A. Yes. On this graph. Q. As reported on the graph in figure 2 of your paper? A. Yes. Q. And men who had pleural Chickening consistent with asbestos exposure were approximately 60 percent of x-rays? A. That is correct. Q. And that is in the group of 10 to 19 years since first exposure? A. Yes. Q. And then if we go to 20 to 29 years since first exposure, those men had approximately, I don't know, 50 to 55 percent of normal x-rays? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011648 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn A. Approximately. 148 Q. And in fact, in that group of men 20 to 29 group since first exposure, there are more abnormal x-rays than normal x-rays? A. Yes. Q. Also in that group of 20 to 29 years since first exposure, I see that we have about 90 percent of x-rays with pleural thickening consistent with asbestos exposure. A. Yes. Q. Are you aware that in - A. But can I just remind you that 100 percent is not the maximum here. Q. Right, I understand that. Did you present these data at any scientific meetings before you published these papers ? A. These data were presented at a meeting in Rochdale at the local hospital, at a provincial meeting of the Royal Society of Health. Q. And do you recall afterthese data were published by the Royal Society of Health in 1972, of speaking about them with Dr. Selikoff or speaking to Dr. Selikoff about these data? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011649 1 Lewinsohn 149 2 A. I corresponded with Dr. Selikoff 3 about these data. 4 Q. So would it be fair to say that at 5 some point shortly after these data were published 6 in 1972 at least. Dr. Selikoff was aware of them? 7 A. Well, it was '72 or '73, I don't 15 8 know. But Dr. Selikoff was made aware of them, 9 yes . . 10 Q. And for the record, Dr. Selikoff 11 would be Dr. Irving J. Selikoff at the Mount Sinai 12 School of Medicine in New York City? 13 A. That's correct. 14 Q. Are you aware of the fact that these 15 data as published in Exhibit 3, your 1972 paper, 16 were used by other than the Occupational Health 17 and Safety Administration here in the U.S. when 18 they were setting their asbestos standards? 19 A. They were used by other than in the 20 United States when they proposed an amendment to 21 their asbestos standard in I believe 1972. Or it 22 may have been later than that, I have got the time 23 frames -- I am -- the time frames are not quite . 24 clear in my mind at the moment. 25 Q. In any event, OSHA did -- maybe I can DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011650 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 150 help jog your memory -- permanently adopt its asbestos at 5 fibers per cc in June of 1972. Do you know if these data were used at that time or were they used for later revisions ? A. They were not used at that time. Q. In 1975 OSHA proposed lowering its asbestos standard to .5 fibers per cc. Do you know if it was that revision where these data were used? A. I believe it was that revision. Q. I'm taking you back in time here, but as you understood it, do you recall that Dr. Selikoff was somewhat alarmed at the data presented in your paper here that we just saw summarized in tables 2 and 3, and he went to OSHA at that time and said, "Look at what Dr. Lewinsohn is reporting over in England. You ought to take this data into account"? ' A. That is my understanding. Q. So again, if we can summarize, at least that data was in the possession of Dr. Selikoff by '72 or '73, and had been presented to OSHA at some point shortly thereafter here in the DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011651 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 151 United States? A. By Dr. Selikoff. Q. Right. And in addition to Dr. Selikoff, do you recall corresponding or meeting or talking with any other American researchers or physicians about the data that we've just been reviewing in your '72 paper? A. Yes, yes. Q. Who was that, can you recall? A. I met with Dr. Paul Kotin who was medical - - I don't know what his title was. medical advisor to Johns Manville. Q. C-o-t-i-n? A. K-o-t-i-n. And Dr. George Wright who was a consultant to Johns Manville. Q. Is that the Dr. George Wright who is in Cleveland? A. Yes. And Dr. Hans Weil, who was in Tulane University. Q. Tulane? A. Yes . I think those were the people I met. Q. And you met with these American doctors where? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011652 1 Lewinsohn 152 2 A. I met with them, at their request, in 3 Denver. 4 Q. In Denver at? 5 A. At Johns Manville headquarters. 6 Q. And how was it that this meeting came 7 about? Were yo.u contacted by these people or did 8 you contact them or - 9 A. No, I was contacted by them. 10 Q. And do you recall who it was who 11 contacted you? 12 A. That I'm not sure of. 13 Q. But in any event, somebody contacted 14 you and there was a meeting at the Johns Manville 15 16 17 headquarters in Denver when? A. It must have been about the time that OSHA published its intent to revise the standard 18 down. Whether that would have been '74 or '75, I 19 don't remember. 20 Q. And the meeting took place in Denver, 21 and for the record, Johns Manville was an American 22 asbestos company, right? 23 A. Are you asking me? 24 Q. Yes. I'm asking you. 25 A. Yes, yes. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011653 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 153 Q. It had various asbestos products manufacturing plants and also had asbestos mining interests; were you aware of that at the time? A. Yes. Q. Were you aware atthattime that one of Johns Manville's mines was near King City, California, in the Coalingo deposit? A. I had heard of the Coalingo deposit. I didn't necessarily know it was a Johns Manville mine. Q. In anyevent, thismeeting was venued in the Johns Manville headquarters in Denver, and present was this Dr. Kolin from Johns Manville? A. Kotin. Q. Dr. George Wright from Cleveland, Dr. Hans Weil from Tulane, you, and anyone else who you can recall? A. There was some people from Johns Manville. Q. Do you remember, was it Chris Schecter? Was he there? A. No . Q. Fred Pundsak? A. Not at the meeting. I had met Fred DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011654 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 154 Penj ab. Q. A. Was there a Mr. Jobe Not that I remember. Q. Mr . Ritsea? A. Yes . Q. Fred Ritsea? A. Yes. And a statisti epidemiologist, statistician that worked for Johns Manville. He worked for Ritsea, I think. I don't remember his name. Q. Would it be fair to say that these people who worked for Johns Manville were concerned about your data at that time and were questioning you about it? A. What they had asked me to do was to update them on the history of the development of all of the data at Rochdale. We went back in time. I started with the Meriweather and Price study that had been done in 1929, which was at Rochdale. The Doll study in 19 -- that was published in 1955, and then its extension into the cohort studies that had been reported by Doll and Knox and others. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011655 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 155 And the BOHS study and then the information that was in this paper. And how all of that data had been accumulated and what the distinctions were between the different sets of data. So we discussed that. Q. And were they concerned about being updated on all of that data at the time of that meeting because of the fact that it appeared that this data was going to form some basis for the revision of the American Occupational Asbestos Standard? A. They were, I think, trying to accumulate as much knowledge as they possibly could about the data that OSHA was relying on to justify its proposed reduction increase in the stringency of the standards. The kind of . standards. Q. And of course some of the data that OSHA was relying on at that time to cut the asbestos, the American Asbestos Occupational standard from two fibers per cc down to .5 was your data that we just saw here in Exhibit 3? A. As presented to OSHA by Dr. Selikoff. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011656 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 156 Q. So in any event, by the time that OSHA was considering a revision of the asbestos standard here in the United States, the occupational asbestos standard from two fibers down to .5, OSHA had in its possession your data from Rochdale which we have seen in Exhibit 3? A. I must add again, as presented to them by Dr. Selikoff. Q. And the way I understand that OSHA got that data was that Dr. Selikoff presented it to them? A. With his interpretation. Q. Do you believe that Dr. Selikoff misinterpreted the date to OSHA when he presented it to them? A. I,wouldn't go that far. Q. Would you - A. But I think that Dr. Selikoff presented the data in a manner that suited his purpose. Q. Let me ask you this: Do you believe that Dr. Selikoff presented your data from Rochdale to OSHA in a manner that was more alarmist than the way you would have presented it? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011657 17 *r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 157 A. No. I think Dr. Selikoff took my data and reworked it and presented it to OSHA. And it was my contention in my correspondence with Dr. Selikoff that that was. A, unjustified, and B, somewhat unethical due to the fact that he never bothered to consult me about it, and that I had some concerns about my own data that had he talked to me about them, he might have understood my point of view. Q. And do you know if those concerns that you expressed to Dr. Selikoff ever made their way to OSHA, or did OSHA just get Dr. Selikoff's view of your data? A. I don't honestly remember if my -- no, I don't know if there was any direct correspondence with OSHA. Q. And as you recall it, taking yourself back to those years in the early 1970s, at least here in the United States was Dr. Selikoff one of the leading researchers on asbestos and disease? A. According to Dr. Selikoff, yes. Q. Was his research widely disseminated in the United States concerning asbestos and disease, by that time? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011658 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewins ohn 15 8 A. Very widely. Q. Around the 1970s? A. Very widely disseminated by television, the lay press and some journalists. Q. And were his views, whether right or wrong, on asbestos and disease available here in the United States or disseminated here in the United States, at least in the medical literature by the early 1970s? A. Dr. Selikoff's published scientific documents are impeccable and are authoritative, and probably largely because his co-author, Dr. Cuyler Hammond, was a very brilliant man. So Dr. Selikoff's published scientific literature I have no quibbles with. And he contributed greatly to the knowledge and understanding of asbestos and health in the United States, and thereby in the world as well. So I have no axe to grind on that score. Q. If an American asbestos company in 1973, this time period we are talking about, wanted to know what data OSHA was considering and OSHA had in its possession to revise the American DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (2.12)867- 8220 UCAREF00011659 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 159 occupational asbestos standard, would it have had available to it this interpretation that Dr. Selikoff put on your data that you've just told us about ? MR. WILL: Excuse me. Are you asking him could they have called up OSHA and would OSHA have told them what Selikoff told OSHA about Dr. Lewinsohn's data? I don't know if he knows what OSHA would make available. MR. BROWNSON: My question is not what OSHA would make available, but I'm trying to find out what OSHA had in its possession concerning your data that we saw in Exhibit 3. Q. You seem to have told us what they had in their possession was not your interpretation of it, but Dr. Selikoff's. A. Sorry to mislead you. They also must have had a copy of my paper. I had no direct dealings with OSHA. As you know, anything that - any documentation that OSHA accumulated once the docket was opened was in the public domain. So it would not be difficult to find DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011660 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 160 out, I guess, what OSHA had or didn't have, but I didn't -- that was not up to me to do. Q. If someone checked the OSHA docket at that time to see what data OSHA had in its possession, as I understand what you've told us, they would find Dr. Selikoff's comments concerning your data in addition to your own data itself? A. That's your assumption. Q. I thought that is what you told us. but maybe not. A. I don't know that. Q. At least we do know that OSHA, that Dr. Selikoff presented to OSHA his own interpretation of your data? A. Well, again, I don't know that Dr. Selikoff did that. Q. Well - A. It may have come from Dr. Selikoff's department, and in Mount Sinai, whether it was actually Dr. Selikoff who presented the data to OSHA or not, I don't know, it could have been Dr. Nicholon or Dr. Lango or anybody who worked for Dr. Selikoff. Q. But in any event, Dr. Selikoff's DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011661 l Lewinsohn 161 2 interpretation of your data was presented to OSHA 3 by somebody? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And would it be fair to say that at 6 that time, that any person or party interested in 7 the new proposed revised OSHA asbestos standard 8 would have found out that it was based, at least 9 partly, on your data from Rochdale? 10 MR. WILL: I don't think he can know 11 that, Bob. 12 MR. BROWNSON: Well -- 13 MR. WILL: I mean, you're asking him 14 to assume what you can find by looking in 15 an OSHA docket at some unspecified point in 16 time . 17 MR. BROWNSON: I don't know if he 18 can know that or not, but I guess -- 19 Q. Do you know that? 20 A. I don't know. But let me say that, 21 you know, it's accepted scientific practice that 22 if you are going to quote somebody's work, you 18 23 cite the reference. 24 Q. So put another way, these data which 25 are shown in Exhibit 3, your paper, which were in DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011662 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 162 circulation in the United States at the time that OSHA was revising its asbestos downwards? A. I don't know whether they were in circulation. I know that Dr. Selikoff had them. The Journal of the Royal Society of Health is not one of the household names in medical literature. And in the United States I don't know how widely that journal would be disseminated, so I can't answer that except to say that I know Dr. Selikoff had it. Q. Do you know when you got to the meeting at Johns Manville that you just told us about, if people at that meeting had the data in their possession? A. To the best of my knowledge, they did. Q. Do you know if they actually had this particular paper, or did they have it in some other form? A. As far as I know, they had the particular paper. Q. So at least as of the time you met out in Johns Manville headquarters in Denver to update these people about your work, they had your DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011663 1 Lewinsohn 163 2 paper. Exhibit 3, in their possession? 3 A. I believe they did. 4 Q. Do you know who had it in their 5 possession? Was it Dr. Weil or Dr. Wright? 6 A. I don't know who had it. 7 Q Do you know where they got it? 8 A. No, I don't know where they got it, 9 but it was published in the open literature. They 10 11 12 13 14 15 could get it from any number of sources once Dr. Selikoff had revealed its existence. Q. Would it be fair to say that in those years, early 1970s when Dr. Selikoff revealed the existence of your data, it then would be widely disseminated in asbestos medical circles in che 16 United States? 17 A. Again, I don't know how widely it was 18 disseminated. I can't answer you, except to say 19 that Dr. Selikoff had it and I know the people I 20 met with at Johns Manville had it. Who else had 21 it, I don't know. 22 Q. Let me ask you this. If Union 23 Carbide wanted to get it in 1973, is there any 24 reason they couldn't have gotten it? 25 A. None whatsoever. It's in the open DOYLE REPORTING, INC. {212)867 - 8220 UCAREF00011664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 164 literature. -' Q. And Union Carbide at that time had a medical library at the office of their medical directory in New York City, did they not? A. I wasn't there, I don't know. Q. As of 1982 you were there, correct? A. In Danbury, Connecticut. Q. Was there a medical librarian in. Danbury? A. No. Q. Was the medical library in New York City? A. Not that I know of. Q. Where was the medical library? A. I never -- there wasn't a medical library when I was there. Q. When you started at Union Carbide in 1972, who was the medical director of the company? A. The corporate medical director of the Union Carbide was Dr. Tom Lincoln. Q. And do you have any understanding or do you know who the Union Carbide medical director was in 1973? A. I don't know. I don't remember. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011665 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 165 Q. Do you know Dr. D-e-r-n-a-h-1? A. D-e-r-h-r-a-1. Q. Do you know Dr. Dernehl? A. I met Dr. Dernehl once. Q. Are you aware that he was in the Union Carbide medical department in the early 1970s? A. I am aware that he was a former Union Carbide medical director. I don't know the dates of his tenure. Q. Would it be f air to say that Dr. Dernehl would have better information than you as to what medical libraries were available to Union Carbide back in the early '70s? MR. GERSON: Better information than Dr. Lewinsohn? MR. BROWNSON: Right. A. would, yes Well, I wasn't there, so he probably (Recess taken.) MR. BROWNSON: Back on the record. Q. When we broke at the break here, we had been talking some about Dr. Selikoff. And when did you first meet Dr. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011666 1 Lewinsohn 166 2 Selikoff? 3 A. I think I first met him in 1968 in 4 Dresden. 5 Q. 6 A. That was at a meeting? At a conference. 7 Q. On what? 8 A. On asbestos. 9 Q. And I take it you were aware of he. 10 Dr. Selikoff and his work before that time? 11 A. Yes. I was aware of Dr. Selikoff's 12 work following the publication of the Annals of 13 the New York Academy of Sciences Supplement. 14 15 16 17 18 Q. And was that published in December of '65 or after that? A. I believe it was published in '65. Q. I think the main proceedings, the big book was published in '65? 19 A. '65, correct. 20 Q. And are you saying there was some 21 supplement to that? 22 A. No. That's the one I'm referring to. 23 24 Q- Okay. A. It is a supplement to Annals, 25 Supplement 132. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011667 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 167 ' Q. In 1965 you were with the pneumoconioses unit that you've told us about earlier? A. In 1965? Q. Yes. A. Yes. Q. So it was while working for the pneumoconioses unit in England that you learned of the work of Dr. Selikoff? A. When did I -- I went back to the - to England in 1963. At the pneumoconioses medical panel in 1964 we used to have regular meetings. I heard about the New York meeting and Dr. Selikoff's work through Dr. McVide, who was the senior medical officer of the pneumoconioses medical panel who attended that meeting, and in fact presented a paper at that meeting. And when he came back he distributed his paper and I guess told us about Selikoff's work. So I heard it about in '64. I didn't read his publications until after they came out in the Annals . Q. They were published in the Annals of DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011668 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 168 the New York Academy of Science in 1965. Did you then read Dr. Selikoff's papers? A. I read most of the papers in that book at the time. Q. And were you aware at that time that -- at the risk of simplifying this -- were you aware at that time that Dr. Selikoff was following a group of insulation workers in New York City and New Jersey? A. Q. Yes. And reporting on their experience with asbestos? A. Yes. Q. And are youaware that since that initial conference in 1964 that was published in 1965, that Dr. Selikoff has published other papers up through the years concerning that same group of asbestos insulation workers? A. Yes . Q. I'vegot here anumber of or a few of these papers, and I just wanted to show you some. MR. BR0WNS0N: Let's mark this this one . (Whereupon, paper entitled "Asbestos DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)067-8220 UCAREF00011669 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 169 Exposure and Neoplasia," marked Lewinsohn Exhibit 4 for identification as of this date.) Q. I have shown you Deposition Exhibit No. 4, which is a paper entitled "Asbestos Exposure and Neoplasia," which was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in April 6, 1964. Do you know whether you read this paper at any point in time? MR. WILL: Any point in time? MR. BR0WNS0N: I will start with any point in time. And if he says no, we can end it right there. A. Yes, I read this paper. Q. My next question is do you know when you first read it? A. That I can't tell you. It could well have been after its publication in 1964 some time. Q. Are you familiar with this paper? A. Well, what makes we believe that I read this paper is this is where Selikoff first indicated the added risk of smoking and working with asbestos . DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011670 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 170 Q. In this particular paper it indicates that he was investigating the members of the Asbestos Workers Union in the New York Metropolitan area. And then he goes on to describe some of his findings. Is that correct? A. Yes. That's what the paper is about. Q. And I want you to look at the last page of the paper, which is page 26. It has a heading with an italicized clause "Environmental asbestos exposure," and he writes "The recent demonstration by South African and British investigators of pleural and peritoneal neoplasms among individuals who had chance environmental exposure to asbestos many years before raises the very important question of possible widespread carcinogenic air pollution." Do you know what he is talking about when he talks about the British investigators? A. Yes. Q. What's that? A. I believe he is talking about the British investigator, I believe he is talking about Dr. Newhouse. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011671 20 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 171 Q. And that is Molly Newhouse? A. Dr. Molly Newhouse, reference number. Q. He has got McCaughey? A. McCaughey coffee, Wade and Elmes. Q. You're aware, though, of the work of Dr. Newhouse in the mid '60s? A. Yes. Q. Then he goes on to write at the end of the article, "A particular variety of environmental exposure may be of even greater concern. Asbestos exposure in industry will not be limited to the particular craft that utilizes the material. The floating fibers do not respect job classifications." Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. What I am wondering is when you were at the pneumoconioses unit, and then after 1966 at Turner Brothers, did you have an understanding that the asbestos fibers, to use Dr. Selikoff's words, do not respect job classifications? In other words they could float or drift around the work area? A. Did I have an understanding? It was DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011672 1 Lewinsohn 218 2 Manville mine at Coalinga. California? 3 A. I have no idea. 4 Q. How about the Atlas asbestos mines at 5 Coalinga? 6 A. I don't know anything about those two 7 mines. 8 Q. Do you have any information about the 9 current activity of the California board of air 10 resources Superfund activity at Coalinga? 11 A. I've heard something about it, but 12 I'm not familiar with the details. 13 Q. And when you say you've heard 14 something about it, was that more or less in IS passing or have you heard it in connection with 16 some work you have been doing? 17 A. Yes, more or less in passing. 18 Q. Do you have an understanding that 19 some governmental body in California is attempting 20 to claim that the Supertene department in 21 Coalinga, California poses some sort of health 22 hazard because it's getting into the air or water 23 out there? 24 A. That's what I've heard. 25 Q. Other than that do you have any DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011719  1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 173 standing nearby watching, for example?' - A. Yes. Q. In other words, the fibers could drift for some distance. A. Yes. Q. I guess that's more or less a matter of common sense, isn't it? A. Yes. That's I why I call it , bystander exposure. Q. So what Dr. Selikoff is reporting in this paper, Exhibit 4, that I just read, wouldn't have been surprising or shocking to you in those years, would it? A. Well, it would have been -- he and the others were introducing a new concept to the conventional views of asbestos which had traditionally been regarded as purely an occupational disease limited to certain occupations. And what these people were demonstrating was that there was a potential for exposure to others who hitherto had not been regarded as being exposed. Q. Look at Exhibit 4, the authors are listed as Dr. Irving J. Selikoff and then DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011674 ^ 1 Lewinsohn 174 2 C-h-u- r-g. .......................................... ....................... ......................... 3 Do you know a Dr. Churg? 4 A. I don't think I know Dr. Churg. 5 I've seen his name on Selikoff 6 publications, but I don't know him. 7 Q. And then also listed is Cuyler 8 Hammond. And Dr. Hammond, as I understand it, is 9 not a medical doctor? . io A. No, Dr. Cuyler Hammond, as I 11 understand it, is a doctor of Science, that is his 12 degree. 13 Q. But he was the vice president of the 14 American Cancer Society at that time; were you 15 16 17 18 19 20 aware of that? A. I didn't know what his honors were. Q. This particular paper, Exhibit 4, was published in a medical journal, JAMA, which is the Journal of the American Medical Association. I take it you're familiar with that journal today? 21 A. Yes . 22 Q. Were you familiar with that journal 23 back in 1964? 24 25 A. Yes. Q. Was that journal available over in DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011675 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lewinsohn 175 England? A. Yes . MR. BROWNSON: Let's mark this one. (Whereupon, paper by Drs. Selikoff, Churg and Hammond, marked Lewinsohn Exhibit 5 for identification as of this date.) Q. I'm showing you what has been marked as Deposition Exhibit 5. And the copy that you've got doesn't have a date, but I'll tell you this is a paper by Dr. Selikoff, Churg and Hammond that was published in the proceedings of this 13 conference of 1964. 1 14 Published in the Annals of the New 15 York Academy of Science in 1965. 16 Do you recognize this paper as one 17 that you mentioned earlier that you read? 18 19 20 21 22 23 A. Yes. Q. And this one is called "Neoplasia among Insulation Workers in the United States with Special Reference to Intra-Abdominal Neoplasia." And its authors are E.C. Hammond - is that the same Cuyler Hammond that we saw in 24 25 that other paper? A. It is. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011676 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Lewinsohn 176 Q. He is listed as being at the 'NewYork Cancer Society in New York. And then Dr. Selikoff and Churg at the Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York. Is that correct? A. That's what it says. Q. And I wanted you to look at a couple of things here. If you look at the first page. Dr. Selikoff or the authors of this paper have a discussion about malignant neoplasias, and by that they mean cancers, do they not? A. They mean new growth which are malignant. Q. In laymen's terms, would that be cancer? A. It could be cancer, it could be leukemia, it could be lymphoma, but it's a new growth, neoplasm. Q. But in terms of the asbestos insulation workers being studied by Dr. Selikoff, the neoplasms he is talkingabout are lung cancers and mesotheliomas, aren't they? A. I'm sorry, I was looking at the paper, could you repeat that? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011677 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 177 Q. In terms of the asbestos insul'a-tion workers being studied by Dr. Selikoff that are talked about in this paper, the neoplasms that he was seeing in those workers and reporting about were lung cancers and mesotheliomas, among others? A. In this paper? Q. No, among the insulation workers. A. He is reporting on intra-abdominal neoplasia in this paper. Q. Okay. And do you understand -- A. In insulation workers. Q. Do you understand what the intra-abdominal neoplasias are that he is talking about ? A. Well, I would have to read it, but I -- I bel ieve, let's see which he is talking about. He is got a gastrointestinal carcinoma. Q. Look at Table 1, which I think might summarize it. A. Stomach, colon and rectum, so I guess that is what he is calling gastrointestinal carcinoma. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. {212)867-8220 UCAREF00011678 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 178 Q. Did you understand that Dr. Selikoff in 1964 and '65, and around the time of this paper, was reporting that these asbestos workers not only had higher rates of lung cancer than expected, but he also was claiming that they had various types of gastrointestinal cancers, stomach cancer, colon cancer, higher than expected? A. Very interesting, he was the only person finding that. Q. But that's something that he was reporting back at that time? A. Yes. Q. And that is a subject of this particular paper? A. Yes. Q. Exhibit 5? A. Yes. (Whereupon, paper presented by Dr. Selikoff published in the Annals of New York Academy of Science in 1965 marked Lewinsohn Exhibit number 6 for identification as of this date.) Q. NextI've got Exhibit 6 and this is another paper presented by Dr. Selikoff that was DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011679 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 179 published in the Annals of New York Academy of Science in 19 6 5. Do you recall this as one of those papers that you read? A. Yes, it is. Q. And this one is entitled "The Occurrence of Asbestosis Among Insulation Workers in the United States." Is that correct? A. That is the title. Q. And do you recall reading that back in this 1965 time period, the one when it was published? A. I believe I read this. Q. And I don't know if I can summarize the contents of this entire paper in a sentence, but I'll try. Would it be fair to say that what Dr. Selikoff is reporting here is, again, about these asbestos insulation workers, same group of workers he had been talking about in his prior papers, is that right? A. Well, I think he expanded the numbers; his original papers were 363 insulation DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011680 1 Lewinsohn 180 2 workers and here is he is talking about much 3 larger group. 4 14,000 total membership examined, he 5 is talking about more than a thousand. 6 Q. It's, I guess what I meant to say -- 7 I'm sorry? 8 A. So it's - 2 9 Q. It's the same workers, he is just 10 reporting on more of them as time goes on, he is 11 reporting on more and more of these people? 12 A. Yes, he is actually talking about a 13 larger group of people; whether they include these 14 365, I don't know. 15 Q. But again, this larger group is 16 asbestos insulation workers in the United States? 17 A. Yes, that is what he calls them. 18 Q. I see on the first page in the second 19 full paragraph he is giving some history of 20 historical references to asbestos disease in 21 textile workers and he mentions the publication of 22 Cooke's case in 1927? 23 A. Which page is this? . 24 Q. It's on the very first page. . 25 A. Yes, right. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011681 1 Lewinsohn 181 2 Q. Is chat the same Cooke's case we 3 looked at < rlier that arose? 4 A. That is correct. S Q Out of Turner plant back in the early 6 1920's? 7 A. Reference number No. 4 in the paper, 8 9 10 11 12 "Pulmonary Volume Two, Which is not the same publication this also : Yes, I'm sorry, it's the same case, 13 but he has 14 Q. In fact, there are actually, I guess 15 that partii 16 different 17 A. 18 Q. And I've got here a couple of other 19 references 20 '27, which 21 the point 22 woman? 23 24 25 A. Q. entitled " It would appear so. And if you look at the section DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011682 1 Lewinsohn 182 2 paper here , he reports that, "Among the asbestos 3 insulation workers examined by us,, evidence of 4 pulmonary asbestosis was present in almost half of 5 the men examined." 6 A. Page 142? 7 Q. 146, I'm sorry. . 8 A. Okay. 9 Q. Do you see that reference? 10 A. Yes . 11 Q. And then he says, "In this 12 evaluation , radiologic change has been used as the 13 sole criteria," right? 14 A. Yes . 15 Q. So is he saying there that based on 16 x-rays only, he claims to see pulmonary asbestosis 17 in almost half of the insulation workers that he 18 examined? 19 A. What he is saying there is that the 20 sole criteria was x-rays. That almost half of the 21 men examined had evidence of asbestosis using that 22 criteria, yes. 23 And it goes on to say that, "We 24 understand that evaluation of the presence of 25 asbestosis limited only to x-ray findings tends to DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011683 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Lewinsohn result in underestimation." 183 Q. And what do you understand him to mean by that? A. Well, he means that there may be some cases that have other criteria of diagnosis as I pointed out to you, other criteria for the diagnosis of asbestosis, as I pointed out to you earlier, and that do not necessarily have x-ray changes. Q. So would it be fair to say that what Dr. Selikoff is reporting is almost half of these asbestos insulation workers in the United States had asbestos on x-ray, but really more of them might have asbestosis if he used these other diagnostic criteria? A. Well, what Dr. Selikoff is saying is that of 1258 asbestos insulation workers that he examined by his criteria, and he doesn't say what his x-ray reading criteria were, had pulmonary asbestosis in over half. Q. And I wanted to get at this point of underreporting of cases. Does that mean that if other diagnostic criteria were used, there may be even more asbestosis among that group of workers? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011684 1 Lewinsohn 184 2 A. That's his conclusion; whether he is 3 right or wrong, I don't know because his reading 4 of the x-rays may be faulty, so he may have 5 overread his films and have more cases if he is 6 using solely radiologic criteria. 7 Q. Right or wrong, that at least is what 8 he was reporting and publishing in the Annals of 9 the New York Academy of Science in 1965, correct? 10 A. That was- Dr. Selikoff's opinion in 3 11 1965 . 12 Q. I think you told us earlier that you 13 considered, and I guess consider now his published 14 work to be authoritative? 15 A. I do. 16 Q. Because of the presence with him of 17 Dr. Cuyler Hammond? 18 A. Right. 19 Q. And Dr. Cuyler Hammond is a co-author 20 on this paper, isn't he? 21 A. Sure, but that doesn't mean to say I 22 have to agree with everything that is written. 23 Q. If I could just summarize this, the .^ 24 papers that we just looked at, Deposition Exhibits 25 4, 5 and 6, by Dr. Selikoff were all papers which DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011685 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 185 were presented in 1965 or published in 1964 and 1965 in connection with this conference on asbestos and disease held here in New York City. Would that be fair to say? A. Yes. The general one was not, of course. Q . But - - MR. WILL: I'm not trying to be funny, you've got three articles there that were published in '64 and '65. MR. BROWNSON: Right. . Q. Exhibits 5 and 6 were both papers presented at the asbestos conference in New York City in 1964 and both published in 1965 by the New York Academy of Sciences, right? A. Right. Q. And that conference on asbestos in 1964 in New York City received wide publicity, did it not? A. Yes, Dr. Selikoff saw to that. Q. He was something of a publicity hound with respect to asbestos? A. He sure was. Q. With respect to his work on asbestos DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011686 1 Lewinsohn 186 2 and disease? 3 A. Yes . 4 Q. And at that time in 1964 and 1965, 5 didn't Union Carbide have its medical department 6 in New York City? 7 A. Again, I wasn't with Union Carbide in 8 1964, '65, but Union Carbide's headquarters were 9 10 11 12 in New York City. Q. And was its medical director at the headquarters in New York City or someplace else? A. I don't know. I would think he was, 13 14 15 16 17 18 but I don't know. Q- After you left Turner Brothers in 1976, you went to Raybestos-Manhattan Company? A. That's correct. Q. Where were they located? A. Headquartered in Trumbull, 19 Connecticut. 20 21 Q. So at that point in 1976, you left England for the United States? 22 23 24 A. That is true. Q. Went to work for Raybestos- Manhattan in Trumbull,, Connecticut? 25 A. Yes. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011687 1 Lewinsohn 187 2 Q. At that time, they were a 3 manufacturer of various asbestos products, were 4 they not? 5 A. 6 Q. 7 brakes ? Friction materials, basically. By friction materials, we mean 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 A. Caskets, clutches, yes. Q. What were your duties with Raybestos-Manhattan when you started with them in 1976? A. I was asked to come to Raybestos-Manhattan to help them develop their medical surveillance program for asbestos workers. Basically that was my main role. Q. And how long did you work for Raybestos-Manhattan? A. I would say about four years, I left 19 there in 1981. 20 Q. And when you left in 1981, you went 21 to work for Perkin-Elmer Corporation in Norwalk, 22 Connecticut ? 23 A. Right. 24 Q. You worked there for one year? 25 A. For one year. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011688 1 Lewinsohn 188 2 Q. What did you do for them? 3 A. They had again not had a full-time 4 corporate medical director before and I went to 5 establish a medical program for them. 6 Q. Did that have anything to do with 7 asbestos workers? 8 A. Nothing whatever. 9 Q. Weren't they some kind of an optical 10 company? 11 A. Electrical optical manufacturing 12 company. 13 Q. And then in 1982, you went to work 14 for Union Carbide Corporation? 15 A. That is correct. 16 Q. At Danbury, Connecticut? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. You stayed at Union Carbide in one 19 capacity or another until your retirement in 1992 20 that you told us about earlier? 21 A. That's true. 22 Q. And at all times that you were with 23 Union Carbide from 1982 to 1992, were you located * 24 at Danbury, Connecticut? 25 A. Yes. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011689 1 Lewinsohn 189 2 Q. And as I understand, you were 3 attached to different divisions within the company 4 during those years, but were your duties generally 5 the same or did they change over time? 6 A. They -- I'm not being facetious, but 7 the answer is yes and no. They stayed essentially 8 the same. No, they didn't change. They stayed 9 essentially the same; yes, there was some 10 modifications from time to time in my duties. 11 Q. Did your duties during that those 12 years from 1982 do 1992 with Union Carbide include 13 the area of asbestos and disease? 14 MR. GERSON: At any point during 15 that time? 16 MR. BROWNSON: Right. 17 A. Between 1982 and 1992? 18 Q. Right. 19 A. Very peripherally. You know, it 20 was -- I did not have a functional responsibility 21 of any kind for any of the asbestos division, or 22 you knowm - - 23 Q. Let me ask you this, during those 10 24 years from 1982 to 1992 with Union Carbide, did % 25 your duties include looking at workers in various DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011690 Lewinsohn 190 Union Carbide plants who may have been exposed to asbestos in the plants? A. Did I look at the workers? Q. Right. A. I never actually examined any 7 workers. I did -- I believe probably shortly 8 before the King City operation was divested or 9 sold off or whatever happened to it, I was asked 10 to review the some of the records of the workers 11 in that facility to see whether there was any 12 evidence of health effects. 13 Q. I am confining my questions to the 14 moment not to King City workers, but workers in 15 other Union Carbide plants or facilities. 16 A. No, the answer still is no. 17 Q. For example, the answer probably will 18 remain the same, but let me try to explain what I 19 am getting at. 20 Union Carbide had plants in West 21 Virginia where they made chemicals and workers in 22 those plants may or may not have been exposed to 23 asbestos pipe covering, for example. And my 24 question goes to whether you had any duties or did 25 any work with respect to workers of that type who DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011691 1 Lewinsohn 191 2 were in some Union Carbide facilities but may have 3 been exposed to asbestos? 4 MR. GERSON: You're talking about 5 direct examinations of individuals? 6 MR. BROWNSON: Yes, let's start with 7 that. 8 A. Union Carbide had physicians, 9 full-time physicians at its major plants, were 10 responsible for the day-to-day provision of 11 services to the employees. 12 Q. So you would not have seen such 13 employees to do medical evaluations? 14 A. My role was essentially an 15 administrative role at headquarters. 16 MR. WILL: The answer was no. I 17 know you are in a hurry, but when he said 18 did you not see any workers, you can just 19 say no. I know you're in a hurry. 20 Q. So you didn't permanently see or 21 treat workers in a medical capacity while you at 22 the headquarters in Danbury, Connecticut; you were 23 in more of an administrative capacity? 24 A. That's true. 25 Q. And in that capacity at the DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011692 1 Lewinsohn 192 2 headquarters at Danbury, Connecticut, did you do 3 any epidemiological work concerning workers in 4 Union Carbide plants or facilities other than the 5 King City? Put that aside for the moment. 6 A. Yes, I did at one -- not published 7 work, but purely to assess the value of a 8 computerized medical record-keeping system that 9 had been in use for some time, together with the 10 epidemiologist at Union Carbide, we looked at the 11 data that had been accumulated in that system and 12 we chose asbestos workers; but that was a -- 13 regulated because that was a regulated group of 14 people and they were clear-cut parameters that, we 15 could look for. 16 But that was not a published work; it 17 was simply a quality assurance type of exercise. 18 Q. By 1982 when you came to Union 19 Carbide, would it be fair to say that Union 20 Carbide workers in various Union Carbide plants 21 were covered by OSHA asbestos regulations as they 22 may apply to their jobs in the plants? 23 MR. GERSON: When you say covered by . 24 OSHA regulations, what does that mean? 25 A. I think you have to be more specific. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. {212)867-8220 UCAREF00011693 1 Lewinsohn 193 2 Q. Union Carbide, for example, and I 3 don't want to dwell on this, but for example. 4 Union Carbide had plants at Institute, West 5 Virginia and West Carlton, West Virginia and in 6 those plants, I guess, because plaintiffs' lawyers 7 now claim this, there were various workers who 8 used pipe covering and insulation and that sort of 9 thing. And what I am wondering is when you came 10 to the company in 1982, if you understood that 11 workers in Union Carbide plants who were using 12 asbestos or working with asbestos would be covered 13 by OSHA regulations? 14 A. Let me put it this way. 15 The OSHA standard requires has a 16 permissible exposure level, PEL, and it also as an 17 action level. The action level triggers when 18 medical surveillance is required. 19 The regulations would apply if the 20 permissible exposure level were exceeded. 21 It was my understanding that the 22 permissible exposure level was not being exceeded, 23 but that as a purely, what's the word, 24 precautionary measure, all persons who were 25 potentially exposed to asbestos were kept under DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011694 1 Lewinsohn 194 2 surveillance at Union Carbide plants. 3 Q. And when you came to the company in 4 1982, were you aware of the fact, of that fact at 5 that point? 6 A. Was I aware of that fact? 7 Q. Yes. 8 A. I soon learned about it, 9 Q. When you came to Union Carbide, did 10 you make some inquiry to learn those sorts of 11 facts or did that just come to your attention in 12 the course of your work, or how did that happen? 13 A. Well, I went around all of the sites 14 and was shown the operations and learned what was 15 being done, and saw what the medical departments 16 were doing and looked at their records and asked 17 questions. . 18 I got how many people were exposed to 19 asbestos, how many were exposed to noise, how many 20 were exposed to benzene, whatever the regulations 21 were in effect I was interested in and involved in 22 and gave advice and guidance on. 23 Q. As part of that education when you 24 toured around to these various facilities, did you 25 learn how long Union Carbide had been doing DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011695 1 Lewinsohn 195 2 surveillance on its workers who were exposed to 3 asbestos? 4 MR. GERSON: Before Dr. Lewinsohn 5 answers, I want to state for the record, if 6 I understand the questions correctly, they 7 all pertain to plans where Calidria was not 8 used, and these questions are not being 9 restricted specifically to Union Carbide 10 employees who may have been exposed to 11 Calidria but rather to other asbestos. And 12 Union Carbide, in - 13 MR. BROWNSON: Any asbestos. 14 MR. GERSON: -- Union Carbide, in 15 past discovery involving interrogatories 16 and production requests, has set forth an 17 objection to the relevancy of expanded 18 inquiries into such areas. So I just want 19 to say we do not waive those objections 20 here at this proceeding by any responses or 21 by allowing the witness to respond for the 22 purposes of expediting discovery. 23 And in fact we very much maintain 24 objections to inquiries as to conditions in 25 Union Carbide facilities or pertaining to DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011696 1 Lewinsohn 196 2 Union Carbide employees where Calidria- was 3 not in use and who were not exposed to 4 Calidria. 5 In the interest of time, I won't 6 reiterate that objection to each question, 7 but as long as it's understood that the 8 objection stands generally. 9 MR. BROWNSON: Subject to that 10 objection, do you have the question in 11 mind? 12 THE WITNESS: I'd have to have the 13 question repeated, please. 14 MR. BROWNSON: Let me rephrase the 15 question. 16 And I'll understand that this 17 objection will continue to apply so we 18 don't have to waste time. 19 MR. WILL: One more preliminary 20 matter. At one point you were asking him 21 to consider everything other than the King 22 City plant and King City operation. Are we 23 still in that mode at this point? 24 MR. BROWNSON: Yes, let me rephrase 25 the question subject to Mr. Gerson's DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011697 1 Lewinsohn 197 2 objection. 3 Q. At the time after you started with 4 Union Carbide in 1982, as you became educated 5 about what was going on in the various plants and 6 facilities other than King City, we will go on and 7 talk about that, did you learn how long Union 8 Carbide had been doing medical surveillance on 9 employees in its plants who were exposed to 10 asbestos? 11 A. In all honesty, I can't say -- I 12 can't say -- I can't say I was interested in that. ' 13 Q. So as you sit here today, you don't 14 know how long Union Carbide may or may not have 15 been doing that in its various plants? 16 A. I don't know exactly for how long 17 they were doing it, I simply know that what I 18 examined was as far back as I could into the 19 computerized medical record keeping system, which 20 I believe started in 1975 or thereabouts. 21 Q. Do you know if employees at the King 22 City mine and mill were entered into the Union 6 23 Carbide computerized records system? * 24 25 A. I don't know. A. I don't know. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011698 1 Lewinsohn 198 2 Q. Did you at some point after beginning 3 with Union Carbide in 1982 visit the King City 4 mine and/or mill? 5 A. I only visited King City on one 6 occasion. 7 Q. When was that? 8 A. That was when I was asked to go down 9 there and review the x-rays of the work force just 10 prior to the divestiture of that operation. 11 Q. Now, I understand that Union Carbide 12 sold the King City asbestos operation, if we can 13 call it that to save time, at some point in the 14 mid 1980s, is that correct? 15 A. The exact date, I don't remember. 16 I'm sorry. 17 MR. GERSON: We can stipulate it Was 18 sold on June 30, 1985. 19 Q. June 30, 1985 it was sold to a 20 company called King City Asbestos Company. You 21 know that now that we've been informed by Mr. 22 Gerson? 23 MR. GERSON: No, no, I didn't inform 24 you of the name to which it was sold, which 25 I actually think it is KCAC. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011699 1 Lewinsohn 199 2 MR. BROWNSON: KCAC, Inc. I Chink it 3 is . 4 A. I now know that, thank you. 5 Q. Whatever it is, you were asked to go 6 review x-rays of workers at some point just before 7 this sale took place, is that right? 8 A. That's my recollection. 9 Q. And do you know who asked you to do 10 that ? 11 A. Yes. It was at the request of Mr. 12 Meyers. He was at that time the plant manager 13 Q. John Meyers? 14 A. John Meyers, I think was his name _ 15 Q. Do you know why John Meyers asked you 16 to do that? 17 A. I think it was part of the due 18 diligence process. 19 Q. In connection with the sale? 20 A. In connection with the sale, one 21 reason. 22 Q. First of all, Mr. Meyers is one o f 23 the people who somehow is affiliated with KCAC and 24 continues to be out there at the present time; is 25 that right? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011700 1 Lewinsohn 200 2 A. I don't know the business 3 arrangements that were struck after the 4 divestiture. 5 Q. But in any event, it's your 6 understanding that in connection with the sale, 7 that there needed to be a disclosure, what you 8 call due diligence of certain information about 9 the company, and do you understand that that is 10 one of the reasons you were asked to look at the 11 workers? 12 A. I think there was a point in time ' 13 when all of that was happening and one of the 14 points of interest was whether there were any 15 health problems among the workers. 16 Q. And at that time, did you review the 17 air measurements, asbestos air measurements that 18 had been taken at King City, at the mine or mill? 19 A. I remember reviewing quite a lot of 20 information from the mine and the mill, but I 21 think -- I must have -- I was shown air 22 measurements, I don't remember what they were and 23 I don't, you know, the actual numerical values, I 24 can't tell you. . 25 Q. Do you remember when you were shown DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011701 1 Lewinsohn 201 2 the air measurements if any of them exceeded the 3 applicable OSHA standard at the time they were 4 taken? 5 A. I don't believe they did. 6 Q. And were they air measurements kept 7 in the mill at King City or where were they kept? 8 MR. GERSON: You're asking about 9 generally where they were kept or where 10 they were kept when he saw them? 11 MR. BROWNSON: When he saw them. 12 A. I don't remember. 13 Q. Do you remember speaking to any of 14 the industry hygienists at Union Carbide in 15 connection with this investigation you did about 16 air levels at King City at either the mine or 17 mill? ` 18 MR. WILL: He didn't say he did any 19 investigation of the air levels. 20 MR. BROWNSON: No, no, and I didn't 21 mean to imply that he investigated the air 22 levels. Let me rephrase the question. 23 Q. In connection with your investigation 24 in looking at x-rays, that is what I understand 25 you did, right? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011702 1 Lewinsohn 202 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. In connection with that work, did you 4 speak to any of the industrial hygienists 5 concerning air levels at the mine or mill in King 6 City? 7 A. I did not attempt any correlation 8 between my readings and air levels, so I don't 9 believe that I spoke to anybody. 10 Q. Did you ask to see x-rays of any 7 11 particular workers or just of all workers or how 12 did that work? 13 A. Well, it was nearly 10 years ago. 14 Q. As best as you recall. 15 A. And I did write a report on my 16 findings. And without that in front of me, at 17 this moment in time, I would have difficulty in 18 recollecting the selection criteria for the group 19 of people whose x-rays I reviewed. 20 But they were a group that was 21 selected for me, with my collaboration by the 22 physician who did the medical surveillance down 23 there, and the radiology department at the local 24 hospital where the x-rays were taken. And y 25 management had provided me with the names. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011703 1 Lewinsohn 203 2 Q. So there was a doctor or a physician 3 in King City who had been doing surveillance on 4 the workers as I understand it, correct? 5 A. There was a physician who was a part 6 time, not full time, who did the medical 7 surveillance examinations on the workers. 8 Q. And the x-rays were taken at the King 9 City hospital? 10 A. If that is what the hospital was 11 called. It was a local hospital. 12 Q. Let me ask you this: When you went 13 out there, where were the x-rays? Were they just 14 handed to you or did you have to go down to the 15 hospital or what did you have to do? 16 A. I believe that ahead of my visit all 17 of the x-rays had been pulled, and I had -- I had 18 a room in the radiology department set aside where 19 I spent a day or two reading the x-rays. 20 Q. And do you know how many x-rays you 21 read? 22 A. I think I read approximately a 23 hundred, maybe more. 24 Q. And do you know how many workers were represented by those x-rays? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 . UCAREF00011704 1 Lewinsohn 204 2 A. As I said, without actually having 3 the demographic statistics in front of me, I have 4 difficulty recalling. 5 Q. So you wrote it up in a report and 6 would you defer to what is written in your report? 7 A. I would like to. 8 Q. For the exact data? 9 A. I'd like to. 10 Q. Unfortunately, I don't have the 11 report here and - - 12 MR. BROWNSON: In fact, I don't know 13 that I have ever seen that report. Have we 14 seen that, Trevor? 15 MR. WILL: You got me. 16 MR. BROWNSON: You probably have, I 17 haven't. 18 Do you have that report? 19 MR. WILL: Off the record. 20 (Discussion off the record) 21 MR. BROWNSON: Back on the record. 22 Before we continue, for some reason 23 I don't have his report about the King City 24 workers, but I guess, Alan, I can get that 25 from you. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011705 1 Lewinsohn 205 2 MR. GERSON: Yes. The reason you 3 don't have it is because I don't think you 4 requested Dr. Lewinsohn's reports, and we 5 will certainly, now that you are requesting 6 it, make it available. 7 Generally we have already offered to 8 make our entire repository available, but 9 we will now make this specific document 10 available to you. 11 MR. BROWNSON: Anyway, let's try to 12 forge ahead here. 13 Q. So we were talking about your review 14 of the x-rays of King City workers and do you know 15 if the x-rays you reviewed -- first of all, you 16 reviewed about 100 x-rays, and we'll defer to the 17 report for the exact numbers, but do you know if 18 they were x-rays for about 100 workers or do you 19 believe there were - 20 A. I believe I reviewed the first, last 21 and penultimate on each worker, something like 22 that. I didn't review the entire series of every 23 worker. I think I reviewed -- and I think that 24 was my method. 25 Q. So when you say the first x-ray, I DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011706 1 Lewinsohn 206 2 assume you 3 A. The first available. 4 Q. The last x-ray would be the last 5 available? 6 A. Yes . 7 Q. And then what is the penultimate 8 x-ray? 9 A. One before that. 10 Q. Second to the last? 11 A. Second to the last. 12 Q- So again, we'll defer to the exact 13 numbers in 14 approximate 15 A. 100 people of x-rays. 16 Q. So you reviewed? 17 A. More than 100 x-rays. 18 Q. You reviewed the x-rays of 19 approximat r 100 people? 20 A. I believe so. 21 Q. And that would amount to somewhere in 22 the neighb lood of 300 x-rays? 23 A. I believe so. 24 Q. And do you know if when you reviewed 25 those x-ra DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011707 1 Lewinsohn 207 2 films out with you to compare? 3 A. I always use the IOL films to 4 compare. 8 5 Q. And you'll have to pardon me on this, 6 but how do you do that? Do you just say the IOL 7 film up in the shadow box and put the worker films 8 next to it? 9 A. What I usually do is put up the IOL 10 normal and the IOL minimal changes 10/1 or 1/0. 11 And then I put up an x-ray either on one side of 12 them, between the two, and I compare and if I need 13 to, then I'll put pull out other film and try to 14 match. 15 Q. I understand that you at one time 16 have been a NIOSH "B" reader? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Were you a NIOSH "B" reader at that 19 time? 20 A. No, I don't think so. 21 Q. Had you been a NIOSH "B" reader 22 before you read those films or is that something 23 that you got after that time? - 24 25 A. No, before. Q. Do you remember when you got that DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011708 Lewinsohn 208 certification as a NIOSH "B" reader? A. Not exactly, but I think it was while I was at Raybestos. Q. But in any event, you had your standard IOL films with you when you went out to King City? A. And I still have them with me today. yes . Q. Do you remember as you sit here today whether any of the hundred or so workers whose films you looked at in King City had pulmonary asbestosis? A. I didn't see any films with pulmonary asbestosis to the best of my recollection. Q. And - - MR. GERSON: Could we break for 30 seconds? MR. BROWNSON: Sure. (Recess taken.) Q. Before we had our break, we just talked about how in reviewing the x-rays of King City worker, you didn't find any pulmonary asbestosis among those workers, correct? A. That's my recollection. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011709 1 Lewinsohn 209 2 Q. When you say -- and again, we'll 3 defer to your report for exact details, but I'm 4 asking as you recall as you sit here today? 5 A. As I recall, yes. 6 Q. When you say you didn't find 7 pulmonary asbestosis, what do you mean by 8 pulmonary asbestosis? 9 A. I didn't find any radiological 10 evidence consistent with the diagnosis of 11 asbestosis if you were to use the UICC -- sorry, 12 IOL classification greater than 1/0. 13 Q. So you saw no x-rays that you would 14 have read as greater than 1/0 among those workers? 15 A. As to the best of my recollection, 16 yes. 17 Q. Did you see any x-rays that showed 18 any sort of changes that could be or any sort of 19 changes that you read as asbestos - related changes 20 that didn't rise to the level of asbestosis? 21 A. I don't remember, I don't think so 22 but I don't remember. 23 Q. Do you remember if you saw any 24 pleural thickening on any of those x-rays? 25 A. I believe I did see some pleural DOYLE REPORTING, INC.. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011710 1 Lewinsohn 210 2 chickening, but there were other reasons for it 3 Q. So in the cases where you recall 4 seeing thickening, you also recall those cases 5 having some other reason for the pleural 6 thickening? 7 A. Right. 8 MR. GERSON: Reason other than? 9 MR. BROWNSON: Asbestos. 10 A. Other than asbestos. 11 Q. Do you remember as you sit here today 12 what those other reasons were? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Do you remember if you saw any IS pleural plaques on any of those x-rays? 16 A. I don't think I did, but I don't 17 remember. 18 Q. Again, if you would have seen pleural 19 plaques or pleural thickening, would that be 20 indicated on your report? 21 A. Yes . 22 Q. First of all, were the x-rays dated, 23 so you could tell when they were taken? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And at that time, around 1985 when DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011711 1 Lewinsohn 211 2 you were out there, was there some sort of regular 3 x-ray program in place for the King City workers? 4 A. Yes, they were being kept under 5 surveillance, I recall, as outlined in the 6 asbestos standard, the OSHA standard. 7 Q. The OSHA standard? 8 A. Yes . 9 Q. Do you know if they were kept under 10 surveillance because there were airborne asbestos 11 levels above the OSHA action level? 12 A. No, they were kept under surveillance 13 because they were working with an asbestos 14 material and asbestos product. 15 Q. And as you can recall as you sit here 16 today, what were the last x-rays that were taken 17 of these men at the time you looked at them? Were 18 they relatively recent at that time or had they 19 been taken some years before? 20 A. No, they were current. 21 Q- And again as you recall, were these 22 men given annual chest x-rays at that time? 23 A. I think so, but I don't remember. 24 Q. So all of these questions are in 25 general terms because I understand you don't have DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011712 1 Lewinsohn 212 2 an exact recollection, but would it be fair to say 3 that the last x-rays that you looked at at that 4 point in time were relatively recent, of about a 5 year or so of when you had read them? 6 A. I believe so. 7 Q. And then the penultimate x-ray or the 8 next to last would be maybe about a year before 9 that? 10 A. Probably, yes. 11 Q. Again, in general terms, when were 12 the first X- rays from, do you recall? 13 A. I don't recall specifically, but all 14 I can say is they would have been the first 15 available X- ray after hire or at the time of hire 16 Q. Do you have any recollection as to 17 the average lengths of service of the men whose 18 x-rays you read? 19 A. Not really. 20 Q. 21 was open? Do you know when the King City mill 22 A. No. 23 Q. Okay. 24 A. Again, that is one of the questions 25 would probably ask about , in the introduction to DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867 - 8220 UCAREF00011713 Lewinsohn 2 13 my report might have said this has been here- since-- Q. Do you recall if there were any men in the group whose x-rays you read who had worked at the mine or mill for more than 10 years? A. Quite honestly, I have to say no, I can't recall. Q. Have you ever read a report by NIOSH concerning asbestos air levels in the King City plant that was done around 1983? A. By NIOSH? Q. NIOSH. A. Again, I don't know. Q. This report that you issued concerning the x-rays of the King City workers, to whom was that report issued, or to whom was it addressed? A. I was asked to do it by Mr. Meyers; I would have reported to him. Q. And as far as you know, is that the only survey of its type of the x-rays of the King City workers or had there been others done by other people? MR. GERSON: I guess I object to the DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011714 1 Lewinsohn 214 2 ambiguity of its type. If you want to 3 rephrase. 4 Q. What I am wondering is do you know if 5 anyone other than you ever looked at all of the 6 King City x-rays that you did and surveyed them 7 to - - 8 A. I was told, and I believe this was 9 maybe after I had even left Carbide, I don't know, 10 that the x-rays -- that the x-rays had been looked 11 at in the similar fashion after I had done that 12 by - - I can see that -- Sawyers, Bob Sawyers. 13 Q. By Sawyers? 14 A. Dr. Sawyers. 15 Q. Robert Sawyers? 16 A. Robert Sawyers. 17 Q And do you know when that was done? 18 A. It was after I did it. And I don' t 19 know how he came to it, I know he did. 20 Q. Have you seen any report that Dr. 21 Sawyers issued? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Dr. Sawyers has been listed as an 24 expert by Union Carbide in this case, I think. 25 MR. BROWNSON: Hasn't he? I think DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011715 1 Lewinsohn 215 2 he was. 3 Q. Do you know if the survey of King 4 City x-rays that Dr. Sawyers did was in connection 5 with any litigation arising out of exposure to 6 Calidria asbestos? 7 A. I don't know why Dr. Sawyers was 8 asked to review those cases. 9 Q. Did you understand that the x-rays 10 that you reviewed were x-rays of all workers who 11 were currently employed at King City at the mine 12 or mill? 13 A. To the best of my recollection, the 14 x-rays I had reviewed were of current workers. 15 Q. Do you know if there were x-rays kept 16 at King City of workers who left their employment 17 in earlier years? 18 A. The OSHA standard requires that 19 x-rays and medical records be retained for the 20 duration of employment plus 30 years, and in the 21 case of asbestos 40 years, so I would sincerely 22 hope that they were. 23 Q. Do you know where those x-rays are 24 maintained or were maintained at that time? 25 A. At the local hospital in the DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011716 10 9 ** 1 Lewinsohn 216 2 department of radiology, if they were maintained. 3 Q. And did you make any survey or 4 reading of those x-rays? 5 A. No, as far as I'm aware. 6 Q. Do you know if Dr. Sawyers reviewed 7 those x-rays? 8 A. I don't know exactly what Dr. Sawyers 9 did. 10 Q. Have you ever looked at x-rays of any 11 workers other than workers at King City who have 12 been exposed to Calidria asbestos? 13 A. No. 14 Q. And I'm not talking about just Union 15 Carbide workers; I'm talking about anybody; it 16 could be a Conwed worker? 17 A. No. 18 Q. While we are on that topic, have you 19 looked at any of the medical record or x-rays of 20 any Conwed workers? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Do you know what Conwed is? 23 A. Not really. 24 Q. If I told you it was a company that 25 made ceiling tile up in Cokato, Minnesota, had you DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011717 1 Lewinsohn 217 2 ever heard of that before? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Do you know if while you were at 5 Union Carbide from 1982 to 1992, if there was any 6 epidemiological work of any kind done on the 7 workers of Union Carbide customers who used 8 Calidria asbestos? 9 A. I can't say that I was aware of any. 10 Q. Are you aware of the fact that over 11 the years Union Carbide industrial hygienists took 12 various air measurements at Union Carbide calidria 13 customers' locations? 14 A. I was I know that Union Carbide 15 industrial hygienists took samples at many of 16 Union Carbide customers for various purposes. 17 Q. Have you ever seen any of those? 18 A. I don't remember seeing any of those, 19 insofar as Calidria is concerned. 20 Q. Right, Calidria is what I am talking 21 about. 22 Do you know if anyone has read the 23 x-rays in the manner that you did on the King City 24 workers where you looked at a bunch of x-rays on a 25 number of workers, for workers at the Johns DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011718 1 Lewinsohn 218 2 Manville mine at Coalinga. California? 3 A. I have no idea. 4 Q. 5 Coalinga? How about the Atlas asbestos mines at 6 A. I don't know anything about those two 7 mines. 8 Q. Do you have any information about the 9 current activity of the California board of air 10 resources Superfund activity at Coalinga? 11 A. I've heard something about it, but 12 I'm not familiar with the details. 13 Q. And when you say you've heard 14 something about it, was that more or less in IS passing or have you heard it in connection with 16 some work you have been doing? 17 A. Yes, more or less in passing. 18 Q. Do you have an understanding that 19 some governmental body in California is attempting 20 to claim that the Supertene department in 21 Coalinga, California poses some sort of health 22 hazard because it's getting into the air or water 23 out there? 24 A. That's what I've heard. 25 Q. Other than that do you have any DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011719 1 Lewinsohn 219 2 information about that? 3 A. No. 4 Q. What do you think of that claim? 5 A. I'd rather not answer. 6 Q. Is that because you just have 7 insufficient information? 8 A. I have insufficient information. 9 Q. I wanted to show you a - 10 MR. BROWNSON: I guess I'll have 11 this marked. It has previously been marked 12 as Hall Deposition Exhibit 18 in another 13 case called the Manny Stowe case. 14 (Whereupon, document titled "Mellon 15 Institute Special Report: The Fibrogenic 16 Potential of Asbestos Products via 17 Intraperitoneal Injection in Guinea Pigs, 18 Rats and Rabbits and by the Intratracheal 19 Route in the Rat" marked Lewinsohn Exhibit 20 7 for identification as of this date.) 21 Q. I'm showing you what has been marked 22 as Lewinsohn Exhibit 7 and I'll ask you if have 23 you ever seen that before? 24 A. I honestly don't know. 25 Q. And just for the record, it's titled, DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011720 11 - 1 Lewinsohn 220 2 "Mellon Institute Special Report: The Fibrogenic 3 Potential of Asbestos Products Via Intraperitoneal 4 Injection in Guinea Pigs, Rats and rabbits, and by 5 the Intratracheal Route in the Rat." 6 Did I read that correctly? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And it's dated July 8, 1966? 9 A. Right. 10 Q. And why don't you just take a minute 11 and just skim through it there. 12 A. This obviously is a lot to read here 13 and to digest. I've skimmed it. 14 Q. First of all, having now skimmed that 15 report which is Deposition Exhibit 7, do you have 16 any recollection of seeing that before today? 17 A. To be quite honest, no. 18 Q. First of all, that report seems to be 19 some sort of report concerning intraperitoneal 20 injection of asbestos in these various animals, 21 rats, guinea pigs and rabbits. 22 Is that right? 23 A. Correct. 24 Q. And do you remember when you began 25 work in Union Carbide in 1982, if you had made any DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011721 1 Lewinsohn 22 1 2 sort of survey or investigation of the Union 3 Carbide materials which would have disclosed some 4 of this old material like this exhibit we're 5 looking at now? 6 MR. WILL: You mean did he go look 7 through the files to see what documents 8 there were about asbestos? 9 MR. BROWNSON: Right, right. 10 A. No, I didn't do that. I -- I 11 restricted my searches to necessity, when I needed 12 something I would see if it was there. 13 Q. Obviously this thing is dated 1966, 14 and you began with the company in 1982? 15 A. '82. 16 Q. So this was done well before you 17 started there? 18 MR. WILL: Remember, he was not 19 directly responsible for anything having to 20 do with asbestos. 21 MR. BROWNSON: I understand that. I 22 understand that. 23 Q. My question is: As you recall it, 24 you didn't make any sort of search of the Union 25 Carbide documents for old asbestos reports or DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011722 > r> 1 Lewinsohn 222 2 other reports of this type? 3 A. No. 4 Q. And at the time that you started at 5 Union Carbide in 1982, was there somebody else in 6 the medical department who was directly 7 responsible for the asbestos business, the 8 Calidria business? 9 A. Yes. lO- Q. Who was that? ll A. I believe it was Dr. Fortney. 12 Q. Fortney? 13 A. F-o-r-t-n-e-y. 14 Q. Is he still with the company? 15 A. No. 16 Q- Was he at Danbury, Connecticut with 17 you or where was he located? 18 A. When I first started at Union 19 Carbide, he was located in Indianapolis. 20 Q. Indianapolis . 21 Up until the time that Union Carbide 22 sold the asbestos business in 1975, was Dr. 23 Fortney the person in the medical department who 24 was in charge of that? 25 A. Yes . DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011723 1 Lewins ohn 223 2 Q. When you began with the company in 3 1982, did you know at that point in time that 4 Union Carbide had thi9 asbestos business with 5 Calidria asbestos with the Coaling mine and the 6 mill? 7 A. Well, during my orientation process, 8 I learned about the various Carbide businesses. 9 So I had - - I knew of the existence of the King 10 City. 11 Q. Before you started at Union Carbide 12 in 1982, did you know about it or is that 13 something that you learned after you joined the 14 company? 15 A. Before I started with Union Carbide, 16 I knew that Union Carbide had an interest in 17 asbestos; I wasn't that much concerned about what 18 it was. 19 Q. And based upon your own past 20 experience at the pneumoconioses unit at Turner 21 Brothers and at Raybestos-Manhattan, did you 22 yourself have a particular interest in Union 23 Carbide's asbestos business when you began there 24 in 1982? . 25 A. When I began at Union Carbide in DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011724 1 Lewina ohn 224 2 1982, asbestos was the furthest thing from my 3 mind. 4 Q. Okay. 5 A. I had no - - I didn't go to Union 6 Carbide because of asbestos if that is your 7 question. . 8 Q. Did you go to Union Carbide to get 9 away from asbestos? 10 A. No, I went do Union Carbide to earn 11 my living. 12 Q. At the time that you were with 13 Raybestos-Manhattan, had there been any claims 14 made against that company for personal injuries IS arising out of asbestos exposure legal claims? 16 A. Are you talking about workers 17 compensation or are you talking about, you 18 know, -- 19 Q. I am talking about lawsuits. 20 A. Lawsuits. 21 A. Yes, Raybestos-Manhattan I believe 22 was involved in litigation. 23 Q. And as part of your duties at L 24 Raybestos-Manhattan, did you work on that 25 litigation or was that outside of your area? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011725  12 . 1 Lewinsohn 225 2 A. Not really on the litigation, no. I 3 would occasionally be asked for an opinion or 4 advice, but I wasn't directly involved. 5 MR. BROWNSON: Let me do this. 6 We've got a little while here. Let me just 7 change the subject a little bit since I 9 can't finish, but I wanted to ask you about 9 one thing. 10 Q. You have been listed by Mr. Will as a 11 possible expert witness in this particular case. 12 Do you have any understanding as you 13 sit here today what opinions you would be asked to 14 offer on behalf of Union Carbide in this case? 15 A. As I sit here today, my understanding 16 is that the opinions I would be asked to offer 17 would be in connection with the my practical 18 knowledge and experience of asbestos and health 19 and all of its aspects. 20 Q. So as far as you know, and again, I 21 suppose this is subject to change, but as far as 22 you know, you will not be asked to give opinions 23 about the medical conditions of particular Conwed 24 workers? At least you haven't been told that so 25 far? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011726 1 Lewinsohn 226 2 A. As far as I know, that is not what I 3 am being asked to do. 4 Q. And do you hold an opinion as to the 5 toxicity or biological potential of Calidria 6 asbestos or its ability to cause disease? 7 A. I hold an opinion, yes. 8 Q. When was that opinion first formed, 9 if you can recall? 10 A. Some time during my tenure with Union 11 Carbide as I from time to time was consulted about 12 the health effects of asbestos, and in particular 13 reference to comparison with Calidria, I formed an 14 opinion. 15 Q. During the 10 years you were with 16 Union Carbide from 1982 to 1992, did people within 17 the company consult you about the health effects 18 of asbestos because of your prior experience and 19 background? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. So even though it was this other 22 doctor -- and I didn't make a note of his name? 23 A. Fortney. 24 Q. Fortney, who wasin charge of the 25 asbestos business, so to speak, until1985, people DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011727 1 Lewinsohn 227 2 at Union Carbide would consult you as well on 3 asbestos issues? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Did Dr. Fortney ever consult with you 6 about the Calidria asbestos? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Have you ever worked done any work in 9 connection with any lawsuits other than this one 10 in which the issue of health effects from Calidria 11 asbestos were involved? 12 A. Not that Iknow of. 13 Q. What istheopinion that you have 14 about the health effects of Calidria asbestos? 15 MR. WILL: That's's pretty broad 16 question. 17 MR. BROWNSON: Well, we have to get 18 at it somehow. 19 A. It's my opinion that the physical 20 chemical properties of Calidria asbestos are such 21 as to make it extremely unlikely under normal 22 working conditions to produce any significant 23 health effects. 24 Q. Are you saying by that that it would 25 be impossible to get asbestosis from Calidria DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011728 1 Lewinsohn 228 2 asbestos under any circumstances? 3 A. I didn't say it was impossible under 4 any circumstances, but I'm saying that under any 5 normal working conditions. 6 Q. Are you saying that under normal 7 working conditions, it's impossible to get 8 asbestosis or unlikely that you would get 9 asbestosis? 10 A. I'm saying it's extremely unlikely. 11 Q. And when you say normal working 12 conditions, what do you mean by that? 13 A. Where there is not gross overexposure 14 to an overwhelming -- let me rephrase that. 15 Where there is not gross overexposure 16 to a concentration of fibers that would totally 17 overwhelm the normal body defense mechanisms. 18 Q. And do you have an opinion as to what 19 fiber level that would be? 20 A. I have no idea. 21 MR. BROWNSON: Why don't we continue 22 this. Just a couple of things real quick. 23 Q. Concerning Dr. Fortney, is he still alive? 25 A. I hope so. r to DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011729 1 Lewinsohn 229 2 Q. Do you know where he is? 3 A. Yes, I do. 4 Q. Where is that? 5 A. Oak Ridge. Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 6 Q. 7 retired? Is is he employed there or is he 8 A. No, he is retired. 9 Q. And how old a man is Dr. Fortney? 10 A. Late '6 0s . 11 Q. Young man. 12 A. Young man. 13 Q. And what is his first name? 14 A. His first initial is T, I don't know 15 what it stands for, Guy, G-u-y, T. Guy Fortney. 16 Q. Do you know if he still maintains his 17 medical license in retirement? 18 A. He does as far as I know. 19 Q Do you know if is he doing any work? 20 A. He is working. 21 Q. Working down in Tennessee? 22 A. Yes . 23 Q. Does he still do any consulting work 24 for Union Carbide? 25 A. I believe he does, yes. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011730 13 * 1 Lewinsohn 230 2 Q. Do you know in if he does any work 3 for Union Carbide at the present time concerning 4 Calidria asbestos issues? 5 A. I don't believe he does. 6 Q. What periods of time was he 7 responsible for the Calidria asbestos business, do 8 you know? 9 MR. GERSON: When you say 10 responsible for the Calidria asbestos 11 business , - - 12 MR. WILL: The medical director for 13 that portion of business? 14 MR. BROWNSON: Right. 15 Q. You had identified him as the person 16 directly responsible in the medical department, 17 I'm wondering what period of time that was. 18 A. I don't know the exact period of time 19 but, or during the time I was there, that was one 20 of his divisions that he had responsibility for. 21 Q. So at least from '82 to '85? 22 A. At least, yes. 23 MR. BROWNSON: I guess that's all I 24 got, other than to say I regret we didn't 25 finish the deposition and what else can I DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011731 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 .8 9 10 11 12 . 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 /$ 2 4 25 Lewinsohn 231 say. MR. GERSON: You have 10 more minutes to finish? MR. BROWNSON: We have a big pile of stuff. (Discussion off the record) MR. WILL: Back on the record. MR. BROWNSON: I'll just state that I haven't completed my questioning and we would like to reconvene the deposition at a time and place convenient to all involved, particularly Dr. Lewinsohn, and that we will give the deposition exhibits to the reporter and she can put them with the transcript. MR. WILL: And I assume that I'll have a chance to ask clarification of . questions when we reconvene since I don't have that chance now? MR. BROWNSON: You can ask whatever you want, but I'll just say I wanted to get a copy of those with my copy of the transcript, too. MR. WILL: Of the exhibits? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011732 1 Lewinsohn 232 2 MR. BROWNSON: Yes. 3 MR. WILL: Yes. 4 (Time noted: 4:10 p.m.) 5 6 ______________________________ 7 8 9 Subscribed and sworn to before me 10 thisday of, 1994. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 y-1 24 25 DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011733 1 2 33 2 3 TIIIAI1 4 5 STATE OF NEW YORK 6 COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) } SS . : ) 7 I, MARIANNE D'AMICO, a 8 Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public within 9 and for the State of New York, do hereby 10 certify: 11 That I reported the proceedings in 12 the within entitled matter, and that the 13 within transcript is a true record of such 14 proceedings. 15 I further certify that I am not 16 related, by blood or marriage, to any of 17 the parties in this matter and that I am 18 in no way interested in the outcome of this 19 matter. 20 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto 21 set my 22 1994 . 23 24 25 UGAREF00011734 1 234 2 February 15, 1994 3 I K 2. E X. 4 Witness 5 Hilton C. Lewisohn Page 6 6 axuiaixs. 7 Lewisohn 8 1 9 2 10 11 3 12 Curriculum vitae Medical case from Dr. Cooke Paper entitled "Medical Surveillance of Asbestos Workers" For Ident. 12 122 126 13 4 14 Paper entitled "Asbestos Exposure and Neoplasia" 169 15 5 16 6 17 18 19 7 20 21 22 23 Paper by Drs. Selikoff, Churg and Hammond 175 Paper presented by Selikoff published Annals of New York of Science in 1965 Dr. in the Academy 178 Document titled "Mellon Institute Special Report (The Fibrogenic Potential Asbestos Products via Intraperitoneal Injection in Guinea Pigs, Rats and Rabbits and by the Intratracheal Route in the Rat)" of 216 24 oOo 25 DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011735 Corrections to Deposition of Hilton C. Lewinsohn on February 15,1994 I have read the transcript of my deposition on February 15, 1994 and find the contents to be consistent with my recollection of the questions asked and my replies to them. The following is a list of corrections of typographical errors and mis-spelt words. Page 9: Line 12 : amend "services" to service :amend "employer to employee Line 22: insert a comma after employees and change "to" to do Page 13: Line 24: change "as" to jt. and add branch after "country" Line 25: delete "resident, medical" and insert a period after physician. Page 15: Line 9: Insert do after "you" Page 16: Line 12: Line 21: Line 22: Line 23 Insert I was after "months" change "at" to as Insert a comma after "Hospital" and delete "of Insert a comma after "hospital" Page 17: Line 3: Delete "Center'' Line 18: Insert a period after "things" and capitalize the y in You Page 18: Line 13: Line 14: Line 15: Line 18: Insert a comma after "year", delete "when I was at" and substitute during Insert a parenthesis before "that" at the end of the line Insert a parenthesis after "Mines" and delete "and" transpose "these" from after "Now," to after "Johannesburg" Page 23: Line 10: Insert a period after "TB" then start a new sentence with TB Line 18: Change "beds" to bed Page 32: Line 9: Correct spelling from "tenant" to tenens Page 33: Line 18: Insert we between "and" and "also" Page 37: Line 24: Delete "that" Page 40: Line 15: Change "aggressive" to progressive Line 18: Change "alveoli" to axillae Page 42: Line 3: change "found" to fine Line 9: Delete "the" and substitute pathognomonic for "a pathopneumonic" Page 43: Line 11: Line 12: Line 13: Line 14: Insert an after "showed" Change "incidents" to incidence and insert a comma after it, change the next word "in" to an and insert a comma after "cancer" Change "work" to workers and substitute who for "as" Delete "and eventually" and substitute also had Page 44: Line 13: Delete "the" UCAREF00011736 I. Corrections to Deposition of Hilton C. Lewinsohn on February 15,1994 (Continued) Page 50: Line 7: Change "incidents" to incidence Line 22: Change "Penart" to Penarth Page 51: Line 17: Change "suddenly" to certainly Page 52: Line 2: Correct spelling - Merewether Page 53: Line 24: Correct spelling - Merewether Page 54: Line 2: Correct spelling - Merewether Page 55: Line 2: Line 13: Line 14: Change "during" to doing Delete "work" Insert a comma after 'Yorkshire" and delete "Bersk Bershire" and substitute Derbyshire Page 56: Lines 20 and 21 do not make sense and should be deleted. Page 57: Line 4: Correct spelling Furness Line 5: Delete "Bedfordshire" and insert Lancashire instead Page 60: Line 11: The word "No" should be deleted Line 25: Insert and after "time" and not between "were" and "getting" Page 61: Line 7: Delete "scales" in both places and insert exams in both places instead. Page 65: Line 8: Delete "scales" and insert exams instead Page 81: Line 12: Delete "construction" and substitute obstruction for it Page 90: Line 3: Ballast not "ballasts" and laden not "latent" Line 7: Ballast not "ballasts" Page 91: Line 23: Insert before between "was" and "1963" Page 92: Line 16: Delete Tiner" Page 95: Line 2: Une 5; Change "had" to have been " *59" does not seem to be correct and perhaps should be deleted. It is possible that the questioner may have said "around that time". Page 98: Line 21: Change "hydroqenist" to hygienist Page 100: Lines 17 and 20: Change "carting" to carding Page 101: Line 5: Change "hasher" to hopper Line 17: Change "resolved" to revolved Page 102: Lines 9,11,12 and 14: Change "carting" to carding Line 15: Change "parses" to passes UCAREF00011737 . I- Corrections to Deposition of Hilton C. Lewinsohn on February 15,1994 (Continued) Page 103: Line 6: Change "parsed" to passed Page 105: Lines 10,16, and 18: Change "carting" to carding Line 17: Change "cart" (both times in this line) to card Page 106: Line 21: Change "carting" to carding Page 107: Line 10: Change "carting" to carding Line 25: Change "mills" to millions Page 108: Line 4: Change "mill" to million Page 115: Line 7: Change "Swasea" to Swaziland Lines 2 and Line 25: Change "Casio" to Cassiar Page 117: Line 9: Change "business" to advice Page 121: Line 22: Change "Montgomery" to Montague Murray Line 23: Change "Selher's" to Seiler's Page 124: Lines 8,15 and 17: Change "incidents" to incidence Page 125: Lines 20 and 21: Insert the word study after "mortality" in both these lines Page 128: Line 10: Insert a period after "73" and change "in" tojn Line 24: Change "incidents" to incidence Page 131: Line 22: Insert Society after "Hygiene" Page 132: Line 4: Change "105" to 100 and add years after "cc." Line 7: Add years after "cc." Page 133: Lines 3 and 22: Add years after "cc." Page 134: Line 7: Line 14: Line 22: Line 25: Add years after "cc." Delete "Q" Change "incidents" to incidence Change "somewhat" to somewhere Page 136: Line 22: Delete "doesn't" and change "mean" to means Line 23: Change "who had the" to whose Line 24: delete "exposed for", after "years," add that, and after "have" add actually only. This sentence (Lines 22, 23, 24) should now read: That means to say that somebody who worked...whose years since first exposure had been nine years....that they could have actually only been exposed for one year. Page 140: Line 7: Change "IOL" to ILQ UCAREF00011738 Corrections to Deposition of Hilton C. Lewinsohn on February 15,1994 (Continued) Page 145: Line 17: Change "carting" to carding Page 149: Line 16: Delete "other than". (This phrase doesn't make sense to me.) Line 19: "other than" doesn't make sense but OSHA does so i suggest it be inserted instead Page 154: Line 2: Change "Penjab" to Pundsak Lines 5, 7, and 10: Change "Ritsea" to Reitze Line 19: Change "Meriweather" to Merewether Page 160: Line 23: Change "Nicholon" to Nicholson and "Lango" to Lanoer Page 167: Line 16: Change "McVide" to McVitte Page 172: Line 14: Change "by standard" to bystander Page 193: Line 5: Change "West Carlton" to South Charleston Line 16: Change "as" to has Page 206: Line 25: Change "IOL" to ILO Page 207: Line 3: Change "IOL" to |L> Line 10: Change "IOL" to ]LO and "10/1" to Oh Page 208: Line 6: Change "IOL" to ILO Page 209: Line 12: Change "IOL" to ILO Page 218: Line 20: Change "Supertene department" to serpentine deposit 17/W UCAREF00011739 235 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ............................... ....................................................-..............................x IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY Civil LITIGATION (NO. VI) MDL 875 .......................................................................................................................... Thia Document Relates to: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FIFTH DIVISION DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA .......................................................................................................................... CONWED CORPORATION, ' Plaintiff, 5-92-88 - against - UNION CARBIDE CHEMICALS AND PLASTICS COMPANY, INC., (f/k/a Union Carbide Corporation), - and- Defendant, UNION CARBIDE CHEMICALS AND PLASTICS COMPANY, INC. (f/k/a Union Carbide Corporation), - against - OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION, et al., WALKER JAMAR COMPANY, A.W. KUETTBL & SONS, INC., API, INC., and MacARTHUR COMPANY, Third-Party Defendants. ......................................................................................................................x October 18, 1994 HILTON C. LEWINSOHN (Cont'd) Doyle Reporting, Inc. CERTIFIED STENOTYPE REPORTERS Total Litigation Support WALTER SHAPIRO. CSR CHARLES SHAPIRO. CSR 369 LEXINGTON AVENUE NEW YORK. N Y. 10017 (212) 867 8220 UCAREF00011740 236 October 18, 1994 9:30 a.m. Continued deposition of HILTON C. LEWINSOHN, taken by Plaintiff, pursuant to adjournment, at the offices of Kelley, Drye & Warren, Esqs., 101 Park Avenue, New York, New York, before Paul Kirschen, a Certified Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State of New York. *** UCAREF00011741 237 Appearances: KELLY, DRYE & WARREN, ESQS. Attorneys for Union Carbide 101 Park Avenue New York, New York BY: ALAN J. GERSON, ESQ., Counsel FOLEY & LARDNER, ESQS. 777 E. Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 BY: TREVOR J. WILL, ESQ., Of Counsel STICH, ANGELL, KREIDLER & MUTH, P.A Attorneys for Conwed Corp. 250 2nd Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 BY: ROBERT D. BROWNSON, ESQ., Counsel RUDNICK & WOLFE, ESQS. 203 N. LaSalle Chicago, Illinois 60601 BY: MICHAEL R. GOLDMAN, ESQ., Of Counsel *** UCAREF00011742 1 238 2 HILTON C. LEWINSOHN, 3 resumed, having been duly re-sworn by 4 Paul Kirschen, Notary Public, was 5 examined and testified as follows: 6 MR. BROWNSON: This is a 7 continuation of a prior deposition. 8 EXAMINATION (Continued) 9 BY MR. BROWNSON: 10 Q. Good morning, Dr. Lewinsohn. We are 11 continuing the deposition that we left off some 12 time ago in this case of Conwed versus Union 13 Carbide. 14 I would like to try to get this 15 finished up this morning. I think we can move 16 fairly rapidly here. We can finish this up. 17 First of all, you recall the case, 18 Conwed versus Union Carbide? Do you have that in 19 mind? 20 A. Could you just briefly restate it? 21 Q. O.K. This is the case involving the 22 Conwed ceiling tile plant in Minnesota at which 23 various workers have had various asbestos related 24 diseases which they allege were as a result of 25 their exposure in their plant. Conwed is suing DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011743 1 Lewinsohn 239 2 Union Carbide as a result of that exposure. That 3 is the case. 4 Does that bring it back to mind? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Since the first session of your 7 deposition in this case, have you had a chance to 8 go back and read your testimony or review it in 9 any way? 10 A. Just briefly before this deposition. 11 Q. O.K. Before we started here today? 12 A. Right. 13 Q. Yesterday or something? 14 A. This morning. 15 Q. O.K. And have you reviewed any other 16 materials in connection with the deposition here 17 today? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Since we broke from the first session 20 of this deposition until today, have you gone back 21 to review any materials, that came up in the first 22 session of the deposition to refresh your 23 recollection or update yourself in any way? 24 MR. WILL: You mean go back and 25 reread the exhibits? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. {212)867-8220 UGAREF00011744 1 Lewins ohn 240 2 MR. BROWNSON: Not necessarily . 3 exhibits to the deposition, but any 4 materials. 5 A. Well, I have had another deposition 6 in another case since this. 7 I guess a lot of the similar material 8 to that which we discussed last time was referred 9 to. 10 Q. This other case, was this a case 11 involving asbestos related disease? 12 A. A case involving Turner & Newall, my 13 former employer. 14 Q. And was this a personal injury case? 15 A. No. This was a property damage 16 situation. 17 Chase Manhattan Bank. 18 Q. O.K. And some lawyer for Chase 19 Manhattan Bank took your deposition? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Was thathere in New York? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Do you remember who that lawyer was? 24 A. I rememberthe first lawyer's name. 25 The deposition was in two phases. The first one DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011745 1 Lewinsohn 241 2 was Mr. Connor. 3 I do not remember the second lawyer's 4 name. I think it was Mr. Leonard, but I am not 5 sure . 6 Q. And when did that deposition take 7 place? 8 A. Probably two or three months ago. 9 Q. And in connection with the 10 preparation for that deposition, did you go back 11 and review some materials concerning the workers 12 at the Turner & Newall plant at Rochdale, or what 13 were you looking at? 14 A. I was shown various documents from 15 Turner & Newall's files. 16 Q. Let me shift gears to Union Carbide. 17 Since the last session of your 18 deposition in this case, have you had occasion to 19 review any of the materials or any materials which 20 would pertain to the issue of Union Carbide 21 Calidria asbestos? ' . 22 A. No, I haven't. 23 Q. Have you had occasion, since the 24 first session of your deposition in this case, to 25 review any materials on the issue of chrysotile DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011746 1 Lewinsohn 242 2 asbestos, an asbestos related disease? 3 A. Well, once again, in the course of 4 preparation and being deposed in the other cases, 5 that issue has come up, yes. 6 Q. How would the issue of chrysotile 7 asbestos and disease come up with the issues in 8 that case. 9 Didn't that case involve Olympus? 10 A. Yes, but one discusses all forms of 11 asbestos, other phases. 12 Q. O.K. So in that deposition, did you 13 testify or discuss all forms of asbestos fiber and 14 health effects? 15 A. To the best of my recollection. 16 Without going back to look at the 17 deposition, I can't be any more specific. ` 18 Q. Let me direct your attention to this 19 particular case, the case of Conwed versus Union 20 Carbide. 21 It is my understanding that Union 22 Carbide intends to elicit from you some opinion 23 testimony in this case. 24 Can you tell us as you sit here today 25 what you understand the opinions are that you DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011747 1 Lewmsohn 243 2 would render in this particular case? 3 MR. GERSON: I need to object to the 4 form of the question. 3 5 We have designated Dr. Lewinsohn as 6 a potential witness without committing 7 ourselves at this stage. We reserve the 8 right to elicit his testimony or not to. 9 MR. BROWNSON: O.K. I understand 10 that he may or may not be called. 11 What I am wondering is - - let me 12 rephrase. 13 MR. WILL: Without the preamble. 14 Q. O.K. What I am wondering. Dr. 15 Lewinsohn, is do you know as you sit here today 16 what opinions you would have to offer in this 17 lawsuit? 18 A. I have no opinions specifically. 19 briefed or informed by Union Carbide as to how 20 they would use my testimony. 21 Q. O.K. Have you had a chance to read 22 the disclosure that counsel for Union Carbide made 23 in this case about areas that you might testify 24 about ? 25 A. No. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011748 1 Lewinsohn 244 2 Q. Let me just show it to you. I would 3 like to run through these things and ask you some 4 questions about them. 5 And what I am showing the witness, I 6 am not going to make this an exhibit because I 7 just brought my copy. It's the experts' 8 disclosure of Union Carbide in this case, and 9 served on February 1994. 10 (Discussion off the record) 11 MR. BROWNSON: The copy. 12 (Discussion off the record) 13 MR. BROWNSON: Let's make this page 14 Exhibit 8. Back on the record. I will 15 make an exhibit of this page. We will mark 16 this Exhibit 8. Disclosure by counsel to 17 Union Carbide in this case. 18 (Disclosure by counsel to Union 19 Carbide marked as Exhibit 8 for 20 identification, as of this date.) 21 BY MR. BROWNSON: 22 Q. Have you had a chance to read Exhibit 23 8? 24 A. Very quickly, yes. 25 Q. Why don't you just take a moment to DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011749 1 Lewins ohn 245 2 read through it and I will ask you some questions 3 about it. 4 A. A11 right. 5 Q. First of all, have you had a chance 6 to re view any materials relating to the Conwed 7 plant at the present time? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Have you been advisedthat you will 10 be sh own any materials with respect to t he Conwed 11 plant 12 A. No. 13 Q. It also indicates in the disclosure, 14 you may review materials or review materials 15 relating to Calidria asbestos. 16 Can you describe for me what 17 materials you reviewed relating to Calidria 18 asbestos ? 19 MR . GERSON: During what time? 20 MR . WILL: Since he left Union 21 Carbide. 22 Q. Well, asking the question generally. 23 Let me break the question down. 24 Have you reviewed any mineralogical 25 reports, articles, literature, analyses of DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011750 1 Lewinsohn 246 2 Calidria asbestos at any time? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And can you tell us what it is that 5 you reviewed? 6 A. Not specifically, but I have 7 reviewed, particularly while I was at Union 8 Carbide, various reports that came my way from 9 time to time on those particular subjects. 10 Q. And do you recall any of them being 11 from Dr. Mumpton, reports from Dr. Mumpton? 12 A. I had seen a report from Dr. Mumpton. 13 I can't say I reviewed it. I know of 14 its existence. 15 Q. As far as any opinions you would be 16 prepared to offer, as you sit here today, 17 concerning Calidria asbestos, would it be fair to 18 say then that those opinions would not be based 19 upon the writings of Dr. Mumpton, or would they 20 be? 21 A. Well, if I was going to be questioned 22 as a witness about my opinions on Calidria 23 asbestos, I would prepare myself for that. 24 And at this moment in time, I can't 25 tell you what particular writings I would refer to DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011751 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 n 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 247 in order to do that. If there were writings by Dr. Mumpton that were relevant, yes, I would look at them and review them. Q. But in order for you to render opinions about Calidria asbestos, would it be fair to say you would have to go back and review writings by Dr. Mumpton? In other words, you don't have those in mind as you sit here today, do you? A. I don't have any particular reference in mind as I sit here today. Q. Are you familiar with Robert Woolery? A. I don't know. Q. Do you recall having ever reviewed a paper authored by Dr. Woolery called, "Asbestos in the Paper Making Process"? A. Not offhand. Q. Let's go back to thesubject of Calidria asbestos. In your mind, is there any distinction -- strike that. Let me back up. Are you familiar with the fact that the Calidria brand asbestos sold by Union Carbide DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011752 1 Lewinsohn 248 2 comes from this deposit in New Idria, California? 3 A. Yes . 4 Q. I-d-r-i-a? 5 A. Yes . 6 Q. Have you ever been there at the mine? 7 A. I have been to the King City mine. 8 Q- You have been to the mine in King 9 City or the mill ? 10 A. The mill. 11 Q. Have you ever been up to the mine up 12 on the mountain? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Now are you familiar with the fact 15 that there is at least two other, or have been 16 historically at least two other operating mines in 17 that deposit , one by Atlas Asbestos and one by 18 Johns -Manville? 19 A. I think I may have heard that there 20 were. 21 Q. And in your mind, do you know of any 22 distinction between the asbestos mined in those 23 three mines? 24 A. No. 25 Q. As far as you know, do you consider DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011753 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 249 that to be the same asbestos? A. From my perspective and from my knowledge, yes. Q. Going back to the Calidria asbestos, have you seen any medical record or medical data, or medical information concerning miners at the Calidria mine? MR. WILL: Are you talking about the Union Carbide mine? MR. BROWNSON: Right. A. Well, I am not quite sure how best to answer that question, because mining really utilized very few people as I understand it. And in my review that I undertook at one time, they. King City Mill, I don't know whether, without looking to see what people's occupations were, whether I also reviewed miners. But there were very few miners, to my understanding, because of the nature of the mining process. Q. O.K. And would it be fair to say that, over the years, there has really only been a relatively handful of people who actually worked up at the mine? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011754 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 250 A. That is what I understood. Yes. Q. And when you have reviewed such medical information as you have seen about Union Carbide employees in King City, you didn't specifically break out and review the miners as a separate group, did you? A. I don't believe I did. Q. Now, let me broaden the question and ask you, have you ever reviewed the medical record, reports, or medical information concerning employees at any of the King City facilities, the mine, the mill, the truckers, any of the employees associated with that asbestos production facility? A. Shortly, I think I told you this last time, shortly before - MR. WILL: Are you asking differently than what you covered before? Go ahead. A. I think I told you this last time. That is that shortly before the buyout by the management of the King City Mine & Mill, I went to King City and reviewed, I think, without seeing my report, I don't know the exact numbers now, but I think about 100 individuals' x-rays to determine DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011755 Lewinsohn 251 2 whether there were any obvious asbestos related 3 changes noticed in those films. 4 That was the only review I made. 5 Q. O.K. And just so I am clear on this, 6 what you reviewed then was the actual x-ray films? 7 A. I reviewed, I went down there, and I 8 went to the local hospital, where the x-rays had 9 been taken. And they made available to me from a 10 list that was provided by the mine, by the mill, 11 rather, the x-rays of workers. 12 And I am not quite sure what the 13 relation was of the workers that I reviewed. And 14 I looked, if I remember correctly, I looked at the 15 first available x-ray, I looked at the last and 16 most recent x-ray, and I probably looked routinely 17 at the one before that. 18 And if I had any suspicions, I would 19 look back further. 20 Q. Other than looking at the x-ray 21 films, did you see any other medical record or . 22 medical information concerning workers? 23 A. Not at this moment in time that I can remember. Q. Have you ever seen any medical DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011756 1 Lewinsohn 2 52 2 record, medical reports, medical information, or 3 x-rays, concerning any workers at either the 4 Johns-Manvi11e or the atlas facilities at New 5 Idria, California? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Have you ever heard or been told what 8 the health experience of those workers has been? 9 A. No. I am not aware of the health 10 experience of those workers. 11 Q. Going back to your review of the 12 x-rays of the workers at the King City asbestos 13 facility, do you know whether these x-rays that 14 you reviewed included the x-rays of all workers 15 who worked at the mine and mill at King City since 16 the production started in 1963? 17 A. I honestly don't remember what the 18 selection criteria were. 19 5 I would have to look at my report. 20 which I assume, which I hope will be able to 21 enlighten me on that. 22 But at this moment in time, I just 23 don't remember the selection criteria. I am 24 sorry. 25 Q. Do you have a copy of the report? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011757 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 253 A. I do, but not with me. Q. I would like to get a copy of the report, Dr. Lewinsohn'8 report of his x-ray review. MR. WILL: We will take it under advisement. Q. First of all, would the report tell us, if we looked at it, if it included all workers who had worked at the mine and mill since production began? A. It should tell you which workers were looked at. Q. Do you remember if there was any breakdown by occupation among those workers? A. To the best of my recollection, there was no breakdown by occupation. Q. Was this a reading which was a blind type of reading - - A. Yes. Q. -- where you just had a bunch of films and you didn't know, before you read them. where these people had worked in particular? A. Correct. Q. Did you become aware of that DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011758 Lewinsohn 254 information after you read the films? A. I don't believe so. Q. Now I take it, you have toured the mill at King City? A. yes . On that occasion, when I went down Q. And when was that again? About '85? A. Just before the buyout took place. the divestiture. Q. Do you recall, when you toured the mill on that occasion in about '84, '85, '86, in that time period, were you shown the area where the baggers worked in that mill? A. I saw all the operations at that mill. Q. And do you know if your report of the x-rays you reviewed of those workers would tell us which of the workers worked in the bagging area? A. I don't think so. Q. Do you recall that information ever coming to your attention? Do you recall learning, in connection with your review of x-rays, which of those workers had worked in the bagging area? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011759 1 Lewinsohn 255 2 A. No. 3 Q. So as far as you know, that is 4 something that was never specifically looked at 5 separately or broken out? 6 A. I didn't do it. I don't know whether 7 anyone else did. 8 Q. In addition to the x-rays that you 9 looked at personally, did you review any other 10 data concerning the King City workers, that is, 11 reviewed by any other doctors, any other record 12 concerning the health of the King City workers? 13 A. I don't think so. 14 Q. Do you know whether any of the 15 workers at King City Hospital, x-rays you looked 16 at, had been exposed to levels of asbestos in 17 their employment that exceeded the OSHA level, or 18 whether they were all below the OSHA level? 19 A. I can't answer because I don't think 20 that any correlation was done between dust levels 21 and occupation. 22 Q. In connection with your review of the 23 x-rays, did you see any dust level or exposure 24 data? 25 A. I don't believe. DOYLE REPORTING,.INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011760 1 Lewinsohn 256 2 Q. Do you know if you have ever seen any 3 dust level data in the King City mine or mill? 4 A. At this moment in time, I don't 5 remember. 6 Q. Do you know if you have ever seen any 7 dust level or exposure data from either the Atlas 8 one, or the Johns-Manvi1le mines in that same 9 asbestos deposit? 10 A. I don't believe I would have had any 11 reason to. 12 Q. Have you seen any dust level or 13 exposure data from any workers in plants similar 14 to the Conwed plant, customer plants, where the 15 Calidria asbestos was used in manufacturing 16 processes ? 17 A. Again, I must answer, I don't 18 remember. 19 Q. Are you familiar with a program that 20 Union Carbide undertook, beginning in about '72, 21 '73, where they would send industrial hygienists 22 out to Calidria customers' plants and take air 23 samples ? * 24 A. I didn't join Carbide until '82. So 25 I don't know about that. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011761 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 2 57 Q. I understand that. But in connection with your work at Union Carbide, did you become familiar with that program? A. Not specifically, no. Q. And do you recall ever reviewing data generated by that program, that is, dust counts done at plants of customers using Calidria asbestos ? A. No. I don't. Q. In connection with your work at any time, whether at Union Carbide or since that time, have you ever seen the medical records, medical reports, x-rays, or medical information concerning workers at customers plants who used Calidria asbestos in manufacturing processes? 1 A. I really don't know. From time to time, people like Alan Gerson would contact me for my thoughts or my opinions on a particular case. But that is as far as it went. Q. Have you ever done a review of a group of workers similar to what you did at the King City x-rays from a customer plant where you DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011762 1 Lewinsohn 258 2 looked at a large number of x-rays? 3 A. No . 4 Q. So what you have done is done some 5 consulting with Union Carbide lawyers on a 6 particular lawsuit involving a particular worker? 7 A. From time to time, yes. 8 Q. And did you do that work while you 9 were at Union Carbide, or is that the work you 10 have done since you left Union Carbide? 11 A. No. I have done that at Union 12 Carbide. 13 Q. And since you have leftUnion 14 Carbide, have you done any of that consulting in 15 connection with cases of workers who claim to have 16 been exposed to Calidria asbestos at some 17 customers' plants? 18 A. I don't know. 19 Q. In terms of the consulting or the 20 review that you have done in connection with 21 particular cases of workers here and there, do you 22 know if any of those have involved a Conwed worker 23 from the Conwed plant in Cloquet, Minnesota? 24 A. That I don't remember. 25 Q. Would you happen to remember actual DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011763 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 259 names of any of those people? A. No. Q. If I threw a couple of names at you of Conwed workers - - A. You could try. Q. O.K. I will give you the name of James Manisco. A. That doesn't ring a bell. Q. Is that a case you looked at in any way? A. It doesn't ring a bell. Q. Have you ever seen any published data, whether it was in your review of literature or anywhere else, about any surveys or reviews or studies of any group of workers in any plant setting that used Calidria asbestos? A. Not that I am aware of. Q. Are you aware if any such published data exists? A. No. Q. At the time you were at Union Carbide, did you ever make any recommendations of any type that any such survey be done of workers in plants where Calidria asbestos was used? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011764 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 260 A. I, personally? No. Q. Are you aware of anyone at Union Carbide, at any time, I guess up to the present time, as far as you know, suggesting or initiating any review or survey of workers in customer plants where Calidria asbestos was used? A. No. Q. Did it ever come to your attention that anyone else outside of Union Carbide was proposing or actually engaging in any such surveys of workers in customer plants where Calidria asbestos was used? A. No. Q. Are you familiarwith the International Paper Workers Union? Have you ever heard of them? A. Not really, no. Q. You have never done any work for them in any connection, I take it? A. No. Q. Have you ever seenany of the - strike that. Have you ever heard that the International Paper Workers Union did a screening, DOYLE REPORTING, . INC. (212)867- 8220 UCAREF00011765 1 Lewinsohn 261 2 a medical screening, with x-rays, and other 3 reviews, of workers at the Conwed plant who used 4 Calidria asbestos? 5 A. I don't know. 6 The reason I am hesitating is because 7 I can remember, some time back, seeing a brief 8 report in the Bureau of National Affairs of the 9 Occupational Health Reporter, that publication, 10 which related to Conwed workers. But I don't 11 remember the context of it. 12 Whether that referred to it or not, I 13 do not remember. 14 Q. Do you recall if that came to your 15 attention while you were working for Union 16 Carbide, or is that something you saw since that 17 time? 18 A. I don't know. 19 Q. At the time that report in the 20 Reporter came to your attention, did you know that 21 the Conwed workers had been exposed to the . 22 Calidria asbestos? 23 A. I don't know when that report came to 24 my attention. 25 I can't answer that. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011766 1 Lewinsohn 262 2 Q. As you sit and think about it now, do 3 you recall if the report said anything about the 4 type of asbestos to which those workers were 5 exposed? 6 A. No. I am sorry I raised it. It was 7 just from my memory. I remembered seeing it. 8 Q. Do you recall ever seeing or 9 reviewing a report by the Minnesota Department of 10 Health concerning the Conwed workers at the 11 Cloquet, Minnesota plant? 12 A. No, I had not. 13 Q. And while you were at Union Carbide, 14 do you know if you were ever contacted, or did you 15 ever discuss with any other researchers whether 16 from the Minnesota Department of Health or Paper 17 Workers Union or anywhere else, concerning any 18 surveys or reviews of workers at the Conwed plant? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Looking back now atExhibit 8, the 21 disclosure. 22 First of all, have you ever seen this 23 particular disclosure before the deposition here 24 today? 25 A. No. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011767 1 Lewinsohn 263 2 Q. If you look inthe first paragraph, 3 it says, "Dr. Lewinsohn may be asked to give 4 opinions about the ability of Calidria asbestos to 5 cause diseases in workers under the conditions," I 6 am sorry, "under the conditions during which it 7 was used at the Conwed plant." 9 Do yousee that reference? 9 A. I do. 10 Q. And is that an opinion that you would 11 be prepared to give in this case, as far as you 12 know? 13 MR. GERSON: At this time? 14 MR. BROWNSON: Well, yes. 15 A. Not at this moment in time, no. 16 Q. In order for you to give that 17 opinion, what further information would you need 18 to review? 19 A. I would need to review all the 20 information pertaining to the use of Calidria 21 asbestos in the Conwed plant, the circumstances 22 under which it was used, any relevant industrial 23 hygiene surveys that were conducted, any health 24 record of employees that were available. And, in 25 general, review the literature available on DOYLE REPORTING, INC. {212)867-8220 UCAREF00011768 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 264 Calidria asbestos. It would require preparation. (Telephone interruption) (Recess) BY MR. BROWNSON: Q. Dr. Lewinsohn, you just told us, in order to render an opinion about the ability of Calidria asbestos to cause disease in workers under the conditions used in the Conwed plant, you would need to review a number of different things. I understood you would not be able to render an opinion without reviewing those materials. Is that correct? A. Not necessarily correct. If I were to render an opinion specifically related to those circumstances involving that particular group of employees, I would need a lot more information. Q. O.K. Are you prepared to render any opinions, in general, concerning Calidria asbestos and its ability to cause disease in workers in manufacturing plants? A. I think so. Yes. Q. Can you tell us what your opinions are in that regard about the ability of Calidria DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011769 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewins ohn 265 asbestos to cause disease among workers in manufacturing plants? A. Yes. In my opinion, Calidria asbestos is unlikely to cause the asbestos - related diseases which have been described in connection with the use of other asbestiform minerals. Q.. Are you saying - - strike that. Let's take the disease of asbestosis. I am talking now about clinical asbestosis which would show up on an x-ray as interstitial fibrosis. Okay? A. Yes. Q. Is it your opinion that Calidria asbestosis unlikely to cause that disease among workers in a manufacturing plant? A. In general, yes, that is my opinion. Q., Now is your opinion is based, in part, upon the dose of Calidria which would be required to cause such a disease? A. It's based in part on that, but it's based largely, I think, on the fact that this fiber is so different from the other fibers which have been associated with the disease. Q. Well, let me ask you some questions DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011770 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 about that. Lewinsohn 266 First of all, you are not saying, are you, that Calidria is absolutely unable, under any circumstances, to cause asbestosis among workers? A. No. I said unlikely. I don't believe that I could make that statement that, under any circumstances, would not cause disease. Q. O.K. So as I understand your opinion, what you are saying is Calidria is less likely to cause the disease asbestosis than other asbestos type fibers in the setting of a manufacturing plant where workers are using it? A. Depending upon the working conditions, and the exposure of those workers, yes . Q. And let me ask you this question. All other things being equal, in terms of working conditions and exposure, are you saying that Calidria is less likely to cause . asbestosis than other types of asbestos? A. I think so, yes. Q. And would you agree that the converse of that also is true, that if Calidria is used DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011771 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 2 67 where there are higher levels of exposure and more dusty working conditions that it could be more likely to cause diseases than some other types of asbestos at lower exposure? A. I don't follow that argument. Q. Well, let me ask you this question. Would you agree with me that if people using Calidria asbestos were exposed to enough of it for long enough in a manufacturing plant, they could get asbestosis? A. I would say that if the exposure were overwhelming, and were of such magnitude as to overwhelm the primary defense mechanism that the human body has to prevent that type of fiber from causing health effects, then under such circumstances, it would be possible to develop pulmonary fibrosis. Q. In laymen' s terms, asbestosis? A. Asbestosis Q. Now, as I understand your opinion, what you are saying is that the Calidria asbestos is different than other types of asbestos, which makes it less likely to cause asbestosis, is that correct? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011772 1 Lewinsohn 2 68 2 A. I think so. 3 Q. Now what are the specific differences 4 which, in your view, make it less likely to cause 5 asbestos - related disease? 61 A. It's basically the physical property, 7 you know, the fiber is a fibril. It is not a 8 bundle of fibril. But fiber itself is fibril. 9 It's very short, by which I mean it's 10 usually around about 5 microns in length, and it's 11 of small diameter. 12 Such fibers, are readily engulfed by 13 the macrofaces, which are the scavenger cells in 14 the lungs, and can be eliminated from the lungs, 15 either in sputum or through the lymphatic chain. 16 Or even if swallowed would be eliminated through 17 the gastroendosinal tract. 18 So the possibility for these fibers 19 to dwell for long enough in the lungs to produce 20 their fibrotic effect, I think is vastly 21 diminished by the physical properties of the 22 fiber. 23 Q. So what you are saying is because of 24 the physical characteristics of these fibers being 25 short, small diameter, they are more easily DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011773 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 269 cleared out of the lungs? A. I think so. Yes. Q. And would you agree that if, in a given case, they were not cleared out of the lungs, and they remained in the lungs in sufficient quantities, then they could cause disease? A. For long enough? Q. Right. A. That is your guess is as good as mine under those circumstances. Q. Well - A. I can'tgive you a definitiveanswer. Q. Have you ever seen lung tissue fiber burdened studies or analyses of workers exposed to Calidria asbestos? A. No . Q. So as you sit here today, do you have any actual data or information as to what the lung tissue Calidria fiber burden is in workers exposed in manufacturing plants? A. No. I don't know that anybody has. Q. And you have anticipated my next question. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011774 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewins ohn 270 Are you aware of any of any such information in the possession of anyone at Union Carbide? A. No. Q. And are you aware of any studies Union Carbide or people on behalf of Union Carbide have ever undertaken to try to find that out, do lung tissue fiber burden studies of people exposed to Calidria in manufacturing plants? A. I am not aware of that. Q. Have you seen any published data on that point? A. No. Q. I am going back through this disclosure here of your opinions, Exhibit 8. One of the things it says you will make comment on is the scientific literature regarding the ability of chrysotile and short fibered chrysotile to cause disease. I take it, that is generally what we were just talking about? A. Generally, yes. Q- Are you aware of any particular scientific literature that discusses the ability DOYLE REPORTING,. INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011775 - 9 ' 1 Lewinsohn 271 2 of Calidria asbestos fiber to cause disease? 3 A. No. At this moment in time, I am not 4 aware of that. 5 Q. And are you aware of any literature 6 that discusses the ability of the New Idria 7 asbestos fiber in general, whether it came from 8 one of these other two mines of Atlas or 9 Johns-Manville, to cause disease? 10 A. Again, I must say that as I sit here 11 now, I can't give you any specific instance. 12 Q. Now, it also says on this disclosure 13 statement 8, that you may be asked about the 14 appropriateness of steps taken by Conwed 15 management, from an occupational health 16 standpoint, in light of the knowledge available to 17 them. 18 I take it, as you sit here today, you 19 have no specific information as to what knowledge 20 was available to Conwed and what steps they took? 21 A. No. .1`have had no preparation . 22 whatever for my -- by Union Carbide counsel for 23 any testimony I would offer. 24 Therefore, I haven't been provided 25 with all the facts in this case. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011776 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewins ohn 272 Q. Let me back up a little bit. When you told us earlier about your general opinions that Union Carbide asbestos is less dangerous than some other types, because you gave us a number of factors, you said the fact that it's fibril, short, small diameter, in your view does the pelletized form of the asbestos bear any relationship to its abilities to cause disease? A. I would say it does, in that the pelletized form of asbestosis is likely to be far less dust producing than loose fibers being pelletized. Q. Do you know if that is why Union Carbide pelletized the Calidria in the first place, to make it less dusty? ' A. I don't know why they selected that method of producing their final product, whether it was health represented or whether that was the most appropriate way in which to package it. Q. Have you seen any experiments that anyone at Union Carbide did where Calidria asbestos was placed inside a closed chamber to create an aerosol or a dust to determine how dusty DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011777 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 2 73 it might be? A. I don't recollect seeing that. Q. Do you have any specific data in terms of the dustiness of Calidria asbestos in an experiment of that type, or where someone actually tests to see what sortof dust it willproduce? A. I don't. No. Q. Have youseen any experiments showing the relative dustiness of pelletized versus non-pelletized Calidria asbestos? A. No. Q. Would you agree with me that whatever advantage there is to the pelletized form of the Calidria asbestos in terms of being less dusty, that that advantage is lost once the pellets are opened and fiberized? A. Once they are opened and fiberized, could you tell me what you mean by that? Q. Well, if the pellets are crushed and broken apart so they are no longer pellets, but now they are just loose fiber? A. Obviously, if you take pellets and crush them and fiberize them, you are reducing them back down to a state of being fibril, which DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011778 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 274 if they were allowed to escape into the air, would be dustier than lying there compacted in pellets. Q. O.K. Do you recall ever seeing any information or data about the shipping of Calidria asbestos in terms of broken bags, if whether the bags break, if so, how many, that sort of thing? A. No. I have no information on that. Q. Do you recall ever seeing any information of complaints by customers that when they received Calidria asbestos, that bags were broken and it was dusty, that sort of thing? A. No. Q. Looking at Exhibit 8, the disclosure as to things you might testify, it also says you might be asked to give an opinion as to the extent to which alleged health problems in former Conwed workers are attributable to factors other than asbestos. Again, I take it, you have no specific information in that regard at the present time? A. That's correct. Q. And as far as you know, have you been asked at this point to educate yourself on that? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011779 1 Lewinsohn 2 75 2 A. I have not. 3 Q. And if you were asked to educate 4 yourself on that point so that you could render an 5 opinion in this case, what information would you 6 need to see? 7 A. I would need to know all the 8 information about the use of the Calidria fiber by 9 Conwed in addition to what other fibrogenetic or 10 carcinogenetic materials may have been present in 11 the workplace at the same time. 12 And whether any admixture of those 13 materials took place in the formulation which went 14 into the final product, which I would like to know 15 what the conditions were under which these other 16 materials were used and the industrial hygiene 17 data relating to them. 18 Q. At the present time, you don't have 19 any information in that regard? 20 A. I don't. 21 Q. Do you know if there is any 22 synergistic effect of any sort between Calidria 23 asbestos and cigarette smoking? 24 A. Calidria asbestos has really not been 25 segregated epidemiologically to any extent that I DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011780 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 276 am aware. I have no knowledge chat there is any deleterious effect. Q. So would that mean, in order to render an opinion, like we are just talking about, that you would not be interested in cigarette smoking data among these workers, or would that be something that would interest you? A. It would interest me because cigarette smoking per se causes lung cancer. Q. And would it also interest you because it could be possible that there is a synergistic effect between Calidria asbestos and cigarette smoking? A. I would have to study that. Q. You don't know one way or another? A. I don't think anybody does. Q. Would you agree that that is a possibility, however, that I guess that would bear study? A. I guess if Calidria asbestos possesss the ability to damage the lungs, in the same way as other forms of chrysotile asbestos have been shown to do, then it would probably have the same synergistic effect with tobacco smoke as other DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011781 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewins ohn 2 77 forms of chrysotile have. But I have no information, no scientific information specifically on that fact relating to Calidria. Q. And when you said that in order to render an opinion as to whether health approximate in former Conwed workers are attributable to factors other than asbestos, you would want the information about what other materials these workers were exposed to. Can you give me examples of what sort of materials would concern you in that regard? A. Well, yes. Was Calidria the only asbestiform material that was used in the manufacture of tiles? Were other forms of asbestos used? Were other fibrogenetic dusts present? Silica containing dust, for example. Q. These other fibrogenetic -- you have mentioned, first of all, other types of asbestos could be fibrogenetic? A. Yes. Q. Silica dust could be fibrogenetic? A. Yes . DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011782 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 278 Q. I understand, as you sit here today, you have no specific information about the other types of asbestos used at Conwed? A. That is not strictly true because in conversation, I have gathered that amosite was also used. Q. So you are aware that some amosite was used at Conwed? A. I am aware that some was used. I am not sure how or in what quantity. Q. How about silica? Do you know if any silica was used at Conwed? A. I don't know. Q. Other than other types of asbestos and silica, are there other types of fibrogenetic types of dust that you would look for that could be a factor in spreading disease among these workers? A. There aren't too many other significant fibrogenetic dusts besides those I have mentioned. Q. Those are really the only two, asbestos and silica? A. I guess so. Unless some of the DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011783 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 279 employees happen to be coal miners or coal workers. Q. Coal is a fibrogenetic dust? A. Yes . Q. Black lungdisease? A. Right. Q. Are you familiar with thestudies by Dr. Demenc and others of textile workers in Charleston, South Carolina? A. Yes. Q. Is it your view, do you have an opinion as to whether the results of those studies have any bearing on or illustrate anything about disease that may occur among Conwed workers as a result of exposure to Calidria asbestos? A. The study in Charleston? Q. Right. A. I don't see what bearing those specifically have. Q. Why do you think they would have no bearing on the experience of workers at Conwed? A. I didn't say they had no bearing. I just don't see what bearing they would have, because the workers in Charleston were DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011784 l Lewinsohn 280 2 textile workers, using chrysotile fiber, which was 3 totally different from the Calidria fiber in the 4 physical properties. 11 5 Q. Are you aware of Dr. Demenc's study 6 of chrysotile? 7 A. I was the corporate medical director 8 for Raybestos Manhattan at the time those studies 9 took place that was at that plant, and provided 10 Dr. Demenc with the opportunity of going there. 11 Q. You are familiar with the fact there 12 were elevated rates of lung cancer found? 13 A. Certainly. Yes. 14 Q. And it's your view, however, as I 15 understand it, that that cannot be translated to 16 the experience of the Conwed workers because this 17 is a different type of manufacturing process and a 18 different type of chrysotile? 19 A. That is my belief, yes. 20 Q. What is it that is different about 21 the chrysotile in the textile plant in Charleston, 22 South Carolina from what was used at the plant at 23 Conwed? 24 A. The fiber in the textile plant at 25 Charleston is a spinning grade of chrysotile DOYLE REPORTING, . INC. {212) 867- 8220 UCAREF00011785 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 2 81 asbestos, which is mined under very different circumstances and produced under very different circumstances from Calidria asbestos. The fiber itself, in order to be a spinning grade fiber, has to be long and flexible. It has to be very similar to cotton in other respects, so it can pass through the process, the textile process, of opening, carting, spinning, winding. We have gone through all the things that were done with that fiber. Calidria can't do that. Calidria is a little fiber, short thing. Q. Would you say then, if we could try to sum this up in laymen's terms as a general proposition, the longer fibers are more dangerous than the shorter fibers? A. In very general terms, yes. Q. And if we were to try to summarize the difference in general terms between the chrysotile that caused disease in the Charleston, S.C. textile plant, and the Calidria at Conwed, it's your view the chrysotile in Charleston was quite a bit longer and was a spinning grade? MR. WILL: I want to object to the DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011786 1 Lewinsohn 282 2 question. 3 I don't think the doctor ever 4 concluded that the disease that was caused 5 in Charleston was, in fact, due to the 6 asbestos and not some other compounding 7 factor. 8 But in any event - - 9 MR. BROWNSON: Okay. 10 MR. WILL: -- he indicated there was 11 an excess rate of lung cancer found in the 12 study in the plant that was using the long 13 chrysotile. 14 BY MR. BROWNSON: 15 Q. I understood you concurred with the 16 conclusion, I guess, generally reached about those 17 workers, that that chrysotile had something to do 18 ' with the increased rate of lung cancer? 19 A. I think the way it is said, there was 20 an excess incidence of lung cancer associated with 21 exposure to chrysotile asbestos in the textile 22 plant in Charleston, South Carolina. 23 Q. O.K. 24 And what I am trying to do is fill 25 this out in general terms. Maybe it can't be DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011787 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 283 done . But as I thought I understood it, it is your view that the reason that chrysotile may be associated with more disease than what you, Dr. Lewinsohn, would expect to see with Calidria was because, as a general proposition, of this longer spinning grade of chrysotile, and Calidria is short ? A. That is one of the reasons, yes. Q. Is that the main reason? A. It is a very significant reason. Q. Have you seen published fiber size distribution data concerning the chrysotile asbestos at Charleston, South Carolina? A. I want to say probably, but I don't recollect precisely. Q. Have you seen publicizeddistribution data with respect to Calidria chrysotile? A. Yes. Q. Have you seen such data which has been generated by transmission electromicroscopy? A. I don't remember the details of the fiber size distribution data that I've seen, but I know I have seen it. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011788 1 Lewinsohn 284 2 Q. Going back to Exhibit 8, the final 3 area of opinions you might be asked that I would 4 like to ask you about, is what is described here 5 as the role of amosite. 6 You see that about the middle of the 7 paragraph? It says, "The Role of Amosite"? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Do you have any opinions as you sit 10 here today as to what role, if any, any amosite 11 asbestos played in the disease of workers at 12 Cloquet? 1^ 13 A. As I sit here today, I don't have any 14 specific opinion but other than to state that 15 amosite is known to result, following adequate 16 exposure, in the development of asbestosis, lung 17 cancer and mesothelioma. 18 Again, without knowing the specific 19 circumstances surrounding its use at Conwed, I 20 can't venture any further opinion. 21 Q. Would it be fair to say that one of 22 the things you would need to know is the levels of 23 exposure to amosite dust? 24 A. Yes. I need to know the levels of 25 exposure to amosite dust. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011789 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 285 Q. Would you agree with me that the relationship between amosite asbestos and disease is dose dependent? A. The relationship between amosite asbestos, and the production of asbestosis and probably lung cancer, I would say is dose dependent. I think that the relationship between amosite and development of mesothelioma is also dose dependent, but I think that dose is one which has not yet been determined. Q. If we can put that opinion in laymen's terms, the greater the dose of amosite asbestos, the greater the relationship between asbestos - related disease and, on the other hand, the less the dose, the less the relationship. Would that be fair to say? A. If you define dose as concentration and time, because dose depends upon the concentration and the time, the amount, that of exposure, and the time frame over which that exposure occurs. Q. So again, to try to put this in laymen's terms, the more amosite asbestos you are DOYLB REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011790 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 10 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 286 exposed to for a longer time, the more likelihood there is of asbestos-related disease? A. Well, I hate to be too pedantic. MR. GERSON: You are the expert. Be as pedantic as you want to be. A. The concept is, exposure is the concentration and time. So the dose might be a lower concentration over a longer time, or a higher concentration over a shorter time. Q. 0.K. So the two things that are important in determining the dose is the amount dust a worker is exposed to and how long? A. And how long. Q. 0. K. And there is one other factor, and that is, that the development of the disease is often delayed. And so, therefore, there is a lapse interval between the first exposure and the recognition of any health affects. That is what is known as the latency? A. Yes. That is not synonymous with the length of exposure because exposure may have ceased. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011791 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 287 Q. And do you have any opinion as to whether the latency of exposure from amosite asbestos is related to the dose? In other words, if you get a higher does, is the latency in any way shortened? A. I would like to think that would be a simple explanation for it, but I have no scientific evidence or epidemiological evidence to confirm that theory. Q. The final disease you mentioned of mesothelioma, it's your opinion that mesothelioma is also related to the dose of amosite asbestos, but you don't have information exactly what the dose is that causes mesothelioma? A. I think the mesothelioma, the jury is still out as to what the level of exposure is required with any of the forms of asbestos to produce that particular form of malignancy. Q. Is that also true of Calidria asbestos, the jury is still out in your view as to what dose would be necessary to cause mesothelioma? A. I think jury is still out with Calidria asbestos as to whether it can cause any DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011792 1 Lewinsohn 2 88 2 form of asbestos - related diseases. 3 Q. In your view? 4 A. In my view. 5 Q. And again, from the time you began at 6 Union Carbide to the present time, did you ever 7 initiate any research or studies to try to answer 8 that question? 9 A. No. 10 (Recess) 11 MR. BROWNSON: We have no other 12 questions. 13 MR. WILL: I have a couple of 14 questions I want to ask. 15 EXAMINATION BY 16 MR. WILL: 17 Q. Mr. Brownson asked you if you were to 13 18 give an opinion about amosite, the role of amosite 19 in causing a disease in workers, what you would 20 want to know. 21 And you said, one of the things you 22 would want to know was the level of exposure. 23 If there are no dust counts done in 24 the plant when the amosite was in use, would that 25 prevent you from giving opinions about any role DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011793 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 289 that amosite may have played? MR. BROWNSON: I am going to object to the form of the question. Go ahead. A. If there are no dust counts? I think it might still be possible to render an opinion, providing there was comparative data available in terms of other measurements that might have been made or in terms of descriptive, descriptions of the dustiness of the operation. Q. Would it be helpful to know how much amosite had been used in a plant, kind of consumption? A. It would be helpful to know, if one also knew how much amosite went into the process. Q. Last time, last time being February, 1994, you were questioned by Mr. Brownson about - I want to make sure I characterize this accurately so I don't get an objection. In the February session of your deposition, you were asked a question by Mr. Brownson, the gist of which was that, will people be at risk from getting an asbestos - related disease, even if they were are not working DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011794 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 290 directly with the asbestos in any product? Do you recall that generally? A. Give it to me again. Q. Well the question, I will refer to it specifically, referring to page 171, and 172 of the deposition, and your answer to the question, which had to do with Dr. Selicoff's statement that asbestos fibers didn't respect job classifications, Mr. Brownson said: "In other words, they could float adrift around in the work area?" And in responding to that, you referenced the work of Dr. Wagner, the work of Molly Newhouse, and a paper by McCaughey, Wade & Elms, and you talked about something that you said, there had been instances of asbestos disease occurring in people that had pure environmental exposure. And my question was, what did you mean when you referred to asbestos - related disease occurring in people with pure environmental exposure? To what were you referring? MR. BROWNSON: I will object to the f orm. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011795 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 291 Go ahead and answer. A. Yes. There was an awareness that developed that people who had been exposed, living in the vicinity of an asbestos manufacturing facility, or a mine, could also develop the asbestos - related diseases. And the instances that, the two instances that are best known are the domestic exposure that Molly Newhouse described, and then what I would call the environmental exposures that Dr. Wagner has described in the Northwest Province in South Africa, in this little town of Kuruman, and where the mine tailings were used for road building. People paved their driveways with it. School playgrounds were made from this material, tennis courts. It was used for all sorts of purposes. And mesothelioma developed in the community in that little town, who had never ever had any occupational exposure. That is what I would call environmental exposure. Q. What type of asbestos fiber was DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011796 1 Lewinsohn 292 2 involved in Kuruman? 3 A. Kuruman was crocidolite fiber. 4 Q. In yourfirst deposition, Mr. 5 Brownson asked you about the first case of 6 mesothelioma that that you recall seeing. 7 You mentioned that was a person at 8 the Ferrado plant? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Do you know the name of that 11 individual? 12 A. Yes. Archibald Vernon. 13 Q. And to what type of fibers had Mr. 14 Vernon been occupationally exposed? 15 A. Mr. Vernon worked at that plant, had 16 been exposed to chrysotile fibers, but he was one 17 of a number of workers who had worked in one area 18 of the plant, where -- and they all worked in 19 close proximity - - where they had manufactured a 20 special, I think it was a railroad brake block, 21 which was for some mid-European country's 22 railroads, that was specifically made out of 23 crocidolite asbestos. He was exposed to 14 24 crocidolite. 25 Q. You also made reference to the fact DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011797 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 29 3 there was some type of ownership relationship between Bell Mines and Turner & Newall. Do you know the specifics of that relationship? A. You mean the business relationship? No. I don't know the specifics. Q. Or the particular legalities of the way it was organized? A. in it. No. I wasn't particularly interested Q. You mentioned something in the first deposition, something called a scheduled area under the asbestos regulations that applied in England after 1931. And briefly, what was the scheduled area? A. I am relying now on my memory of sort of a complex regulatory issues. But as I remember it, the asbestos industry regulations in the United Kingdom were promulgated in 1931 and took effect in 1933. Also, they did not stipulate any exposure levels or regulate any particular processes, as far as I can recollect. They also DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011798 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 294 didn't stipulate any medical surveillance that should be conducted. But at the same time those regulations took effect, the silicosis and asbestosis medical arrangement team of 1931 was introduced. And the silicosis medical boards, which subsequently became like pneumoconiosis, like pneumonia, pneumoconiosis panel, had the responsibilities for conducting medical surveillance examinations on asbestos workers and the way in which the asbestos workers were, who they were to examine were categorized according to the type of work they did and the areas in which they worked. And so those areas, which came under the surveillance of the pneumoconiosis medical panel were the scheduled areas. Q. For example, in the Turner & Newall Rochdale plant, was the entire plant where asbestos was used considered a scheduled area? MR. BROWNSON: I object to the form of the question. A. No. Q. And were all of the workers in the DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011799 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 295 entire plant required to be monitored? MR . BROWNSON: I object to the fo A. Not by the pneumoconiosis medical panel, no. Q For asbestos ? A. For asbestos. Right. Q. Finally, whose responsibility was to see that the regulations were followed in England in the Rochdale plant. A. Whose responsibility? Q. Under the British regulations, what entity had the responsibility for seeing that the asbestos regulations were complied with? A. That was a factory inspection. Q. Was it the job of, I mean which private entity was the company charged with that? MR. BROWNSON: I will object to the form. I think he has already answered. Q. Is the factory inspector an arm of the government? A. Yes. Q. They were in charge of enforcing the regulations? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011800 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 296 A. Correct. Q. What private entity had responsibility for complying with the regulations? A. The employer. MR. WILL: Thank you. MR. GERSON: Wait a minute. (Discussion off record) BY MR. WILL: Q. Mr. Brownson askedyou questions about the fact that there were three mines in the New idria area, J-M, Atlas and Union Carbide. And you indicated that, as far as you were concerned, there was no difference between the mines, is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Now my question is, do you know, for example, what processes were used at the other mines? A. No. Q. Have you ever done any studies to see whether there were any differences between the fibers from the other mines and the Union Carbide fiber? A. No. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011801 1 Lewmsohn 297 2 Q. Do you know, in terms of the health 3 history, at Johns-Manville and Atlas, do you know 4 what process was used in the milling that was done 5 at Johns-Manville or Atlas? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Did you understand that Union Carbide 8 used a wet mill process? 9 MR. BROWNSON: I object to the form 10 of the question. 11 MR. WILL: I will withdraw the 12 question. 13 Q. Is it possible that the method of 14 milling used at Atlas or Johns-Manville would have 15 some impact on the health history of its 16 employees? 17 A. I would have to know what the m'ethod 18 of milling was. 19 15 I can't answer. 20 Q. Let me ask the question a little 21 differently. 22 Would the industrial hygiene 23 practices followed have some impact on the health 24 history of the workers? 25 A. (No verbal response). DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011802 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 298 Q. You don't know anything about it? A. No. Q. All right. I will withdraw that quest ion. To your knowledge, was any tremolite ever found in Calidria asbestos? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Would that have any impact on its ability to cause disease vis-a-vis other types of chrysotile? A. It is my understanding that the recent medical literature reports have appeared which indicate that asbestos which is contaminated with tremolite is more likely to be the cause of lung cancer and mesothelioma and possibly other asbestos - related effects. Q. Are you talking about chrysotile asbestos ? MR. BROWNSON: Objection to the form. A. I am talking about chrysotile asbestos which is not pure and which may have been contaminated by tremolite. MR. WILL: That is all. BY MR. BROWNSON: DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011803 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 299 Q. Dr. Lewinsohn, you said there have been recent reports in the medical literature saying asbestos contaminated with tremolite might be more dangerous than asbestos without tremolite. Are you aware of any reports which have actually compared the two, asbestos with tremolite, and asbestos without tremolite? A. No. I think I misspoke. I shouldn't have said it in that manner. The reports indicate -- let me just think a moment. MR. GERSON: Take your time. A. What I am trying to say is that the reports in the recent literature indicate that chrysotile asbestos contaminated with tremolite has been found to be the most probable cause of malignancies that have arisen in workers exposed to that type of fiber. Q. And are you aware that reports have also appeared in the medical literature that have said that tremolite is not a factor and that it's the chrysotile itself that causes the disease? MR. GERSON: I object to form. A. I haven't seen that. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011804 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 300 Q. Are you aware of a paper by Dr. William J. Nicolson and Philip L. Andrigan, of Mount Sinai, which takes that position, published in 1994? A. I haven't seen that. Q. Let me just ask you a couple of other things. You mentioned earlier, Mr. Will asked you about the first worker you ever saw when you were back at England that had mesothelioma. What was the name of that worker? A. Mr. Archibald Vernon. Q. Archibald Vernon? A. V-e-r-n-o-n. Q. And you said that Mr. Vernon was exposed to crocidolite asbestos during his work? A. Yes. Q. Is it also true he was exposed to chrysotile asbestos? A. Yes, I said that. Q. Do you know if the chrysotile asbestos which Mr. Vernon was exposed to contained tremolite or not? A. No. I don't. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011805 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 301 Q. You mentioned a minute ago about these British asbestos regulations. I believe you told us that these went into effect in 1931? A. They were promulgated in 1931. They took effect in '33. Q. And at that time, was the government agency in England, called the factory inspector, charged with going around the different factories and enforcing the asbestos regulations in England? A. Yes. Q. And when you came to Union Carbide, I think in '82 - - A. ' 82 . Q. -- were you aware that Union Carbide at that time had British subsidiaries? A. At that time? No. I probably learned about them subsequently. Q. Did you learn that Union Carbide had had British subsidiaries going back historically before that time? A. I don't understandwhat you mean. Q. Well, did it come to your attention DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011806 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 302 that Union Carbide had a subsidiary called Union Carbide U.K. that it had owned for some years before 1982? A. I assumed that they had owned it for some time. Q. Do you know how long they had owned it? A. No. Q. Do you know that it was at least back into the 1960's, if not before? A. I don't know. Q. Did you ever see, while you were at Union Carbide, did you ever see any letters or reports from the Union Carbide subsidiary in England called Union Carbide U.K. that came back to the medical director's office at Union Carbide in New York City about asbestos and health? A. I know I saw some. There was some correspondence that took place when I was at Union Carbide with that entity, but I don't remember what it was in relationship to. Q. Do you know if it had anything to do with asbestos and health? A. I don't remember. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011807 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 303 Q. Do you have any information at the present time as to the type of amosite used at Conwed? A. Type? Q. Type. Where it came from? A. I am aware amosite only comes from one place. Q. That is South Africa? A. From the Northeastern Transvaal in South Africa Amosite stands for Asbestos Mines of South Africa . It is an acronym. Q. So your understanding is amosite would have c ome from South Africa? A. Yes . Q. Do you know what grade it was? A. No. Q. And do you know, do you have any information at the present time as to the time period that this amosite was purchased by Conwed for its use out there and the amount? A. No. Q. You mentioned a minute ago, in response to a question by Mr. Will, about these DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011808 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 3 04 environmental exposures to asbestos down in South Af rica. Have you ever seen any published studies in this country about environmental exposures in the U.S. to spouses of workers in asbestos plants, manufacturing plants? A. Yes. Q. One of those Tunarco plants in Patterson, New Jersey? A. That wasn't one that I have seen. Q. Which ones can you recall? A. I can recall a publication I was involved in, in Raybestos, Manhattan. Q. And in that particular study, was there any disease at all shown among the spouses of the workers in the Raybestos Manhattan plant related to asbestos? A. We thought that we had, my co-worker and I thought that we found some cases of relatives who had lived with a worker who had worked in that Raybestos plant. He developed asbestos - related health factors. Q. Which particular Raybestos plant was DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011809 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lewinsohn 305 this? A. Stratford, Connecticut. Q. And this is published? This is work you did at the time you were working for Raybestos Manhattan Company? A. Correct. Q. Are you aware that the Minnesota Department of Health screened the spouses of Conwed workers at Cloquet, Minnesota to see if they had asbestos - related disease? A. No. I am not. Q. Are you aware of what the current OSHA standard is in the U.S. for exposure to chrysotile asbestos in workplaces? A. It has gone down to 0.1, I believe. Q. Are you aware that it has been reduced to .05 fibers per CC of air? A. Well, then it has just gone down. It has been reduced within the last month. Q. Are you aware of the new OSHA asbestos standards that came into effect in August 1994? A. August '94? Q. Right. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011810 1 Lewinsohn 3 06 2 A. That is what we are just referring 3 to. 4 Yes. I haven't read it. 5 Q. O.K. And are you aware that that 6 applies equally to chrysotile asbestos as to 7 amosite or crocidolite? 8 A. Yes. OSHA has never recognized the 9 dif ference, in spite of the rest of the world 10 having done so. 11 Q. You are aware that OSHA is the U.S. 12 Government agency that regulates hazards in the 13 workplace like factories? 14 A. Yes . 15 Q. And this particular OSHA standard 16 deals with exposure to asbestos in the workplace 17 such as factories that use asbestos in 18 manufacturing processes? 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. And I take it that you disagree with 21 OSHA's position as to how they regulate chrysotile 22 asbestos in relation to other fiber types in the 23 workplace? 24 MR. GERSON: Objection to form. 25 A. I didn't say that. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011811 1 Lewinsohn 307 2 MR. BROWNSON: That is all I have. 3 EXAMINATION BY 4 MR. WILL: 5 Q. Doctor, one follow-up. 6 To your knowledge, did Union Carbide 7 U.K. British subsidiary have any involvement with 8 asbestos? 9 A. My knowledge? 10 Q. To your knowledge. 11 A. At this moment in time, I really 12 don't know. 13 MR. WILL: O.K. That is all I have. 14 MR. BROWNSON: I will say, for the 15 record, as we have done in the past, I will 16 take charge of the original transcript and 17 file it with the court, and then I also 18 want a copy. 19 (Continued on next page.) 20 21 22 23 24 25 DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011812 1 Lewinsohn 3 08 2 17 MR. WILL: Dr. Lewinsohn will wane 3 to read it and sign the deposition, as he 4 did with his first one. 5 (Time noted: 11:40 a.m.) 6 7 Subscribed and sworn to before me 8 this________day of, 1994. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DOYLE REPORTING, INC. <212)867-8220 UCAREF00011813 1 309 2 CEaXiFiCATE 3 STATE OF NEW YORK ) 4 ) SS . : COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) 5 I, PAUL KIRSCHEN, a Certified 6 Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public 7 within and for the State of New York, do 8 hereby certify that I reported the 9 proceedings in the within-entitied matter, 10 and that the within transcript is a true 11 record of such proceedings. 12 I further certify that I am not 13 related, by blood or marriage, to any of 14 the parties in this matter and that I am 15 in no way interested in the outcome of 16 this matter. 17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UCAREF00011814 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 November 18, 1994 INDEX WITNESS Hilton C. Lewinsohn (Resumed) EXHIBIT 8 EXH.Xai.T5. Disclosure by counsel to Union Carbide DOCUMENT REQUEST Page 253 Line 3 * ** 3 10 PAGE 238 FOR IDENT. 244 DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00011815 I bSA CONWED v UNION H. Lewinsohn - 10/18/94 Page 235 (1) (2) I" r* UNITES STATES DISTRICT COURI T0> THE EASTERR RESTRICT OF RCMISYLVAAIA IR REi ASBESTOS RROOUCTS LIABILITY r*) LITIGATION (NO. VI) Civil Wl 875 (S) Thu Oocmrnt delete* to. IRUTED STATES 0! STRICT COUtl (6) flFTH Division DISTRICT Of HlmESOlA CSWEQ COflPOttTlQR, ( PUintiff, (9) -peiltSt(10) UIIOR CAR8I0E CHEMICALS AW rustics cawun, tut., (ea/. (III tftiion Corbide Corporation), 021 Defendant, 5-92-86 03) UNttt CMBtOe CNEWCALS AND (j4| plastics ommr, inc. {mu Unton Cortid* Corporation), OS) 01) OWCNS-CORNINC flKKLAS CBWOMTIOII, 00 at 4l.t HAUSR JAWS WANT, A.W. nCTTCL I SONS* IK.. AM. INC.. 00) and MacASTNUR COWARY, 09) Thtrd-fart/ Defeftdwits. () October 18, 1994 HILTON c. LEVtNSOW (Cont-d) (71) <fau)} (24) <) (J) (?) (3) 0) fS) (> to w m 00) 0)) 0?) 03] <!) ns) OS) (I?) 01) {!) (20) 031 (a) <) (?) () Page 237 Appaaroncar KELLY, Ct A WARREN, SQS. Attorney* far Unton Corbide 101 Park Avenue lev York, New Tork BY: ALAN J. GER50N, C$q., roar I LAAONEB, ESQS. VI E. Hisconst 1* Avenue Milwaukee, Wisconsin $320? BY; TREVOR J WILL, ESQ., of Counsel STICK, ANGEll, KREIDLER I NUTN, P.A. Attorneys tor Co*d Corp. 250 End Avenue Sooth Niimaopo)is, HinnesoU S5401 IT: RCEfT 0. BROWNSON. ESQ.. *ndftUMIOf 4 WOLFE, ESQS. 203 ft. USolla CM rape, II)tnois 60601 BTt MICHAEL A. GOUMUt, ESQ., of Ceunsal of Counsal XMAX( l) Page 236 October 18, 1994 9:30 .. Continued deposition of HILTON C. lEVIRSOW, taken by Plaintiff, porsoent to odjoentnt. at the offices of Kelley. Orye I Worran, Esqj. 101 Perk Avenue, Nee York, New York, before Peel Kirschan, e Certified Shorthand Reporter end Notary Public within end for the State of Nev fork. n Of) on 0m4) () 01) (a) <ai (2] fa) Page 238 O) (2) HILTON C. LEWINSOHN, 0) resumed, having been duly re-swom by (4)Paul Mrschen, Notary Public, was (!) examined and testified as follows: (6) MR. BROWNSON: This is a (7) continuation ofa prior deposition. (8) EXAMINATION (Continued) (?) BY MR BROWNSON: (10) Q. Good morning, Dr. Lewinsohn. We are (11) continuing the deposition that we left off some (12) time ago In this case of Conwed versus Union (13) Carbide. (M) 1 would like to try to get this (15) finished up this morning 1 think we can move (16) fairly rapidly here. We can finish this up. (17) First of all, you recall the case, (18) Conwed versus Union Carbide? Do you have that in (19) mind? (20) A. Could you just briefly restate ft? (21) Q. OX This is the case invoking the (22) Conwed celling tile plant in Minnesota at which (23) various workers have had various asbestos related (24) diseases which they allege were as a result of (25) their exposure in their plant Conwed is suing DOYLE REPORTING, INC. 212-867-8220 Page 235 to Page 238 UCAREF00011816 BSA CONWED v UNION - H. Lewiraohn - 10/18/94 Page 239 (1) (2) Union Carbide as a result of that exposure. 'Chat (3) is the case. (4) Does that bring it bade to mind? (5) A. Yes. (6) Q. Since the first session of your (7) deposition in this case, have you had a chance to (8) go hack and read your testimony or review it in (9) anyway? (10) A. Just briefly before this deposition. (it) Q. OX Before we started here today? (12) A. Right (13) Q. Yesterday or something? (14) A. This morning. (15) Q. O K And have you reviewed any other (16) materials in connection with the deposition here (17) today? (18) A. No. (19) Q. Since we broke from the first session (20) ofthis deposition until today, have you gone bade (21) to review any materials, that came up in the first (22) session of the deposition to refresh your (23) recollection or update yourself in any way? (24) MR WILL You mean go back and (25) reread the exhibits? Page 241 0) (2) was Mr. Connor. (3) I do not remember the second lawyer's (4) name. I think it was Mr. Leonard, but lam not (5) sure. (6) Q. And when did that deposition take (7) place? (8) A. Probably two or three months ago. (9) Q. And in connection with the (10) preparation for that deposition, did you go back (it) and review some materials concerning the workers (12) at the Turner & Newall plant at Rochdale, or what (13) were you looking at? (14) A. I was shown various documents from (15) Turner & Newall's files. (16) Q. Let me shift geats to Union Carbide. (17) Since the last session ofyour (18) deposition in this case, have you had occasion to (19) review any of the materials or arty materials which (20) would pertain to the issue of Union Carbide (2t) Calidria asbestos? (22) A. No, I haven't (23) Q. Have you had occasion, since the (24) first session ofyour deposition in this case, to (25) review any materials on the issue of chrysocile XMAX<2) Page 240 (1) (2) MR BROWNSON: Not necessarily (3) exhibits to the deposition, but any (4) materials. (5) A. Well, I have had another deposition (6) in another case since this. (7) I guess a lot of the similar material (8) to that which we discussed last time was referred (9) to. (IQ) Q. This other case, was this a case (11) involving asbestos related disease? (12) A. A case involving Turner & Newall, my (13) former employer. 04) Q. And was this a personal injury case' (15) A. No. This was a property damage (16) situation. (17) Chase Manhattan Bank (18) Q. OX And some lawyer for Chase 09) Manhattan Bank took your deposition? (20) A.Yes. (21) Q.Wasthat here in NewYork? (22) A. Yes. (23) Q. Do you remember who that lawyer was' (24) A. I remember the flist lawyer's name. (25) The deposition was in two phases. The first one Page 242 0) (2) asbestos, an asbestos related disease? (3) A. Well, once again, in the course of (4) preparation and being deposed in the other cases, (5) that issue has come up, yes. (6) Q. How would the issue of chrysotile (7) asbestos and disease come up with the issues in chat case. (9) Didn't that case involve Olympus? (io> A. Yes, but one discusses all forms of (11) asbestos, other phases. (12) Q. OX So in that deposition, did you (13) testify or discuss all forms of asbestos fiber and (14) beahh effects? (15) A. To the best ofmy recollection. (16) Without going back to look at the (17) deposition, I can't be any more specific (19 Q. Let me direct your attention to this (19) particular case, the case ofCottwed versus Union (20) Carbide. (21) It is my understanding that Union (22) Carbide intends to elicit from you some opinion (23) testimony in this case. (24) Can you tell us as you sit here today (25) what you understand the opinions are that you DOYLE REPORTING, INC. 212-867-8220 Page 239 to Page 242 UCAREF00011817 8SA CONWED v UNION - H. Lewinsohn - 10/18/94 XMAX(J) Page 213 Page 24 5 a) (2) would render in this particular case? (1) (2) read through it and I will ask you some questions (3) MR. GERSON-1 need to object to the (4) form of the question. (3) about it (4) A. All right (5) We have designated Dr. Lewinsohn as (6) a potential witness without committing (5) Q. First of all, have you had a chance (6) to review any materials relating to the Conwed (7) ourselves at this stage. We reserve the (7) plant at the present time? (8) right to elicit his testimony or not to. (8) A. No. (9) MR BROWNSON: OKI understand (10) that he may or may not be called. (11) What I am wondering is - let me (12) rephrase. (9) Q. Have you been advised that you will 00) be shown any materials with respect to the Conwed (U) plant (12) A. No. (13) MR WILL Without the preamble. (H) Q. O K What I am wondering. Dr. (13) Q. It also indicates in the disdosure, (14) you may review materials or review materials (15) Lewinsohn, is do you know as you sit here today (15) relating to Calidria asbestos. (16) what opinions you would have to offer in this (17) lawsuit? (18) A. I have no opinions specifically, (19) briefed or informed by Union Carbide as to how (20) they would use my testimony. (21) Q. O.K Have you had a chance to read (22) the disclosure that counsel for Union Carbide made (16) Can you describe for me what (17) materials you reviewed relating to Calidria (18) asbestos? (19) MR GERSON: During what time? (20) MR WILL Since he left Union (21) Carbide. (22) Q. Well, asking the question generally. (23) in this case about areas that you might testify (24) about? (25) A. No. (23) Let me break the question down. (24) Have you reviewed any mineralogical (25) reports, artides, literature, analyses of Page 244 (1) (2) Q. Let me just show it to you. I would (3) like to run through these things and ask you some (4) questions about them. (5) And what I am showing the witness, I (6) am not going to make this an exhibit because I P) just brought my copy. It's the experts' (8) disclosure of Union Carbide in this case, and (9) served on February 1994. (10) (Discussion offthe record) (U) MR BROWNSON: The copy. (12) (Discussion off the record) (13) MR BROWNSON: Let's nuke this page (14) Exhibit 8. Bade on the record. I will (15) make an exhibit ofthis page. We will mark (16) this Exhibit 8. Disclosure by counsel to (17) Union Carbide in this case. (18) (Disdosure by counsel to Union (19) Carbide marked as Exhibit 8 for (20) identification, as ofthis date.) (21) BYMR BROWNSON. (22) Q. Have you had a chance to read Exhibit (23) 8? (24) A. Very quickly, yes. (25) Q. Why don't you just take a moment to Page 246 CD (2) Calidria asbestos at any time? (3) A. Yes. (4) Q. And can you tell us what it is that (5) you reviewed? (6) A. Not specifically, but 1 have (?) reviewed, particularly while I was at Union (8) Carbide, various reports that came my way from (9) time to time on those particular subjects. (10) Q. And do you recall any ofthem being (11) from Dr. Mumpton, reports from Dr. Mumpton? (12) A. [ had seen a report from Dr. Mumpton. (13) 1 can't say 1 reviewed it I know of (14) its existence. 05) Q. As hr as any opinions you would be (16) prepared to offer, as you sit here today, (17) contreming Calidria asbestos, would tt be fair to 08) say then that those opinions would not be based (19) upon the writings of Dr. Mumpton, or would they (20) be? (21) A. Well, ifI was going to be questioned (22) as a witness about my opinions on Calidria (23) asbestos, 1 would prepare myself for that (24) And at this moment in time, 1 can't (25) tellyou what particular writing I would refer to DOYLE REPORTING, INC. 212-867-8220 Page 243 to Page 246 UCAREF00011818 CONWED v UNION - H- Lewinsohn - 10/18/94 Page 247 (1) (2) in order to do chat (3) If there were writings by Dr. Mumpton (4) that were relevant yes, I would look at them and (5) review them. (6) Q. Bet in order for you to render (7) opinions about Calidria asbestos, would it be fair (8) to say you would have to go back and review (9) writings by Dr. Mumpton7 (10) In other words, you don't have those (i l) in mind as you sit here today, do you? (12) A. I don't have any particular reference (13) in mind as I sit here today. (14) Q. Are you familiar with Robert Wooiery? (15) A. I don't know. (16) Q. Do you recall having ever reviewed a (17) paper authored by Dr. Wooiery called, "Asbestos in (18) the Paper Maldng Process'? (19) A. Not oflhand. (20) Q. Let's go back to the subject of (21) Calidria asbestos. (22) In your mind, is there any (23) distinction - strike that Let me bade up. (24) Are you familiar with the fact that (25) the Calidria brand asbestos sold by Union Carbide Page 249 (1) (2) that to be the same asbestos? (3) A. From my perspective and from my (4) knowledge, yes. (5) Q. Going back to the Calidria asbestos, (6) have you seen any medical record or medical data. (7) or medical information concerning miners at the (8) Calidria mine? (?) MR. WILL Are you talking about the (10) Union Carbide mine? (11) MR BROWNSON: Right (12) A. Well, I am not quite sure how best to (13) answer that question, because mining really (14) utilized very few people as I understand it (15) And in my review that 1 undertook at (16) one time, they, King City Mill, I don't know (17) whether, without looking to see what people's (18) occupations were, whether 1 also reviewed miners. (19) But there were very few miners, to my (20) understanding, because of the nature of the mining (21) process. (22) Q. O.K. And would it be fair to say (23) that, over the years, there has really only been a (24) relatively handful of people who actually worked (25) up ar the mine? XMAX(4> Page 248 m (2) comes from this deposit in New Idrb, California? (3) A. Yes. (4) Q. I-d-r+a? (5) A. Yes. (6) Q. Have you ever been there at the mine? (7) A. I have been to the King City mine. (8) Q. You have been to the mine in King (9) City or the mill? (10) A. The mill. (11) Q. Have you ever been up to the mine up (12) on the mountain? (13) A. No. (14) Q. Now are you familiar with the fact (15) that there is at least two other, or have been (16> historically at least two other operating mines in (17) that deposit, one by Arias Asbestos and one by (18) Johns-Manville? (19) A. I think I may have beard that there (20) were. (21) Q. And in your mind, do you know of any (22) distinction between the asbestos mined In those (23) three mines? (24) A. No. (25) Q. As far as you know, do you consider Page 250 0) (2) A. That is what 1 understood. Yes. (3) Q And when you have reviewed such (4) medical information as you have seen about Union (5) Carbide employees in King City, you didn't (6) specifically break out and review the miners as a (7) separate group, did you? (8) A. I don't believe I did. (9) Q. Now, let me broaden the question and (10) ask you, have you ever reviewed the medical (11) record, reports, or medical information concerning (12) employees at any ofthe King Cky facilities, the 03) mine, the mill, the truckers, any of the employees (14) associated with that asbestos production facility? (15) A. Shortly, I think 1 told you this last (16) time, shortly before (17) MR WILL Are you asking (18) differently than what you covered before? (19) Go ahead. (20) A. 1 think I told you this last time. (21) That is that shortly before the buyout by the (22) management of the King City Mine & Mill, I went to (23) King City and reviewed, I think, without seeing my (24) report, I don't know the exact numbers now, but 1 (25) think about 100 individuals' x-rays to determine DOYLE REPORTING, INC. 212-867-8220 Page 247 to Page 250 UCAREF00011819 BSA CONWED v UNION - H. Lewinsohn - 10/18/94 Page 251 0) (2) whether there were any obvious asbestos related 0) changes noticed in those films. (4) That was the only review I made. (5) Q. OR And just so I am dear on this, (6) what you reviewed then was the actual x-ray films? (7) A. I reviewed, I went down there, and 1 (8) went to the local hospital, where the x-rays had (9) been taken. And they made available to me from a (to) list that was provided by the mine, by the mill, (11) rather, the x-rays ofworkers (12) And I am not quite sure what the (13) relation was of the workers that 1 reviewed And (14) I looked, if I remember correctly, 1 looked at the (15) first available x-ray, I looked at the last and (16) most recent x-ray, and I probably looked routinely (17) at the one before that (18) And if1 had any suspicions, 1 would (19) look bade further. (20) Q. Ocher than looking at the x-ray (21) films, did you see any other medical record or (22) medical information concerning workers? (23) A. Not at this moment in time that I can (24) remember. (25) Q. Have you ever seen any medical Page 253 (1) (2) A. 1 do, but not with me. (3) Q. 1 would like to get a copy of the (4) report Dr. Lewinsohn's report of his x-ray (5) review. (6) MR WILL We will take it under (7) advisement. (8) Q. First of all, would the report tell (9) us, if wc looked at it, if it included all workers (10) who had worked at the mine and mill since (U) production began? (12) A. It should tell you which workers were (13) looked at (14) Q. Do you remember if(here was any (15) breakdown by occupation among those workers? (16) A. To the best of my recollection, there (17) was no breakdown by occupation. (18) Q. Was diis a reading which was a blind (19) type of reading (20) A. Yes. (21) Q. - where you just had a bunch of (22) films and you didn't know, before you read them, (23) where these people had worked in particular? (24) A. Correct (25) Q. Did you become aware of that VMAMSt Page 252 0) (2) record, medical reports, medical information, or (3) x-rays, concerning any workers at either the (4) Johns-Manville or the arias facilities at New (5) Idria, California? (6) A. No. (7) Q. Have you ever heard or been told what <8) the health experience of those workers has been? (9) A. No. I am not aware of the health (10) experience of those workers. (11) Q. Going back to your review ofthe (12) x-rays of the workers at the King City asbestos 03) facility, do you know whether these x-rays that (14) you reviewed included the x-rays of all workers (15) who worked at the mine and mill at King City since (16) the production started in 1963? (17) A. I honestly don't remember what the 08) selection criteria were. 09) I would have to look at my report, (20) which I assume, which 1 hope will be able to (21) enlighten me cm that (22) But at this moment In time, I just (23) don't remember the selection criteria. I am (24) sony. (25) Q. Do you have a copy of the report? (2) information after you read the films? (3) A. I don't believe so. (4) Q. Now I take it, you have toured the (5) mill at King City? (6) A. On that occasion, when I went down (7) there, yes. (8) Q. And when was that agiin? About '85? (9) A. Just before the buyout took place, 0Q> the divestiture. 01) Q- Do you recall, when you toured the (12) mill on dot occasion in about '84, '85, '86, in 03) that time period, were you shown the area where 04) the baggers worked in that mill? (15) A. 1 saw all the operations at that (16) mill. 07) Q. And do you know ifyour report of the 09 x-rays you reviewed of those workers would tell us 09) which of the workers worked in the bagging area? (20) A. I don't think so. (21) Q. Do you recall that information ever (22) coming to your attention? (23) Do you recall learning, in connection (24) with your review ofx-rays, which ofthose workers (25) had worked in the bagging area? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. 212-867-8220 Page 251 to Page 254 UCAREF00011820 BS* CONWED v UNION - H. Lewinsohn - 10/18/94 Page 255 Page 257 A. No. Q- So as far as you know, that is something that was never specifically looked at separately or broken out' A. 1 didn't do it I don't know whether anyone else did. Q. In addition to the x-rays that you looked at personally, did you review any cither data concerning the King City workers, that is, (11) reviewed by any other doctors, any other record (12) concerning the health of the King City workers? (13) A. I don't think so. (14) Q. Do you know whether any of the (15) workers at King City Hospital, x-rays you looked (16) at, had been exposed to levels ofasbestos in (17) their employment that exceeded the OSHA level, or (18) whether thqr were all below the OSHA level' (19) A. 1 can't answer because 1 don't think (20) that any correlation was done between dust levels (21) and occupation. (22) Q. In connection with your review of the (23) x-rays, did you see any dust level or exposure (24) data? (25) A. I don't believe. fi) (2) Q. I understand that 0) But in connection with your work at (4) Union Carbide, did you become familiar with that (5) program' (6) A. Not specifically, no. (7) Q. And do you recall ever reviewing data. (8) generated by that program, that is, dust counts (9) done at plants of customers using Calidria (to) asbestos? (U) A. No. 1 don't (12) Q. In connection with your work at any (13) time, whether at Union Carbide or since that time, (14) have you ever seen the medical records, medical (15) reports, x-rays, or medical information concerning (16) workers at customers plants who used Calidria (17) asbestos in manufacturing processes? (18) A. I really don't know. (19) From time to time, people like Alan (20) Gerson would contact me for my thoughts or my (21) opinions on a particular case (22) But that is as far as it went. (23) Q. Have you ever done a review of a (24) group ofworkers similar to what you did at the (25) King City x-rays from a customer plant where you Page 256 <i) (2) Q. Do you know ifyou have ever seen any (3) dust level data in the King City mine or mill? (4) A. At this moment in time, I don't (5) remember. (6) Q. Do you know ifyou have ever seen any (7) dust level or exposure data from either the Adas (8) one, or theJohns-Manville mines in that same (?) asbestos deposit' (10) A. I don't believe I would have had any (U) reason to. (12) Q. Have you seen any dust level or (13) exposure data from arty workers in plants similar (14) to the Corrwed plant, customer plants, where the (15) Calidria asbestos was used in manufacturing (16) processes? (17) A. A^in, 1 must answer, I don't (18) remember. (19) Q. Are you familiar with a program that (20) Union Carbide undertook, beginning in about 72, (21) 73. where they would send Industrial hygienists (22) out to Calidria customers' plants and take air (23) samples? (24) A. I didn't join Carbide until '82. So (25) I don't know about thar Page 258 (1) (2) looked at a large number ofx-rays? (3) A. No. (4) Q. So what you have done is done some (5) consulting-with Union Carbide lawyers on a (6) particular lawsuit involving a particular worker? (7) A. From time to time, yes. (8) Q. And did you do dot work while you (9) were at Union Carbide, or Is that the work you (10) have done since you left Union Carbide? (11) A. No. I have done that at Union (12) Carbide. (13) Q. And since you have left Union (14) Carbide, have you done any of that consulting in (15) connection with cases ofworkers who claim to have (16) been exposed to Calidria asbestos at some (17) customers' plants? (18) A. I don't know. (19) Q. In terms of the consulting or the (20 review that you have done in connection with (21) particular cases ofworkers here and there, do you (22) know ifany ofthose have involved a Conwed worker (23) from the Conwed plant in Cloquet, Minnesota? (24) A. That I don't remember. (25) Q- Would you happen to remember actual DOYLE REPORTING, INC. 212-867-8220 Page 255 to Page 258 UCAREF00011821 COtYWED v UNION H. Lewinsohn - 10/18/94 Page 259 (1) (2) names of any of those people? 0) A. No. (4) Q. If I threw a couple of names at you (5) of Conwed workers (6) A. You could try. (7) Q O.K I will give you the name of (8) James Manisco. (9) A. That doesn't ring a bell (10) Q. Is that a case you looked at in any (i i) way? d2) A. It doesn't ring a bell. (U) Q Have you ever seen any published (14) data, whether it was in your review of literature (15) or anywhere else, about any surveys or reviews or (16) studies of any group ofworkers in any plant (17) setting that used Calidria asbestos' (18) A. Not that I am aware of. (19) Q. Are you aware if any such published (20) data exists? (21) A. No. (22) Q. At the time you were at Union (25) Carbide, did you ever make any recommendations of (24) any type that any such survey be done of workers (25) In plants where Calidria asbestos was used? Page 261 (1) (2) a medical screening, with x-rays, and other (3) reviews, of workers at the Conwed plant who used (4) Calidria asbestos' (5) A. I don't know. (6) The reason 1 am hesitating is because (7) I can remember, some time back, seeing a brief (8) report in the Bureau of National Afiairs of the (9) Occupational Health Reporter, that publication. (10) which related to Conwed workers. But I don't (11) remember the context of it (12) Whether that referred to it or not, I 03) do not remember. (14) Q. Do you recall if that came to your 05) attention while you were working for Union (16) Carbide, or is that something you saw since that 07) time? 08) A. I don't know. (19) Q. At the time that report in the (20) Reporter came to your attention, did you know that (21) the Conwed workers had been exposed to the (22) Calidria asbestos? (23) A. I don't know when that report came to (24) my attention. (25) I can't answer that VMA\<7| Page 260 (1) (2) A. I, personally? No. (3) Q. Are you aware of anyone at Union (4) Carbide, at any time, I guess up to the present (5) time, as far as you know, suggesting or initiating (6) any review or survey ofworkers in customer plants (7) where Calidria asbestos was used? (8) A. No. (9) Q. Did it ever come to your attention 00) that anyone else outside ofUnion Carbide was (it) proposing or actually engaging in any such surveys (12) ofworkers in customer plants where Calidria (13) asbestos was used? (14) A. No. (15) Q. Are you Euniliar with the (16) International Paper Woricen Union? Have you ever (17) heard of them? (18) A. Not really, no. (19) Q. You have never done any work for them (20) in any connection, I take it? (21) A. No. (22) Q. Have you ever seen any of the (23) strike that (24) Have you ever heard that the (25) International Paper Workers Union did a screening, Page 262 0) (2) Q. As you sit and think about it now, do (3) you recall if the report said anything about the (4) type ofasbestos to which those workers were (5) exposed? (6) A. No. I am sorry I raised it It was (7) just from my memory. 1 remembered seeing it (8) Q. Do you recall ever seeing or (9) reviewing a report by the Minnesota Department of (10) Health concerning the Conwed workers at the (11) Cloquet, Minnesota plant' (12) A. No, I had not (13) Q. And while you were at Union Carbide, (14) do you know ifyou were ever contacted, or did you (15) ever discuss with any other researchers whether (16) from the Minnesota Department of Health or Paper (17) Workers Union or anywhere else, concerning any (18) surveys or reviews ofworkers at the Conwed plant' (19) A. No. (20) Q. Looking back now at Exhibit 8, the (21) disclosure. (22) First of all, have you ever seen this (23) particular disclosure before the deposition here (24) today? (25) A. No. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. 212-867-8220 Page 259 to Page 262 UCAREF00011822 8SA CONWED v UNION - H. Lewinsohn - 10/18/94 Page 263 (0 Q. Ifyou look in the first paragraph, it says, "Dr. Lewinsohn may be asked to give opinions about the ability of Calidria asbestos to (5) cause diseases in workers under the conditions," 1 (6) am sorry, "under the conditions during which it (7) was used at the Conwed plant." W Do you see that reference? (?) A. I do. (IQ) Q. And is that an opinion that you would (ID be prepared to give in this case, as far as you (12) know? (13) MR. GERSON: At this time? (14) MR- BROWNSON: Well, yes. (15) A. Not at this moment in time, no. (16) Q. In order for you to give that (17) opinion, what further information would you need (18) to review? (19) A. 1 would need to review all the (20) information pertaining to the use of Calidria (21) asbestos in the Conwed plant, the circumstances (22) under which it was used, any relevant industrial (23) hygiene surveys that were conducted, any health (24) record of employees that were available. And, in (25) general, review the literature available on Page 265 (1) (2) asbestos to cause disease among workers in (3) manufacturing plants? (4) A. Yes. In my opinion, Calidria (5) asbestos is unlikely to cause the asbestos-related (6) diseases which have been described in connection (7) with the use ofother asbestiform minerals. (8) Q. Are you saying - strike that. (?) Let's take the disease ofasbestosis. (10) 1 am talking now about clinical asbestosis which (11) would show up on an x-ray as interstitial (12) fibrosis. Okay? (13) A. Yes. (14) Q. Is it your opinion that Calidria (1$) asbestosis unlikely to cause that disease among (16) workers in a manufacturing plant? (17) A. In general, yes, that is my opinion. (18) Q. Now is your opinion is based, in (19) part, upon die dose of Calidria which would be (20) required to cause such a disease? (21) A. It's based in part on that, but it's (22) based largely, I think, on the fact that dlls (23) fiber is so different from the other fibers which (24) have been associated with the disease. (23) Q. Well, Jet me ask you seme questions CMAX<8) Page 264 Calidria asbestos. It would require preparation. (Telephone interruption) (Recess) BY MR BROWNSON: Q. Dr. Lewinsohn, you just told us, in order to render an opinion about the ability of Cabdria asbestos to cause disease in workers under the conditions used in die Conwed plant, you (11) would need to review a number of different things. (12) I understood you would not be able to (13) render an opinion without reviewing those (14) materials. Is that correct? 05) A. Not necessarily correct If I were (16) to render an opinion specifically related to those (17) circumstances involving that particular group of (18) employees, I would need a lot more information. a?) Q. OX Are you prepared to render any (20) opinions, in general, concerning Calidria asbestos (21) and its ability to cause disease in workers in (22) manufacturing plants? (23) A. I think so. Yes. (24) Q. Can you tell us what your opinions (25) are in that regard about the ability of Calidria Page 266 (1) (2) about that 0) First ofall, you are not saying, are (4) you, that Calidria is absolutely unable, under any (3) dreumstanoes, to cause asbestosis among workers? (6) A. No. I said unlikely. (7) I don't believe that 1 could make (8) that statement that, under any circumstances, (?) would not cause disease. (10) Q. OJC So as I understand your (it) opinion, what you are saying is Calidria is less (12) likely to cause the disease asbestosis than other (13) asbestos type fibers in the setting ofa (14) manufacturing plant where workers are using it? (13) A. Depending upon the working (16) conditions, and the exposure of those workers, (17) yes. (18) Q. And let me ask you this question. (19) All other things being equal, in (20) terms ofworking conditions and exposure, are you (21) saying that Calidria is less likely to cause (22) asbestosis than other types ofasbestos? (23) A. I think so, yes. (24) Q. And would you agree that the converse (23) of that also ts true, that ifCalidria is used DOYLE REPORTING, INC. 212-867-8220 Page 263 to Page 266 UCAREF00011823 HSA CONWED y UNION H. Lewinsohn - 10/18/94 XMA.M9) Page 267 Page 269 0) (2) where there arc higher levels of exposure and more CJ) dusty working conditions that it could be more (4) likely to cause diseases than some other types of 0) (2) cleared out of the lungs'1 (3) A. I think so. Yes. (4) Q- And would you agree that if, in a (?) asbestos at lower exposure? (6) A. 1 don't follow that argument (7) Q Well, let me ask you this question (5) given case, they were not cleared out of the (6) lungs, and they remained in the lungs in (7) sufficient quantities, then they could cause (8) Would you agree with me that if (8) disease? (9) people using Calidria asbestos were exposed to (9) A. For long enough? (10) enough of it for long enough in a manufacturing (11) plant, they could get asbestosis' (12) A. I would say that ifthe exposure were (13) overwhelming, and were of such magnitude as to 00) Q- Right. (11) A. That is your guess is as good as mine (12) under those circuinstances. 03) Q. Well - (M) overwhelm the primary defense mechanism that the (15) human body has to prevent that type of fiber from (14) A. I can't give you a definitive answer (15) Q. Have you ever seen lung tissue fiber (i6> causing health effects, then under such 06) burdened studies or analyses of workers exposed to (17) circumstances, it would be possible to develop (18) pulmonary fibrosis. (19) Q. In laymen's terms, asbestosis' (20) A. Asbestosis (21) Q Now, as I understand your opinion, (17) Calidria asbestos? (18) A. No. (19) Q. So as you sit here today, do you have (20) any actual data or information as to what the lung (21) tissue Calidria fiber burden is in workers exposed (22) what you are saying is that the Calidria asbestos (23) is different than other types of asbestos, which (22) in manufacturing plants? (23) A. No. I don't know that anybody has. (24) makes it less likely to cause asbestosis, is that (2?) correct? (24) Q. And you have anticipated my next (25) question. Page 268 a> (2) A. I think so. (3) Q. Now what are the specific differences (4) which, in your view, make it less likely to cause (5) asbestos-related disease? (6) A. It's basically the physical ptopeity, (7) you know, the fiber is a fibril. It is not a (8) bundle offibril. But fiber itself is fibril. (9) It's very short, by which 1 mean it's (10) usually around about 5 microns in length, and it's (U) of small diameter. (12) Such fibers, are readily engulfed by (13) the macrofices, which are the scavenger cells in (14) the lungs, and can be eliminated from the lungs, (15) either in sputum or through the lymphatic chain. (16) Or even if swallowed would be eliminated through (17) the gastroendosinal tract (18) So the possibility for these fibers 09) to dwell for long enough in the lungs to produce (20) their fibrocic effect, I think is vastly pi) diminished by the physical properties of the (22) fiber. (23) Q. So what you are saying is because of (24) the physical characteristics of these fibers being (25) short, small diameter, they are more easily Page 270 0) (2) Are you aware of any of any such (3) information in the possession ofanyone at Union (4) Carbide? (5) A. No. (6) Q. And are you aware ofany studies (7) Union Carbide or people on behalf of Union Carbide (8) have ever undertaken to try to find that out, do (9) lung tissue fiber burden studies of people exposed (10) to Calidria in manufacturing plants? (11) A. I am not aware ofthat. (12) Q. Have you seen any published data on (13) that point? (14) A. No. (15) Q. I am going bark through this (16) disclosure here ofyour opinions, Exhibit 8. (17) One of the things it says you will (18) make comment on is the scientific literature (19) regarding the ability of chrysodle and short (20) fibered duysotile to cause disease. (21) I take it, that Is generally what we (22) were just talking about? (23) A. Generally, yes. (24) Q. Are you aware ofany particular (25) scientific literature that discusses the ability DOYLE REPORTING, INC. 212-867-8220 Page 267 to Page 270 UCAREF00011824 ESA CONWED v UNION * H. Lcwinsohn - 10/18/94 XMAX(IO) Page 271 (1) (2) of Calidria. asbestos fiber to cause disease' (3) A No. At this moment in time, 1 am not (4) aware ofthat (5) Q, And are you aware of any literature (6) that discusses the ability of the New Idria (7) asbestos fiber in general, whether it came from <8) one of these other two mines ofAdas or (9) Johns-Manvilk, to cause disease? (id) A Again, I must say that as 1 sit here (U) now, 1 can't give you any specific instance. (12) Q. Now, it also says on this disclosure (13) statements, that you maybe asked about the <14) appropriateness of steps taken by Conwed d$) management, from an occupational health (16) standpoint, in light of the know!edge available to (17) them. (18) I take it, as you sit here today, you (19) have no specific information as to what knowledge (20) was available to Conwed and what steps they took? (21) A. No. I have had no preparation (22) whatever for my-by Union Carbide counsel for (23) any testimony I would offer. (24) Therefore, I haven't been provided (23) with all the facts in this case. Page 273 0) (2) it might be? (3) A I don't recollect seeing that (4) Q. Do you have any specific data in (5) terms of the dustiness of Calidria asbestos in an (6) experiment of that type, or where someone actually (7) tests to see what sort of dust it will product' (8) A 1 don't No. (9) Q. Have you seen any experiments showing (10) the relative dustiness of pelletized versus (it) non-peiletized Calidria asbestos? (12) A No. (13) Q. Would you agree with me that whatever (14) advantage there is to the pelletized form of the (13) Calidria asbestos in terms ofbeing less dusty, (16) that that advantage is lost once the pellets are (17) opened and fiberized? (18) A Once they are opened and fiberized, (19) could you tell me what you mean by that? (20) Q. Well, ifthe pellets are crushed and (21) broken apart so they ate no longer pellets, but <22) now they axe just loose fiber? (23) A Obviously, ifyou take pellets and (24) crush them and fiberize them, you are reducing (25) them back down to a state of being fibril, which Page 272 a) (2) Q. Let me back up a litde bit (3) When you told us earlier about your (4) general opinions that Union Carbide asbestos is (5) less dangerous than some other types, because you (6) gzve us a number of factors, you said the fact (7) that it's fibril, short, small diameter, in your (8) view does the pelletized form of the asbestos bear (9) any relationsh^ to its abilities to cause (10) disease? Oh A I would say it does, in that the (12) pelletized form of asbestosIs is Ukety to be far 03} less dust producing than loose fibers being 04) pelletized. (15) Q. Do you know Ifthat is why Union (16) Carbide pelletized the Calidria in die first 07) place, to make it less dusty? 08) AI don't know why they selected that 09) method ofproducing their final product, whether (20) it was health represented or whether that was the (21) most appropriate way in which to package ft (22) Q. Have you seen any experiments that (23) anyone at Union Carbide did where Calidria (24) asbestos was placed inside a dosed chamber to (25) create an aerosol or a dust to determine how dusty Page 274 0) (2) ifthey were allowed to escape into the air, would (3) be dustier than lying there compacted in pellets. (4) Q. O K. Do you recall ever seeing any (3)information or data about the shipping of Calidria (6) asbestos in terms of broken bags, ifwhether the (7) bags break, ifso, how many, that sort of thing' (8) A No. I have no information on that (?) Q. Do you recall ever seeing any (10) information of complaints by customers that when (it) they received Calidria asbestos, that bags were (12) broken and it was dusty, that sott ofthing? (13) A No. (14) Q. Looking at Exhfok 8, the disclosure (13) as to thirty? you might testify, it also says you (16) might be asked to give an opinion as to die extent (17) to which alleged health problems in former Conwed (18) workers are attributable to factors other than (19) asbestos. (20) Again, I take it, you have no (21) specific information in that regard at the present (22) time? (23) A That's correct (24) Q. And as far as you know, have you been (23) asked at this point to educate yourself on that? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. 212-867-8220 Page 271 to Page 274 UCAREF00011825 CONWED v UNION . H. Lewinsohn - 10/18/94 XMAX(J 1) Page 275 Page 277 (0 <2) A. I have not 0) Q. And ifyou were asked to educate (4) yourself on that point so that you could render an 0) (2) forms of chrysotile have. (3) But I have no infotmation, no (4) scientific information specifically on that fact (5) opinion in dils case, what Information would you (6) need to see? (5) relating to Calidria. (6) Q. And when you said that in order to (7) A. I would need to know all the (8> information about the use of the Calidria fiber by (9) Conwed in addition to what other fibrogenetic or (10> caranogenetic materials may have been present in (it) the workplace at the same time. (12) And whether any admixture ofthose (7) render an opinion as to whether health approximate (8) in former Conwed workers are attributable to (9) factors other than asbestos, you would want the (10) information about what other materials these (11) workers were exposed to. (12) Can you give me examples ofwhat sort 03) materials took place In the formulation which went (14) into die final product, which 1 would like to know (15) what the conditions were under which these other (13) of materials would concern you in that regard' (14) A. Well, yes. (15) Was Calidria the only asbestiform (16) materials were used and the industrial hygiene (16) material that was used in the manufacture of (17) data relating to them. (17) tiles? Were other forms ofasbestos used? Were (18) Q. At the present time, you don't have 09) any information in that regard? (20) A. 1 don't (18) other fibrogenetic dusts present? Silica (19) containing dust, for example. (20) Q. These other fibrogenetic - you have (21) Q. Do you know ifthere is any (22) synergistic effect ofany sort between CaMria (21) mentioned, first of all, ocher types ofasbestos (22) could be fibrogenetic' (23) asbestos and curette smoking? (24) A. Calidria asbestos has really not been (25) segregated epidemiologically to any extent that I (23) A. Yes. (24) Q. Silica diet could be fibrogenetic? (25) A. Yes. Page 27^ 0) (2) am aware. I have no knowledge that there is any (3) deleterious effect. (4) Q. So would that mean, in order to (5) render an opinion, like we are just talking about, (6) that you would not be interested in cigarette (7) smoking data among these workers, or would that be (8) something that would interest you? (9) A. It would interest me because (10) dgareae smoking per sc causes lung cancer. (11) Q. And would It also Interest you (12) because it could be possible that there is a (13) synergistic effect between Calidria asbestos and (14) cigarette smoking? (15) A. 1 would have to study that. (16) Q. You don't know one way or another? 07) A. I don't think anybody does. (18) Q. Would you agree that that is a (19) possibility, however, that I guess that would bear (20) study? (21) A-1 guess if Calidria asbestos possesss (22) the ability to damage the lungs, in the same way (23) as ether forms of chtysodlc asbestos have been (24) shown to do, then it would probably have the same (25) synergistic effect with tobacco smoke as other Page 278 0) ' (2) Q. I understand, as you sit here today, (3) you have no specific information about the other (4) types of asbestos used at Conwed? (5) A. That is not striedy true because in (6) conversation, I have gathered that amosite was (7) also used. (8) Q. So you are aware that some amosite (9) was used at Conwed? (10) A. I am aware that some was used. I am (11) not sure how or In what quantity. (12) Q. How about silica? Do you know ifany (13) silica was used at Conwed? (14) A. I don't know. (15) Q. Other than other types of asbestos (16) and silica, are there ocher types of fibrogenetic (17) types ofdust that you would look for that could (18) be a factor in spreading disease among these (19) workers? (20) A. There aren't too many other (21) significant fibrogenetic dusts besides those I (22) have mentioned. (23) Q. Those are really the only two, (24) asbestos and silica? (25) A. I guess so. Unless some ofthe DOYLE REPORTING, INC. 212-867-8220 Page 275 to Page 278 UCAREF00011826 BSA CONWED v UNION - H. Lewinsohn - 10/18/94 Page 279 Page 281 0) , P) employees happen to be coal miners or coal (3) workers. (4) Q. Coal is a fibrogenetic dust' (5) A. Yes. (6) Q. Black lung disease? (7) A. Right (8) Q. Are you familiar with the studies by (9) Dr. Demenc and others of textile workers in (10) Charleston, South Carolina? (U) A. Yes. (12) Q. Is it your view, do you have an (13) opinion as to whether the results of those studies (14) have any bearing on or illustrate anything about 05) disease that may occur among Conwed workers as a 06) result of exposure to Calidria asbestos? (17) A. The study in Charleston? 08) Q. Right 09) A. l don't see what bearing those (20) specifically have. (21) Q. Why do you think they would have no (22) bearing on the experience ofworkers at Conwed? (23) A. 1 didn't say they had no bearing (24) 1 just don't see what bearing they (25) would have, because the workers in Charleston were 0) (2) asbestos, which is mined under very different (3) circumstances and produced under very different (4) circumstances from Calidria asbestos. (5) The fiber itself in order to be a (6) spinning grade fiber, has to be long and flexible. (7) It has to be very similar to cotton in other (8) respects, so it can pass through the process, the (9) textile process, of opening, carting, spinning, (10) winding (11) We have gone through all the things (12) that were done with that fiber. Calidria can't do (13) that. Calidria is a little fiber, short thing (14) Q. Would you say then, ifwe could tty (15) to sum this up in laymen's terms as a general (16) proposition, the longer fibers are more dangerous (17) than the shorter fibers? 08) A. In very general terms, yes. (19) Q. And if we were to tty to summarize (20) the difference in general terms between the pi) chrysodle that caused disease in the Charleston, (22) S.C. textile plant, and the Calidria at Conwed, P3) it's your view the chtysodle In Charleston was (24) quite a bit longer and was a spinning grade? P5) MR. WELL I want to object to the XMAX(12J Page 280 0) (2) textile workers, using chrysodle fiber, which was (3) totally different from the Calidria fiber in the (4) physical properties. (5) Q Are you aware of Dr. Demcnc's study (6) of chrysodle? (7) A. I was the corporate medical director (8) for Raybestos Manhattan at the time those studies (9) took place that was at that plant, and provided 0Q) Dr. Demenc with the opportunity of going there. (11) Q You are familiar with the faa there (12) were elevated rates ofhing cancer found? 03) A. Certainly. Yes. 04) Q- And it's your view, however, as I 05) understand it, that that cannot be translated to OQ the experience ofthe Conwed snorters because this 07) is a different type of manufacturing process and a (18) different type of chtysodle? 09) A. That is my belief yes. (20) Q. What is it that is different about pi) the chrysodle in the textile plant In Charleston, (22) South Carolina from what was used at the plant at (23) Conwed? (24) A. The fiber in the textile plant at (25) Charleston is a spinning grade of chrysodle Page 282 0) P) question. (3) I don't think the doctor ever (4) concluded that the disease that was caused (5) in Charleston was, in fret, due to the (6) asbestos and not some other compounding (7) factor. (8) But In any event (9) MR BROWNSON: Okay (10) MR WILL-be indicated there was (11) an excess rate of lung cancer found in the (12) study in the plant that was using the long (13) chtysodle. (14) BY MR BROWNSON: 05) Q. I understood you concurred with the 06) conclusion, I guess, generally reached about those (17) workers, that that chtysodle had something to do 08) with the increased rate of lung cancer? 09) A. I think the way it is said, there was po) an excess incidence oflung cancer associated with pi) exposure to chrysodle asbestos In the textile (22) plant in Charleston, South Carolina. P3) Q. OJt p4) And what 1 am trying to do is fill P5) this out In general terms. Maybe It can't be DOYLE REPORTING, INC. 212-867-8220 Page 279 to Page 282 UCAREF00011827 USA CONWED v UNION - H. Lewinsohn - 10/18/94 XMAX(lj) Page 283 (!) (2) done. (3) But as I thought I understood it, it (4) is your view that the reason that chrysotile may (5) be associated with more disease than what you, Dr. (6) Lewinsohn, would expect to see with Calidria was (7) because, as a general proposition, of this longer (8) spinning grade of chrysotile, and Calidria is (9) short? (10) A. That is one ofthe reasons, yes. (U) Q. Is that the main reason? (12) A. It is a very significant reason. (13) Q Have you seen published fiber size (14) distribution data concerning the chrysotile (15) asbestos at Charleston, South Carolina? (16) A. 1 want to say probably, but I don't (17) recollect precisely. (18) Q Have you seen publicized distribution (19) data with respect to Calidria chrysotile? (20) A. Yes. (21) Q. Have you seen such data which has (22) been generated by transmission electromicroscopy? (23) A. I don't remember the details of the (24) fiber size distribution data that I've seen, but I (25) know I have seen it Page 285 (1) (2) Q. Would you agree with me that the (3) relationship between amosite asbestos and disease (4) is dose dependent'' (5) A. The relationship between amosite (6) asbestos, and the production ofasbestosis and <T> probably lung cancer, 1 would say is dose (8) dependent (9) I think that the relationship between (10) amosite and development of mesothelioma is also (11) dose dependent, but I think that dose is one which (12) has not yet been determined. 03) Q.Ifwc can put that opinion in (14) laymen's terms, the greater the dose of amosite 05) asbestos, the greater the relationship between (16) asbestos-related disease and, on the other hand, (17) the less the dose, the less the relationship. 08) Would that be fair to say? 09) A. Ifyou define dose as concentration (20) and time, because dose depends upon the (21) concentration and the time, the amount, that of (22) exposure, and the time frame over which that (23) exposure occurs. (24) Q. So again, to try to put this in (25) laymen's terms, the more amosite asbestos you are Page 284 (0 (2) Q. Going back to Exhibit 8, the final (3) area of opinions you might be asked that I would (4) like to ask you about, is what is described here (5) as the role ofamosite. (6) You see that about the middle ofthe (7) paragraph? It says,'The Role ofAmosite'? (8) A. Yes. (9) Q. Do you have any opinions as you sit (10) here today as to what role, if any, any amosite (11) asbestos played in the disease ofworkers at (12) Cloquet? (13) A. As I sit here today, I don't have any (14) specific opinion but other than to state that (15) amosite is known to resuk, following adequate (16) exposure. In the development ofasbestosb, lung (17) cancer and mesothelioma. (18) Again, without knowing the specific (19) circumstances surrounding its use at Conwed 1 (2p) can't venture any further opinion. (21) Q. Would it be fair to say that one of (22) the things you would need to know is the levels of (23) exposure to amosite dust? (24) A. Yes. I need to know the levels of (25) exposure to amosite dust Page 286 (1) (2) exposed to for a longer time, the more likelihood (3) there is of asbestos-related disease? (4) A. Well, 1 hate to be too pedantic. (5) MR GERSON: You are the expert Be (6) as pedantic as you want to be. (7) A. The concept is, exposure is the (8) concentration and time. So the dose might be a (9) lower concentration over a longer time, ora (10) higher concentration over a shorter time. (11) Q. OJC So die two things that are (12) important in determining the dose is the amount of (13) dust a worker is exposed to and how long? (M) A. And how long (15) Q. OJC (16) 4* And there is one other foctor, and (17) that is, that the development of the disease is (18) often delayed 09) And so, therefore, there Is a lapse (20) interval between the first exposure and the (21) recognition ofany health affects. (22) That is what is known as the latency? (23) A Yes. That is not synonymous with the (24) length ofexposure because exposure may have (25) ceased DOYLE REPORTING, INC. 212-867-8220 Page 283 to Page 286 UCAREF00011828 ESA_________________________________________________ CONWED v UNION - H Lewinsohn 10/18/94 XMAX(U) Page 287 Page 289 0) (2) Q. And do you have any opinion as to 0) whether the latency of exposure from amosite (4) asbestos is related to the dose? (i) ) that amosite may have played7 0) MR BROWNSON: I am going to object (4) to the form of the question. (5) In other words, ifyou get a higher (5) Go ahead. (6) does, is the latency in any way shortened? (7) A. I would like to chink that would be a (6) A. If there are no dust counts? (7) I think it might still be possible to (8) simple explanation for it, but 1 have no (8) render an opinion, providing there was comparative (9) scientific evidence or epidemiological evidence to (to) confirm that theory. (9) dan available in terms of ocher measurements that (10) might have been made or in terms of descriptive, (it) Q. The final disease you mentioned of pi) descriptions of the dustiness of the operation. 02) mesothelioma, it's your opinion that mesothelioma (12) Q. Would it be helpful to know how much (13) is also related to the dose of amosite asbestos, (13) amosite had been used in a plant, kind of (M) but you don't have information exactly what die (15) dose is that causes mesothelioma? 04) consumption? (15) A. It would be helpful to know, if one (16) A. 1 think the mesothelioma, the jury is (16) also knew how much amosite went into the process. (17) still out as to what the level of exposure is (17) Q. last time, last time being February, (18) required with any of the forms ofasbestos to 08) 1994, you were questioned by Mr. Brownson about - (19) produce that particular form of malignancy. 09) 1 want to make sure 1 characterize this accurately (20) Q. Is that also true of Calldria (21) asbestos, the jury is still out in your view as to (20) so 1 don't get an objection. (21) In the February session of your (22) what dose would be necessary to cause (22) deposition, you were asked a question by Mr. (23) mesothelioma? (23) Brownson, the gist ofwhich was that, will people (24) A. I think jury is still out with (24) be at risk from getting an asbestos-related (25) Calidria asbestos as to whether it can cause any (25) disease, even if they were are not working Page 288 (1) (2) form ofasbestos-related diseases. 0) Q. In your view? (4) A. In my view. (5) Q. And again, from the time you began at (6) Union Carbide to the present time, dkl you ever <7) initiate any research or studies to try to answer B> that question? (9) A. No. (10) (Recess) 01) MR. BROWNSON: We have no other (12) questions. (13) MR. WILL I have a couple of (14) questions I want to ask. (15) EXAMINATION BY (16) MR. WILL 07) Q. Mr. Brownson asked you ifyou were to 08) give an opinion about amosite, the role ofamosite 09) in causing a disease in workers, what you would (20) want to know. (21) And you said, one ofthe things you (22) would want to know was the level of exposure. (23) If there are no dust counts done in (24) the plant when the amosite was in use, would that (25) prevent you from giving opinions about any role Page 290 0) (2) directly with the asbestos in any product? 0) Do you recall that generally? (4) A. Give it to me again. (5) Q. Well the question, I will refer to it (6) specifically, referring to page 171, and 172 of (7) the deposition, and your answer to the question, <8) which had to do with Dr. Selicoffs statement that (9) asbestos fibers didn't respect job (10) Hassiflcadons, Mr. Brownson said: (11) "In other words, they could float (12) adrift around in the work area?" 03) And in responding to that, you 04) referenced the work of Dr. Wagner, the work of 05) Molly Newhouse, and a paper by McCaughey, Wade & 06) Elms, and you talked about something that you 07) said, there had been instances of asbestos disease 08) occurring in people that hod pure environmental 09) exposure. (20) And my question was, what did you (21) mean when you referred to asbestos-related disease (22) occurring in people with pure environmental (23) exposure? To what were you referring7 (24) MR BROWNSON: I will object to the (25) form. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. 212-867-8220 Page 287 to Page 290 UCAREF00011829 CONWEP V UNION - H. Lewinsohn 10/18/94 Page 291 (1) (2) Go ahead and answer. <3) A. Yes. There was an awareness that (4) developed that people who had been exposed, living (5) in the vidnity ofan asbestos manufacturing (6) facility, or a mine, could also develop the (7) asbestos-related diseases. (8) And the instances that, the two (9) instances that are best known are the domestic (10) exposure that Molly Newhouse described, and then (11) what I would call the environmental exposures that (12) Dr. Wagner has described In the Northwest Province (13) in South Africa, in this little town of Kuruman, (14) and where the mine tailings were used for road (15) building. (16) People paved their driveways with it (17) School playgrounds were made from this material, (18) tennis courts. It was used for all sons of (19) purposes. (20) And mesothelioma developed in the (21) community In that little town, who had never ever (22) had any occupational exposure. (23) That is what I would call (2<) environmental exposure. (25) Q. What type of asbestos fiber was Page 293 (1) (2) there was some type of ownership relationship (3) between Bell Mines and Turner & Newall. (4) Do you know the specifics of that (5) relationship? (6) A. You mean the business relationship5 (7) No. 1 don't know the specifics. (8) Q. Or the particular legalities of the (9) way it was organized? (10) A. No. I wasn't particularly interested (11) in it. (12) Q. You mentioned something in the first (13) deposition, something called a scheduled area (14) under the asbestos regulations that applied in (15) England after 1931. (16) And briefly, what was the scheduled (17) area? (18) A. I am retying now on my memory of sort (19) ofa complex regulatory issues. (20) But as 1 remember it, the asbestos (21) industry regulations in the United Kingdom were (22) promulgated In 1931 and took effect in 1933. (23) Also, they did not stipulate any (24) exposure levels or regulate any particular (25) processes, as far as I can recollect. They also X>IAX(I5) Page 292 0) (2) involved in Kuruman? (3) A. Kuruman was aocidolite fiber. (4) Q. In your first deposition, Mr. (5) Brownson asked you about the first case of (6) mesothelioma that that you recall seeing. (7) You mentioned that was a person at (8) the Fenado plant? (9) A. Yes. (10 Q. Do you know the name of that (11) individual? (12) A. Yes. Archibald Vernon. (13) Q. And to what type of fibers had Mr. (14) Vernon been occupationally exposed? (15) A. Mr. Vernon worked at that plant, had (16) been exposed to chrysodJe fibers, but he was one (17) of a number of workers who had worked in one area (18) of the plant, where - and they ail worked in G9) dose proximity - where they had manufactured a (20) special, I think it was a railroad brake block, (21) which was for some mid-European country's (22) railroads, that was specifically made out of (23) crodddite asbestos. He was exposed to (24) aocidolite. (25) Q. You also made reference to the ux Page 294 w (2) didn't stipulate any medical surveillance that (3) should be conducted. (4) But at the same time those (5) regulations took effect, the silicosis and (6> asbestosis medical arrangement team of 1931 was (7) introduced. And the silicosis medical boards, (8) which subsequently became like pneumoconiosis, W like pneumonia, pneumoconiosis panel, had the (10) responsibilities for conducting medical (lb surveillance examinations on asbestos workers and (12) the way in which the asbestos workers were, who (13) they were to examine were categorized according to (14) the type ofwork they did and the areas in which (15) they waked. 00 And so those areas, which came under (17) the surveillance of the pneumoconiosis medical 08) pand were the scheduled areas. (19) Q. For example, in the Turner & Newall (20) Rochdale plant, was the entire plant where (21) asbestos was used considered a scheduled area? (22) MR. BROWNSON: I objea to the form (23) of the question. (24) A. No. (25) Q. And were all ofthe workers in the DOYLE REPORTING, INC. 212-867-8220 Page 291 to Page 294 UCAREF00011830 CONWED v UNION - H. Lewinsohn - 10/18/94 XMAXttb, Page 295 Page 297 0) <2) entire plant required co be monitored? (3) MR BROWNSON. 1 object to the form (4) A. Not by the pneumoconiosis medical (5) panel.no. 0) (2) Q. Do you know, in terms of the health (3) history, atJohns-Manviile and Adas, do you know (4) what process was used in the milling that was done (5) atJohns-Manviile or Arias? (6) Q For asbestos? (6) A. No (7) A. For asbestos. Right (7) Q. Did you understand that Union Carbide (8) Q. Finally, whose responsibility was it (9) to see that the regulations were followed in (8) used a wet mill process? (9) MR BROWNSON-1 object to the form (10) England in the Rochdale plant. (10) of the question. (U) A. Whose responsibility? (12) Q. Under the British regulations, what (11) MR WILL 1 will withdraw the G2) question. (13) entity had the responsibility for seeing that the (13) Q. Is it possible that the method of (14) asbestos regulations were complied with? (14) milling used at Adas orJohns-Manville would have (15) A. That was a factory inspection. (15) some impact on the health history of its (t6) Q. Was it the job of, I mean which 06) employees? (17) private entity was the company charged with that' (17) A. I would have to know what the method (18) MR BROWNSON: I will object to the (18) of milling was. (19) form. (19) I can't answer. (20) I think he has already answered. (20) Q. Let me ask the question a little (21) Q. Is the factory inspector an arm of (21) differently. (22) the government? (23) A. Yes. (22) Would the industrial hygiene (23) practices followed have some impact on the health (24) Q. They were in charge of enforcing the (24) history of the workers? (23) regulations? (25) A. (No verbal response). Page 296 a) (2> A. Correct. (3) Q. What private entity had (4) responsibility for complying with the regulations? (5) A. The employer. (6) MR WILL-Thank you. (7) MR GERSON: Walt a minute. (8) (Discussion off record) (9) BY MR WILLGO) Q. Mr. Brownson asked you questions (i about the fact that there were three mines in the (12) New Idria area, J-M, Adas and Union Carbide. G3) And you indicated that, as far as you (14) were concerned, there was no difference between (15) the mines, b that correct? (16) A. Yes. (17) Q. Now my question is, do you know, for U8) example, what processes were used at the other (19) mines? (20) A. No. (21) Q. Have you ever done any studies to see (22) whether there were any differences between the (23) fibers from the other mines and the Union Carbide (24) fiber? (25) A. No. Page 298 0) (2) Q. You don't know anything about it' 0) A. No. (4) Q. All right I will withdraw that (5) question. (6) To your knowledge, was any tremolite (7) ever found in Calidria asbestos? (8) A. Not to my knowledge. (9) Q. Would that have any impact on its (10) ability to cause disease vis-awb other types of Gi) chtysotile? (12) A. It is my understanding (hat the G3) recent medical literature repons have appeared 04) which indicate that asbestos which is contaminated 05) with tremolite is more likely to be the cause of (16) lung cancer and mesothelioma and possibly other 07) asbestos-related effects. 08) Q. Are you talking about chrysotile (19) asbestos? (20) MR BROWNSON: Objection to the form. (21) A. I am talking about chrysotile (22) asbestos which is not pure and which may have been (23) contaminated by tremolite. (24) MR WILL That is all. (25) BY MR BROWNSON: DOYLE REPORTING, INC. 212-867-8220 Page 295 to Page 298 UCAREF00011831 CONWED v UNION - H. Lewinsohn - 10/18/94 XMAX( 17) Page 299 Page 301 (?) Q. Dr. Lewinsohn, you said there have been recent repons in the medical literature saying asbestos contaminated with uemolite might (5) be more dangerous than asbestos without tremolite. (6) Are you aware of any reports which (7) have actually compared the two, asbestos with (8) tremolite, and asbestos without tremolite? (9) A. No. I think I misspoke. I shouldn't (10) have said it in that manner. 00 The reports indicate - let me just 02) think a moment 03) MR GERSON: Take your time. 04) A. What 1 am trying to say is that the 05) reports in the recent literature indicate that (16) chrysotile asbestos contaminated with tremolitB 07) has been found to be the most probable cause of 08) malignancies that have arisen in workeis exposed 09) to that type of fiber. (20) Q. And are you aware that reports have (20 also appeared in the medical literature that have (22) said chat tremolite is not a factor and that it's (23) the chrysotile itself that causes the disease? (24) MR GERSON: I object to form. (25) A. I haven't seen that. 0) (2) Q. You mentioned a minute ago about <3) these British asbestos regulations. (4) I believe you told us that these went (5) into effect in 1931? (6) A. They were promulgated in 1931. They (7) took effect in 33. (8) Q. And at (hat time, was the government (9) agency in England, called the factory inspector, (10) charged with going around the different factories (11) and enforcing the asbestos regulations in England? (12) A. Yes. (13) Q. And when you came to Union Carbide, 1 (14) chink in '82 (15) A. '82. (16) Q. - were you aware that Union Carbide (17) at that time had British subsidiaries? (18) A. At that time? No. (19) 1 probably learned about them (20) subsequently. (21) Q. Did you learn that Union Carbide had (22) had British subsidiaries going back historically (23) before that time? (24) A. I don't understand what you mean. (25) Q. Well, dkl it come to your attention Page 300 (1) (2) Q. Are you aware of a paper by Dr. (3) William J. Nicolson and Philip L Andrigan, of (4) Mount Sinai, which takes that position, published (5) in 1994? (6) A. I haven't seen that (7) Q. Let me just ask you a couple ofocher (8) things. OT You mentioned earlier, Mr. Will asked (10) you about the first worker you ever sawwhen you (11) were bock at England that had mesothelioma. (12) What was the name ofthat worker? (13) A. Mr. Archibald Vernon. (14) Q. Archibald Vernon? (15) A. V-e-r-n-o-n. (16) Q. And you said that Mr. Vernon was (17) exposed to croddoUtc asbestos during his work? (18) A. Yes. (19) Q. Is it also true he was exposed to (20) chrysotile asbestos? (21) A. Yes, I said that (22) Q. Do you know ifthe chrysotile (23) asbestos which Mr. Vernon was exposed to contained (24) tremolite or not? (25) A. No. 1 don't Page 302 (1) (2) that Union Carbide had a subsidiary called Union (3) Carbide UJC that it had owned for some years (4) before 1982? (5) A. I assumed that they had owned It for (6) sometime. (7) Q. Do you know bow long they had owned (8) it? (9) A. No. (ip) Q. Do you know that it was at least back (11) into the 1960's, ifnot before? (12) A. I don't know. (13) Q. Did you ever see, while you were at (14) Union Carbide, did you ever see any letters or (15) reports from the Union Carbide subsidiary in (16) England called Union Carbide UJC that came back (17) to the medical director's office at Union Carbide (18) in New York dry about asbestos and health? (19) A. I know I saw some. There was some (20) correspondence that took place when 1 was at Union (21) Carbide with that entity, but I don't remember (22) what it was in relationship to. (23) Q. Do you know if it had anything to do (24) with asbestos and health? (25) A. I don't remember. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. 212-867-8220 Page 299 to Page 302 UCAREF00011832 USA CONWED V UNION - H. Lewinsohn - 10/18/94 Page 303 (1) (2) Q. Do you have any information at the 6) present time as to the type of amositc used at (4) Conwed' (5) A. Type? fC) Q Type. Where it came from' ft) A. I am aware amositc only comes from (8) one place. W Q. That is South Africa' (10) A. From the Northeastern Transvaal in (it) South Africa 02) Amosite stands for Asbestos Mines of (13) South Africa It is an acronym. (14) Q. So your understanding is amosite (15) would have come from South Africa? (16) A. Yes. (17) Q. Do you know what grade it was? (18) A. No. (19) Q. And do you know, do you have any (20) information at the present time as to the time (2t) period that this amosite was purchased by Conwed (22) for its use out there and the amount' (23) A. No. (24) Q. You mentioned a minute ago, in (25) response to a question by Mr. Will, about these Page 305 (1) (2) this? (3) A. Stratford, Connecticut (4) Q. And this is published? This is work (5) you did at the time you were working for Raybcstos (6) Manhattan Company? (7) A. Correa (8) Q Are you aware that the Minnesota (?) Department of Health screened the spouses of (10) Conwed workers at Cloquet Minnesota to see if (11) they had asbestos-related disease? (12) A. No. 1 am not (13) Q Are you aware ofwhat the current (14) 05HA standard is in the U S. for exposure to (15) chrysotile asbestos in workplaces? (16) A. it has gone down to 0.1,1 believe. (17) Q. Are you aware that it has been (18) reduced to .05 fibers per CC ofair? (i?) A. Well, then it has just gone down. It (20) has been reduced within the last month. (21) Q. Are you aware of the new QSHA (22) asbestos standards that came into effect in August (23) 1994? (24) A. August '94' (25) Q. Right. Page 304 (1) (2) environmental exposures to asbestos down in South (3) Africa. (4) Have you ever seen any published (5) studies in this country about environmental (6) exposures in the U.S. to spouses ofworkers in <7) asbestos plants, manufiuturing plants? (8) A. Yes. (?) Q. One of those Tunarco plants in (10) Patterson, NewJersey? (11) A. That wasn't one that I have seen. (12) Q. Which ones can you recall? 03) A. I can recall a publication I was (14) involved in, in Raybcstos, Manhattan. (15) Q. And in that particular study, was (16) there any disease at all shown among the spouses (17) of the workers in the Raybcstos Manhattan plant (18) related to asbestos? (W) A. We thought that we had, my co-worker (20) and I thought that we found some cases of (21) relatives who had lived with a worker who had (22) worked in that Raybcstos plant (23) He developed asbestos-related health (24) factors. (25) Q. Which particular Raybcstos plant was Page 306 (i) (?) A. That is what we are just referring (3) to. (4) Yes. I haven't read It (5) Q. O ft And are you aware that that (6) applies equally to chrysotile asbestos as to (7) amosite or croddolite' (8) A Yes. OSHA has never recognized the <9) difference, in spite of the rest of the world (10) having done so. Ob Q. You are aware that OSHA is the US. 02) Government agency that regulates hazards in the 03) workplace like factories? 00 A. Yes. 05) Q. And this particular OSHA standard 06) deals with exposure to asbestos in the workplace 07) such as factories that use asbestos in (18) manufiuturing processes? (19) A. Correct. (20) Q. And I take it that you disagree with (21) OSHA's position as to how they regulate chrysotile (22) asbestos in relation to other fiber types in the (23) workplace? (24) MR. GERSON: Objection to form. (25) A. 1 didn't say that DOYLE REPORTING, INC. I 212-867-8220 Page 303 to Page 306 UCAREF00011833 307 Lewinsohn MR. BROUNSON: That is all 1 have. EXAMINATION BY MR. WILL: Q. Ooctor, one follow-:?. To your knowledge, did Union Carbide U.K. British subsidiary have any involvement with asbestos? A. My knowledge? 0. To your knowledge. A. At this moment in time, I really don't know. MR. WILL: O.K. That is all I have. MR. BROUNSON: I will say, for the record, as we have done in the past, I will take charge of the original transcript and file it with the court, and then I also want a copy. (Continued an next page.) DOYLE REPORTING, INC. - 212-867-8220 308 1 Lewinsohn 2 MR. WILL: Dr. Lewinsohn will want 3 to read it and sign the deposition, as he 4 did with his first one. 5 (Time noted: 11:40 a.m.) 6 7 Subscribed and sworn to before me a this day of, 1994. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DOYLE REPORTING, INC. - 212-867-8220 309 1 2 CERTIFI.CAII 3 STATE Of NEU YORK 4 COUNTY Of NEW YORK ) ) **" 5 I, PAUL KIRSCHEN, a Certified 6 Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public 7 within and for the State of New York, do 8 hereby certify that I reported the 9 proceedings in the within-entitled matter, 10 and that the within transcript is a true 11 record of such proceedings. 12 I further certify that I am not 13 related, by blood or marriage, to any of 14 the parties in this matter and that I am 15 in no way interested in the outcome of 16 this matter. 17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto 18 set ay hand this_____ day of, 19 1994. 20 21 ---------PAUL KIRSCHEN, LSK------------- 22 23 24 25 DOYLE REPORTING, INC. - 212-867-8220 1 j November 18, 1994 INDEX WITNESS Hilton C. Lewinsohn (Resuaed) 7 8 EXHIBIT 98 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 EXHIBITS Disclosure by,cornel to union Carbide DOCUMENT REQUEST & ys 310 PAGE 238 FOR IDENT. 244 DOYLE REPORTING, INC. - 212-867-8220 UCAREF00011834 Base Systems Applications Look-See Concordance Report UNIQUE WORDS'. 968 TOTAL OCCURRENCES: 3,387 NOISE WORDS: 385 TOTAL WORDS IN FILE: 11,014 SINGLE FILE CONCORDANCE CASE SENSITIVE PHRASE WORD LIST(S): PHRASE.PHS NOISE WORD UST(S): NOISE.NOI Cover pages = 3 includes only Text of: questions answers colloquy PARENTHETICALS EXHIBITS Dates off IGNORES PURE NUMBERS Possessive forms off ~ -1 - 11:40 [i] 3085 - A- am ji) 308.5 in 2729 ability p) 2624; 264:8, 21, 25; 270:19, 25; 271.6; 27222 29&10 able 12] 25260 264:12 absoluMy [i| 266:4 according [1] 294:13 accuaMy [1] 28219 acronym [i] 30213 actual (3) 251.6; 25325; 26920 addition [2] 255-8 2759 adequate (i) 28*75 admixture [i] 275:12 adrlt [i) 290:12 advantage [2] 27214, 16 advised (i] DOYLE REPORTING, INC. CONWED v UNION - H. Lewinsohn -10/1B/94 245.9 advisement [1] 253:7 aerosol [i] 27225 Afters |i] 261:6 affects |i| 28321 Africa [6] 291:13 3039, 11, 73 75; 304:3 agency p] 3016 30312 agree [6] 266:24; 267:8; 269:4; 27313 276:12 285:2 air |3] 25822 274-2; 305:18 Aian[i| 257:19 aBege(i] 23224 alleged m 274:17 slowed [1] 27412 Amoeba |2] 284:7; 30212 amosto f2SI 2722 22845,10, IS, 23, 25; 28&2 2 10, 14, 25; 287:2 12 28212 24; 2892, 12 12 3023 7, 14, 21; 3027 amount [3| 28221; 286:12; 303:22 analyses [2] 24222269:16 Andriganll] 300:3 answer [9] 24213 25219; 25217; 251125; 269:14; 2827; 290:7; 29112; 297:19 answered (i) 29520 anticipated (i) 26934 anybody p) 2692327217 areas [4] 243-23- 294:14, 78 18 aren't [1] 27820 argument [1] 2676 arisen [i] 299:16 arm [i] 29521 anangement |1| 294.5 articles [i] 24525 asbastifonu |2] 2657; 277:15 Asbestos [3] 247:17; 24217; 30312 asbestos [127] 23623 240:11; 241:21; 242.2, 7, 11, 13 24515, 132462, 17, 23 247:7. 21, 25; 24322; 2492, 5; 250.14; 2512; 252:12; 25513 2539, 15; 257:10, 17; 25313 239:17,25 260:7, 13 261:4, 22; 2634; 2634, 21; 264.2, a 20 2652, 5; 268-13 22; 2675, 9, 22,23 269:17; 271.2 7; 272:4, 3 24; 2735 11, 152746, 11, 19; 275:23 24; 276:13 21, 23 2773, 17, 21; 2734, 15 24; 279:15 2812 4; 2626, 21; 28315; 284:11; 285:3 3 15, 25; 287:4, 13 18, 21, 25 290:2 9. 17; 2916 25 292:23 29314, 20, 294:11, 12 21; 2956 7, 14; 2937,14, 19, 22 299:4, 5 7 8 13 30017. 20,23 301:3 77; 20218,24; 2042 7 13 30515 22 3066 16 17, 22 307:8 asbeetosHetated [11] 2655 2635 28515 2833 2832 28924; 29021; 291:7; 29317; 30423 306:11 Asbestosis [i] 26720 asbestosis |13) anywhana [2] 259:15; 262:17 apart |i] 27321 appeared [2] 29213 299:21 teiplied[ii 29274 apples [i] 3085 appropriate ti] 27221 appropriateness (i | 271:14 approximate (i] 277:7 Archtaid [3] 232:12; 300:13 74 area [10] 254:13 19, 25; 284:3 29012; 292:17; 293:13 17; 294:21; 296:12 2659, 16 152655 1222 267:11, 19,24; 27212 264:15 28532946 asking [2] 24522230.17 associated [4] 25014; 26524; 28220; 2835 assume [i] 25220 assunsd [i] 3025 Ate [7] 24317; 2557; 271:5 29312 297:3,5 14 ate[i] 2524 attention m 24215 234:22 2609; 261:15 26 24; 301.-25 attributable [2] 274:15 277:8 August p) Concordance by Look-See(2> 305:22 24 authored [i] 247:17 available [7] 2579, 15; 263:24, 25; 271:16, 20; 289:9 aware [26] 2529; 253-25; 259:78 79; 2603 270:2 6, 11, 24; 271:4, 5; 2752 2758 280:5; 2996 20 3002 301:16; 303:7; 305:8 73 17, 21; 306:5, 77 awareness [1] 291:3 -B- baggersp] 254:14 bagging [2] 254:79, 25 bags pj 2746 7, 11 Bank [2] 240:17, 19 based [4] 246:15 265:13 21,22 basically (1) 2685 bear [2] 2725 276:79 bearing [5] 279:14, 19, 22 23 24 behalf [i| 270:7 belief [1] 260:19 believe [7] 2505 254:3; 25525; 256:10; 266:7; 301:4; 305:16 Bali [1] 2933 bell [2] 259.-9, 72 besides [1] 27321 b* [2] 2722 281:24 Black [i] 279.5 bind [1] 25318 block [1] 29220 boards [1] 294:7 body [i] 267:15 brake [i] 29220 brand [i] 247:25 break [3] 24523 2906; 274:7 breakdown [2] 253-75, 17 brief [i| 261:7 briefed [1] 24319 bristly [3] 212-867-8220 From 11:40 to briefly UCAREF00011835 Bmc <CTfcarm__________________^ 23820: 239:10; 29316 British [5) 295:12 301:3, 17, 22 307:7 broaden [t] 250$ broke (t] 239:10 broken [4] 255$; 27321; 274$, 12 BROWNSON [23] 238-6; 9f 2402 243$; 244:11, 13 21; 249:11; 26314; 2646; 282$, 14; 28811; 2833 29024; 294:22 2983 18 297$, 29820, 28 3072 14 Brownson [6| 28817; 289:18 23 290:10; 2933 29810 building [1] 291:15 bunch (1) 25321 bundle [i| 2688 burden (2) 269:21:270$ burdened [i] 269:16 Bureau [i] 261:8 bushess(t) 2936 buyout [21 250:21; 254$ -c- Caiidria [67] 24121; 24815, 17; 2462, 17, 23 247:7, 21, 25; 249:5 8 256:15, 23 257$ 16; 25816 259:17, 28 2637, 13261:4, 23 X34, 20; 264.2, 8 20, 28 2684, 14, 1$ 266:4, 11, 21, 28 267$ 23 26817, 21; 27816 271327316 232738 11, 18 274:5 11; 275$ 22,24; 276.13 21; 277$ 15; 279:16 280$ 281:4, 13 13 23 2836 8 16 287.20. 28 2987 Cafitomia [2) 2483 2535 ca (21 291:11,23 cancer [8] 2781$ 28612 28311, 16 26, 284:17; 2887; 29816 Carbide [S3] 23813 182393241:16 26 24320, 23 24319,23 244$ 17, 1$ 24821; 246$ 24738 249:1$ 2568 25820, 24; 257:4, 132586 9, 10,1Z 14; 259:2$ 2664, 16,251:18 26313 2764, 7; 271:23 2734, 16 23288829813 23 297:7; 301:13 16 21; 3033 3 14, 16 16 17,21:3076 carchogenetic [1] 275:10 Carofina{4] DOYLE REPORTING, INC. CONWED v UNION - H. Lewtnsohn -10/18/94 ____________Canoottna Cy Locfc-S*B2) 279:10; 28623 28222; 283:15 carting [t| 281$ [28] 238:13 17, 21; 239:3, 7; 240$ 10, 12 14; 241:16 24; 2438 5 Cloquet [4] 25823 26311; 284 12; 305:10 closed [i] 27324 co-worker [i] 304:19 2686 Connor [i] 2413 consider |i] 24825 considered [i] 19,23:2433 23 244$ 17; 25721; 25610; 26311; 2665; 271:25; 275$ 2935 cases [4] Coal (1) 279:4 coal [2) 2793 29431 consulting [3| 2585 H 19 consumption (i) 2424; 258:15, 21; 304:20 comrig [ij 289:14 categorized [i] 294:13 caused [2] 28121; 2834 CC[1] 305:18 ceased [1] 286:25 ceilng [1] 254:22 comment [i] 270:18 commttng [i] 2426 comminty HI 29131 compacted |1) 2743 contact (i] 25730 contacted [1] 1 26214 contained (if 30033 contalnhg (i| 277:19 contenthated [4} 23822 Company [i] 29814, 23299:4, 16 cads [1] 268-13 chan [1] 26815 chanther [i] 27224 chance [4] 239:7; 24321; 244:23 2485 changes [i] 251:3 3086 company [1] 29817 comparative [i] 289:8 compared [i] 2967 complahts [1] 274:10 complex (ij context [1] 261:11 continuation [i] 2387 Conthued [2) 238$ 307:19 continuing [i| 23811 conversation [i] 2786 characteristics [i] 26824 29319 compled [i| convene [t] 26634 characterize |i] 295:14 Ponwod 1361 28619 complying [1] 23812 18 22,2824319; charge [21 29824; 307:16 charged [2) 29817; 301:10 Charleston [io| 279:10,17,28286.21,28 28121, 23 2836 23 28315 Chaae [2] 2964 compoundrig [ij 2826 concentration [5] 28619, 21; 2888 9. 10 concept [i| 3987 concern [1) 2486, 16, 25814; 25823 23 259$ 261:3 1ft 21; 26310, 16 2637, 21; 264:10; 271:14, 26 274:17; 2786 277$ 2784, 9, 13 27615 23 280:16 23; 28133 28416 3034, 21; 305:10 copy [S] 24617, 18 chryaotiie [31] 277:13 concerned [1] 244:7, 11; 25325:2533 307:18 24128 242$ 27619, 26 2782327732863 613 21, 28 28121, 23 28313 17, 21; 283:4,8 14, 19; 29316 29811,18 21; 299:16 23 30626 23 30818 306$ 21 doandi f41 27823276$ 16 14 cimmstances [9] 29814 concerning [13] 241:11; 24817; 2467; 25611; 251:23 2533 255:1ft 12 257:1826316 17; 26436 28814 concluded [1] 2834 conclusion [i] corporate [i] 280:7 correctly (i| 251:14 correlation [i] 25820 correspondence [t] 30320 cotton [i] 26321; 264:17; 266$ $ 267:17;26613281$4; 28316 conctrred [1) 281:7 rruntel (4) 284:19 Cly [16J 2487, 9; 24616 250$ 13 22 23 25312 18 254$ 255:1ft 12 16 2563 25736 30318 darn [i] 25815 28315 conditions [7] 2636 6 26*10; 25816 26 267:327815 conducted [2] 26323 294:3 conducting [i] 24323244:16, 1627132 cointry [2] 29321; 304.6 counts p] 257$ 28833 2866 **>* PJ 259:4,- 28813 300:7 dassMcations [i] 294:10 couas[i) 29610 confirm [i] 2433 dear(i] 287:10 court [i] 251.5 Connecticut [i] 307:17 cleared [2] j 305:3 courts [i] 269:2 5 cflnical [t] I connection (10) 23616 241$; 254:23; 256:23 291:18 covered |i] 26810 I 2573 13 25815 26 26030; 250:18 212-067-8220 From British to covered UCAREF00011836 9qbc Sywmj A&caam create (1) 27225 criteria [2] 25219,23 crockJoUte [5] 2923, 23, 24; 300:17; 306:7 crush [1] 273:24 crushed [1] 27320 ctrrerit (1) 305:13 customer [4] 256:14; 257.25; 260$, 12 customers |5] 256.22 257$, 16; 25217; 274:10 - D- damage (2) 240:15; 276.22 dangerous [3] 2725 281:16; 299:5 data |aa] 249:5, 255:10, 24; 2553 7, 15 257:7; 259:14, 20; 28920; 270:12; 273:4; 2745; 27517; 2757; 283:14, 19, 21, 24; 289.9 d^|i) 244:20 deals [i] 30516 defense [ij 267:14 define [i] 28519 definitive (1] 269:14 delayed [i] 28518 detotarious [1] 276.3 Damenc [3] _ 2799; 2855 10 Department [3] 2629, 153059 dependent (3] 2854, 8 11 Dependsig[i| 26515 depends (1) 28520 deposed [i] 2424 deposit [3] 2452 17; 2569 deposition [23] 2357, 11;239:7, 10, 15 20,22; 2409, 5 19, 25; 2419, 10, 18 24;242:12 17; 262-23; 28922; 290:7; 2924; 29313; 3083 descrt>e(i] 245:16 described [4] 2655 284:4; 291:10, 12 descriptions [i] 289:11 descriptive [1] 289:10 designated [1] DOYLE REPORTING, INC. CONWED v UNION - H. Lewinsohn - 10/18/94 2435 detais [1] 28323 cfetermre [2] 250:25; 27225 determined [1] 285:12 determining [1| 28512 develop [2] 267:17; 2916 developed [3] 291:4, 20; 30493 development PI 284:15 28513 286:17 diameter [3] 26511, 25 272:7 diterance [3] 28193 29514; 3059 dlfersneas [2] 265329522 differently [2] 250:18; 297.21 dsnteished [1] 26821 dhect [1] 24318 dkector [2) 2837:302:17 disagree [i| 30620 Djadosue fZj 244:15 18 disciose[8] 24322 244:5 24513 26221, 23 27315 271:12 274:14 discuss [2] 24213 26215 discussed [i] 240:8 discusses |3] 24210; 27095; 2716 Discussion [3] 244:13 122958 24311; 2422 7; 2649, 21; 2652 9 15 23 24:2669, 12 2655 2635 27020; 271:2 9 27210; 27515 2796,15 281.21; 2824; 2835; 284:11; 2853 152853 17; 287:11; 28519 28925 29317, 21; 29513 29923 304:16; 30511 dtosaess [q 23524; 2636; 2655 267:4; 2852291:7 distinction |2) 2872324522 distribution (3| 28314,15 24 dlveatitue [1] 254:10 Doctor [i] 3076 doctor [i] 2823 doctors (1] 25511 documents [i| 241:14 doesn't t3 259:9, 12 domestic [1] 2919 dose [15] 265:19; 285:4, 7, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20; 286:5 13 267:4, 13 15 22 Dr [23] 23510; 2435 14; 246:11, 12 19; 247:3 9, 17; 2534; 2633 264:7; 2799; 280:5, 10; 2835; 290:8 14; 291:12; 2993 3032 3052 driveways [i] 291:16 due [1] 2825 duly [ij 2353 dust [18] 25520 23' 256-3 7, 12 257:8 27313 25 2737; 277:19, 24; 27517; 2794; 284:23 25; 28513 28523 2896 dustier [1] 274:3 dustiness [3] 273-5 1328911 dusts (2) 277:18 27521 dusty [51 267:3 27317, 25; 27315; 274:12 dwell [1] 26519 -E- aasiy[il 26525 educate [2] 274:25 2753 effect (10] 26523 27523 2753 13 25; 29323 294:5; 301.5 7; 30522 effects (3] 24314:267:1529517 otoctremicroacopy [1] 28322 elevated [i| 28312 elicit [2] 242232438 aimhated [2] 26514, 16 Qns[i] 290-16 employees [7] 2505 1Z 13 26324; 264:13 2793297:16 employers 24313 2955 employment [i] 25517 enferctog PI 29524:301:11 engaghg [i] 26311 England [6] 29315 29510; 300:11; 3019, 11; 30316 engulfed [i] CcnccwJaxe Lcc*-SeeC3) 268:12 enlighten [1] 25221 ertety[4l 295.13 17; 296:3 302:21 envtonmental [6] 290:18 23 291:11, 24; 304:3 5 epidemiological [U 2879 epidemiotogicalty [i] 275-25 equal [1] 266:19 equally [ij 3056 escape [i] 2742 event [i] 2838 evidence [2] 2879 exact [i] 25024 exacBy(i] 287:14 BCAMINATON [3] 2358 28515 307:3 examinations [i] 294:11 camtoa(i| 294:13 examined [1] 2355 example [3] 277:19 294:19 296:18 examples [1] 277:12 exceeded [i] 25517 excess [2] 28311.20 Fxhtott 181 244:14, 18 19,2325320; 270:15 274:14; 284:2 eoMrit [2] 2446, 15 ExM>K8 [8] 244.14, 18 19,2326320; 27315 274:14; 284.2 exhbks [2] 239.25; 240:3 existence [i] 24514 existe(l] 259.20 expect [1] 2835 esqMrience [4] 2538 1327923 28316 experiment [1] 2736 experiments [2] 273232739 expect [i] 2855 experts [i] 244:7 explanation [i] 287:8 eoqiosed [19] 255-16; 25515 261:21; 2625; 212-867-8220 From create to exposed UCAREF00011837 8aac 9ygr Jpptatens 267:9; 269:16, 21; 2709; 277:11; 266:2, 13; 291:4; 292:14, 16, 23; 299:18; 300:17, 19,23 exposure [32] 238:25; 239:2; 255:23; 256:7, 13; 266:16, 20; 267:2 5, 12 279:16; 28221; 284:16, 23, 25; 28622 23; 296:7, 20,24; 287:3, 17; 288:22 290:19, 26 291:10, 22 24; 293:24; 305:14; 30616 exposures [3] 291:11; 304:2 6 extent (2) 274:16 27625 -F- factlrtiea [2] 250:122524 facility |3| 290:14; 252:13; 291:6 bet [9] 247-24; 248:14; 26622 2726 277:4; 280:11; 2825; 29225; 296:11 factor |4] 278:18; 2827; 28616; 299:22 factories [3] 301:10; 30612 17 factors (4) 2726 274:16 2779; 30424 factory [3] 295:75, 21; 3019 facts [11 271:25 fas [5] 246:17; 247:7; 249:22 28421; 28618 fairly [1] 23616 famllar [8] 247:14, 24; 24614; 25619; 257:4; 260:15; 279.6 280.11 February |3] 2449 289.17, 21 Fetrado [l| 292:0 ffoer [27] 24216 26526 267:15 2667, 6 22 26915 21; 2709; 271:2 7; 27322 2756 280:2, 5 24; 281.5 6 12 12 28615 24; 29125; 2965 29624; 299:19, 30622 ftMtad [1] 27020 fbertzs]i] 273.-24 ftoertzBd [2] 27617, 18 fibers (13) 26525 266:15 268:12, 15 24; 27615281:15 17; 2902; 29615 16; 29525 30518 ffcrfl [5] _ 265-7, 6 2767; 27625 fibrogenetic [6] 2759; 277:18 20, 22, 24; 27616 21; 279:4 CONWED v UNION - H. Lewinsohn 10/18/94 fibrosis [2] 257:8; 28622 265-16 267:18 fibrotic |i] 268:20 file Ml 307:17 GERSON [8] 243:3; 245:19; 263:16 286:5; 296:7; 299:13 24; 306:24 Gerson (i| 257:20 files Ml 241:15 gist [i] 289:23 fill Ml 28624 films (5] 251:5 6, 21; 25622; 254:2 trial [4] 272:19; 27514; 284:5 287:11 find |i] 270:8 finish Ml 23616 Give [1] 2904 give (91 2597;2633 77, 16; 269.14; 271:11; 274:16; 277:15 28618 given [i] 269-5 giving Ml 28625 Government [i] finished Ml 238:15 First [5] 23617: 245:5 253:5 26625 266:3 fast [16] 2396', 19, 21; 24024, 25; 30512 government [2] 29525 301:8 grade [5) 280:25; 281:6 24; 2866 30617 greater [2] 241:24; 251:15 2665 27615 277:21; 286:20; 2964, 5; 28514, IS group [4] 29615 30010; 3064 Itaodbte [1] 207.6 float Ml 290:7/ follow Ml 267.6 faBow-up [1] 307:5 toSowed |2| 295.9; 297:23 foOowiig [i] 284:15 follows [i| 238:5 farm (15] 2464;2756 1527614; 287:19, 2865 2894; 290.25 294:25 2953 79; 2979; 29620; 29924; 306:24 former [3] 240-/3; 274:17; 277:8 forms [6] 24510, 16 276:26 277:5 17; 287:18 formulation [i| 275-73 fouid [5] 280.15 28511; 2967; 29917; 30420 frame |i] 28522 -G- 2507; 257:24; 259:76; 264:17 guess (7] 2407; 260:4; 269:11; 276:19, 21; 275-25; 28516 -H- hand ft] 285:76 handful Ml 249:24 hate [1| 286:4 haven't [5] 24155 271.24; 299:25 3006; 306:4 hazards Ml 306-12 Health |4] 261:9;26510, 15 3059 health [17] 24514; 252-0 9; 25515 26626 267:16 277:70- 27520, 274:17; 277:7; 28521; 297:5 70 26 30516 24; 304:23 heard [4] 24619; 2557; 260:17, 24 hefrrful |2] 289:15 15 hesftating [i] 267.6 higher [3] 267:5 28510; 2875 historically [2] 245-76; 301:22 gastroendosinai [i| history (3] 26617 gathered ]i] 2756 297:3 15 24 honestly ]i] 25517 gave[i] 2726 hope Ml 25220 gears [1) 241:16 generated (2) Hospfral |i| 255:15 hospital [1] Ccrrcroan by Lx**-See4) 251:8 human [ij 267:15 hygiene [3] 263:23; 27516; 297:22 hygienists Ml 256:27 -I- I've Ml 58624 t-d-r-Fa [i] 245-4 identification Ml 244:20 kkfa[4| 2465 252-5; 277.6; 296:12 illustrate (ij 279:14 impact (3] 297:15 26 298:9 important (1) 20672 incidence [ij 28220 included [2] 25514; 2539 increased Ml 28518 indicate [3] 29674; 299:7 7, 15 indicated [2] 28510; 296:13 indicates [i] 245:13 individual [i] 29511 individuals [i] 25025 industrial (4] 256:21; 263:25 275:16; 297:22 industry [i] 293:27 information ]28) 249:7; 250:4, 11; 251:25 2555 254:2, 21; 257:15; 26617, 20; 264:16 269:20; 270:3; 271:19; 274:5 8, 10, 21; 275:5, 0 79; 277:3 4, 10; 278:3 287:14; 3062,20 informed [i] 24619 initiate [i] 2867 initiating [ij 260:5 injury Ml 240.14 hside [i] 27524 inspection ]i| 295:15 inspector [21 29521; 301:9 instance [i] 277:77 instances |3] 290.17; 291:8, 9 intends [1] 24522 DOYLE REPORTING, INC. 212-867-3220 From exposure to intends UCAREF00011838 Shk Systvre Af**c2crs interest p) 2766 9, ft interested [2] 276:6: 29610 International [2] 260:16,25 frXemption (i| 264.4 interstitial [i] 26811 htervalfi] 286:20 introduced fi| 294:7 involve (il 242-9 nvolved [3] 25822; 2320; 304:14 frwolvement [ij 307:7 nvoMng PI 23821;240:11. 12; 258.6; 264:17 issua Ml 24120, 25; 242:5 6 issues [2] 2427; 29319 - J- J-M til 296:12 James li] 259:8 Jereeym 304:10 jotopq 2902; 296:16 Jotns-Wanvile [7] 24318; 2524; 256:8; 271$ 237:3 5 14 joh|l] 25624 WP1 287:16, 21, 24 - K- Wng[i5] 248-7, 8 249:16; 2506,12 22 23:25212 15; 254:5; 256:10, 12 15; 2583 257:25 Kkigdom (i] 29321 Kkschan |1J 2364 knowfrig [1] 284:18 knowledge [9] 249:4; 271:16,12, 2782 2986, 8 3076,9 10 Kirunan [3] 231:132922 3 - L- lapss{i] 28819 [1] 2582 largely [i] 26822 DOYLE REPORTING, INC. CONWED v UNION - H. Lewinsohn -10/18/94 Last [1] 289:17 last [7] 240:8; 241:17; 250:75, 20; 251:13 289:17; 305:20 latency [3] 28522- 287:3 6 lawsuit (2) 243:17; 2586 lawyer {4] 240:13 23 24; 241:3 lawyers [1J 2585 laymen [4| 267:19, 281:19 285:14, 25 team |1| 301:21 loaned [i] 301:19 learning [i] 254:23 legalities (ij 293:8 length [2] 26818 286:24 Leonard [i] 247:4 letters (1) 302:14 level (8) 25817, 18 23 2583 7, 72 287:77; 28822 levels [6] 25818 28 267:8 28428 24; 23824 Lewitsohn [S] 23818 2436 15; 2534; 2633 264:7; 2838 299$ 3082 Bflhtll] 271:16 rsBuodll] 2862 Mil] 251:10 Utetalise(io] 24828 25914; 26328 270:78 28 271:8 29813 2993 15 21 Iwd (11 30421 Drtigli] 291:4 local |1] 251:8 loose p] 2781327322 27316 M|2] 2487; 264:18 lower [2] 267:5 286.9 lung 112] 289:15 28 2789 27818 2798 28818 28811,18 28 284:18 2857; 29816 lungs [7] 26814, 19,2698 827522 Vlng [1] 274:3 lymphatic [i] | 26675 ---------------- ---------------- M- macrofaces [1] 26813 magnitude [1] 267:13 main (i] 28811 malignancies (i] 29918 malignancy [1] 287:19 management [2] 25028 271:15 Manhattan [6| 240:17, 19 280:8 304:14, 17; 3056 Manfsco [i] 2598 manner (1) 29970 manufacture [i] 277:16 manufactured |i| 29219 manufacturtig {13] 256 75; 257:17; 264:28 2653 18 26814; 267:10; 26928 27810; 26817; 291:8 304:7; 30818 mark [i] 244:15 matted [ij 244:19 material [3] 2487; 277:16; 291:17 M8] 23918 21; 2484; 241:11, 19, 282458 18 H 17; 264:14; 27518 13 18 277:10, 13 McCaughey [i| 29815 mean 23924; 2689 273-19 2784; 29821; 2936; 29818 301:24 meaauements |i] 2899 mechanism [i] 267:14 medical [as] 2498 7; 2684, 18 11; 25121, 28282588257:14,15 261$ 2887; 294.8 8 7, 10, 17; 2984; 29813 299:3 21; 30817 memory [2] 2687;29318 mentioned [a] 27721; 27828 287:11; 2987; 29318 3089 301$ 30324 maaothefoma (it] 284:17; 28818 287:12 18 18 23 29128 2988 29818 30811 method [3] 27819 297:13 17 microns [i] 26810 mid-European [i] 212-867-8220 Concofdaxa by Los*-Se<25) 29821 middle [i] 2846 MO [2] 24918250:22 mil [12] 2489, 18, 250:13 251:10; 25818 25318 254:5 12 14, 16; 2583 297:8 miffing |3| 297:4, 14, 18 mind |6] 23818 2394; 247:11, 13 28 24821 M<ne(i| 25822 mine [15] 2488 7, 8 11; 249:8 f8 25; 250:13 251:18 25818 25310; 2583 26911; 2916, 14 mfried (2) 24828 281:2 mInaralogleal [i] 24524 mfrwrals[i] 2687 miners (5) - 2497, 13 182506:2792 Mines (2) 293330312 mines [8] 24818 23 256:8 271:8 29811, 18 19, 23 minfrig [2] 24913 20 Mfrsiaaota [7] 23822 25623; 2689, 11, 18 3088 10 minute [3] 2987; 301$ 30324 misspoke [i] 2999 Mofry [21 29818291:10 moment [9] 244.-25 246:24; 251:23 2532$ 2584; 26315; 271:3 299:18 307:11 monitored (i) 2982 month [i] 30820 months [i] 247:8 morning (3] 236-70, 15; 239:14 Mount [i] 3084 mocntafri [1] 24812 move [1] 23675 Mumpton [6] 24811, 18 19; 247:3 9 myself [1] 24623 -N- name [5] 24824; 241:4; 2597; 29810; From interest to name UCAREF00011839 Bac 3--t *a*cmn 300:12 names [2] 259:2, 4 National [i| 261:8 natue [i] 249:20 Newrail [5] 240:12; 241:12, IS; 233:3; 234:19 Newhouse(2] 290:1S;291:10 Nioobon (i| 300:3 norvpetatized |i) 273:11 Northeastern [ij 30370 nonnwesi pj 291:12 Notary |i| 238:4 noted [i| 308:5 noticed (i) 251:3 number Ml 2582; 264:11; 2726; 292:17 issnbera[i] 25024 - o- O.K. [19] 23821; 239:11, 15; 24018; 242:12; 2439, 14, 21; 24922; 251:5; 2SBc7; 264:19; 26010, 274:4:28223:286:11, 15; 306:5; 307:13 [9] 243:3; 28125; 289:3; 29024; 23422; 295:3, 18; 2979, 29924 Objection [2] 2982930624 objection [1] 28920 obvious [i] 2512 Obviously [i] . 27323 occasion |4] 241:18, 23; 2546, 12 occupation p] 253:15, 17;2SS21 OceuMdonal |i] 2619 occupational [2] 271:1529122 ocajwtionaiy [1] 292:14 oc4>ations [i] 249:18 occtrn] 27915 oectntig [2] 290:18 22 oceu(i] 28523 offer [3] 243:18 246:19 271:23 DOYLE REPORTING, INC. CONWED v UNION - H. Lewinsohn -10/18/94 offhand [i] 247:79 office [1] 302-77 Okay [2] 265:72 282:9 Olympus [i] 2429 onas[i] 304:12 opened [2] 273:17,18 opening [1] 281.9 operattigjij 248:16 operation [i] 28911 operations |1] 254:15 opinion [24] 24222; 263:10, 17; 264:8 13 182654 14, 17, 1826511; 26721; 274:18 2755 2785 277:7; 27813; 284:14,20, 285132879. 1228518 2898 opinions [is] 2429524315 1824815 13 22 247:7; 25721; 2634; 26820 24; 27018 272:4; 284:8 9; 28525 opportenity [i] 28010 aider [7] 2472,8 26318 264:8 276:4; 2776; 281:5 organized [i] 2939 ohgteai [1] 307:16 OSHA [8] 25517, 18 30514, 21; 3068 11, 1521 ouraeNes[i] 243:7 outside [1] 260.10 ovanehebn [1] 267174 ovsnNheknkig [1] 267:13 owned p] 3023,57 ovwwshy [i] 293.2 -P- package [i] 27227 244:13 15 2906; 307:79 panel p] 2949 182955 Paper [4] 247:18 26015 25 26916 **247:17; 290:15 3002 paragraph [2] 2622284:7 Part (2] 265:7ft 27 Ps [1] 281:8 Patterson [1] 304:10 Paul [1] 238.-4 paved [i] 291:16 pedantic [2] 2854, 6 penalized [6] 2798 72 14, 15 27310, 14 petals [5] 27318 20, 21,23 2743 People [1] 291:16 people [13] 24014, 17, 24; 25323 257:13 2592; 267.9; 270:7, 9; 289:23 290.18 29 291:4 period [2] 254:1330321 person [1] 2997 personal [i] 240.14 personal [2] 25532602 2433 Porta* [1] 241.20 PortaMng [i] 26320 Phases [2] 2402524911 PhUHi] 3003 physical [4] 2686,21, 24; 280.4 place [7] 247:71- 254,-ft: 27917; 27513 2803 30923 3038 placed [i] 27224 ptart[37] 23822 25 241:18 2457, 11; 25514; 257:25; 25823 2S315 261:3 26911,18 2637, 21; 264:18 26516; 26514; 267:11; 2809,21, 22 24; 28129 28918 28 28824; 28313 2924 7ft 18 29420; 2958 18 304:17, 22 25 plants [is] 25513 14,22 2571-ft 18 25817; 25325 2685 18 28428 2553 26928 27818 304:7, 9 ptayedp] 284:77; 2832 playgrounds [1] 291:17 pnaumoconiosis [4] 2941-4 ft 77; 295-4 pneumonia [1] 2949 point [3] 270:13 27425; 275:4 Concodaitc ty lo*-See<26} position [2] 300:4; 306:21 possession [i| 270:3 possesss (i| 276:27 possfeilty [2] 268.-74 27&79 potential [i] 2436 practices [1] 29723 preamble [i] 24313 precisely [i] 28317 preparation [4] 241:10; 2484; 264:3; 271:21 prepare [i] 24623 prepared [3] 246-18 26311; 264:19 present [9] 245 7; 2604; 274:21; 275:10, 18 277:18 2886; 3033 20 prevent [2| 267:15; 28825 primary (11 267:14 prior [1] 2387 private (21 29517; 296:3 probable [i] 29317 problems [i] 274:17 Process [1] 247:18 process [7] 24321; 28017; 281:8 3 28318297:4,8 processes [5] 25518 267:17; 29325 296:18 30518 produce [3] 2657ft 2737; 287:19 produced [i] 281:3 produc*g [2] 27913 79 product [3] 2727ft 27514; 290.2 production [4] 25014; 25918 25311; 2856 program [3] 2557ft 257-5 8 promUgatsd [2] 293293016 properties [21 26821:2804 property [2] 240:752686 proposing [i] 26011 propostion [2] 287:75 283:7 provided [3] 257:7ft 27124; 2809 provHkig [i] 2838 212-867-8220 From names to providing UCAREF00011840 8c Oygr* Apdcatora________________ Province [i] 291:12 proximity |i] 292:19 PubUc [1) 238:4 publcation p] 267.9: 304:13 publicized [i| 283:18 published [7] 259:13, 19; 27912 28513 3004; 304:4; 305:4 P^monayfi] 267:18 purchased [1] 30321 puCT 290:18, 2% 29822 purposes [I] 291:19 -Q- quantttfes [1] 269:7 quandty[i] 278:11 question [22] 2434; 24522,23; 249:13; 250$ 2851% 267:7; 289:25 2822; 2855 2854,22; 2905 7, 25 294:25 29517; 237:10, 12, 25, 298.5 30525 questioned [2] 24521:28518 questions [6] 244:4; 2452; 28525 28512, 14; 29510 quickly (i| 244:24 - R- 292.-20 raiboads [1] 29222 raised [i] 282.-6 rapidly [1] 23516 rate[2| 282:11, 18 rates [1] 28512 Raybastos [6) 285% 304:14, 17, 22, 25 3055 re-sworn [1] 2353 read [8] 2358 24521; 24432; 2452; 25522; 254:2; 3054; 3053 readly [i] 26512 readbig [2j 25518 19 reason [5] 25511; 261.-5 2854, 11, 12 reasons [i] 28510 recall [16] DOYLE REPORTING, INC. CONWED v UNION - H. Lewinsohn 10/18/94 238:17; 246:10; 247:15 254:11, 21, 25 257:7; 261:14; 2623 8 274:4, 9; 290:3 2926; 304:12 13 received [i| 274:11 recent [4] 251:16; 29513 299:3 15 Recess [2] 264:528510 recognition [1J 28621 recognized [i] 3058 recollect (3| 2753 28517; 29525 recollection [3] 23925 24218 25516 recommendations [i[ 25923 record [11) 244:10, 12 14; 2496; 250:11; 25121; 2522 255:11; 263:24; 296:8 307:15 records (1) 257:14 reduced [2] 30&1820 reducrig |i) 27324 refer [21 246:25 2906 reference [3] 247:12263829225 referenced [i| 290:14 referred [3] 2458 261:12 290:21 refanvig [3] 2906, 23 3052 refresh [1] 23922 regard [4] 26425f 27421; 27519, 277:13 reganttig |ij 27519 regulate [2] 29524; 30621 regutates(i) 30512 regulations [icq 29514,21; 2946; 295.9, 1% 14, 282354; 301:3 11 rotatory [ij 29519 iniiiferl [S] 23825 240:11; 2422; 251$ 261:19264:15287:4, 15 304:18 nUbg [5] 2458 18 17; 27817; 277.5 relation [2] 251:13 30522 relationship [io] 2729 2853 8 9,13 17; 29525830222 relative [1] 27510 reiativsly [ij 24924 relatives [i] 30421 relevant [2] 247:4; 26522 relying [i| 29518 remained [i] 2696 remember [19] 24523 24; 241:3; 251:14, 24; 25217, 23; 25314; 2555, 18 25524,25:261:7, 11, 18 28523 29520; 30221, 25 remembered (i| 2627 render [io] 2452 2476; 264:8 13 18 18 2754; 276:5; 277:7; 289:8 rephrase [1] 24512 report [13] 24512 25524; 25519, 25; 2554, 8 254:17; 261$ 19, 25 2623 9 Reporter [2] 261.9, 20 fannftl f131 24525; 2458 11; 255.11; 252$ 257:15; 29813 2993 8 11, 15 20; 30215 represented [i] 27220 requfre[i| 264:3 required [3] 26829 287:18 2952 reread [1] 239.25 resoarch [i] 2657 resaarchera [i] 26215 raierve [i| 2457 "*2481828312 2999 respects [1] 281:8 responding [i] 29913 response ]2] 29728 30325 respondblBes (i| 294:70 reaponaliWy [4] 295:3 11, 132954 rest[i] 306.9 restate (11 na-an reauftHI 23524; 2392 279:15 284:15 resutis]i] 279:13 resumed [i] 2353 review [26] 2398 21:241:11, 19,28 2488 74; 247:5 8 249:15; 2506; 251:4; 25211; 2558 25424; 255.9, 22 257:23; 25529 269:14; 2608 26518 Caxotarct oy Looh'SeeCT) 19,28 264.11 reviewed [17] 239:75 245:17, 24; 246:5 7, 13 247:16; 24918; 2593 10, 232518 7, 13 25214; 254:18 25811 reviewing [3] 257:7; 2623 254:13 reviews [3] 259:75 261:3; 26218 Right [7] 23912 249:11; 269:10; 279:7, 18 2987; 33825 right [3] 243.8 2484; 2954 ring PI 2599, 12 >fek|i] 28924 road [i] 291:14 Robert [i] 247:14 Rochdale [3) 241:12 294:29 29810 Role [1] 284:7 rob [4] 284:5 19 28518 25 routinely [i] 257:76 tun [11 2443 -S- S.C. [1] 267:22 sample* [i] 25523 saywig[7] 2688 2653 11, 21; 267:22 265232994 scavenger [i] 26513 scheduled [4] 293-73 15294:18 21 School [1] 291:17 scientific [4] 270:18 25; 277:4; 2873 screened [1] 3089 ecreenlnfl [2] 28928 2813 se(l] 27510 second [i] 247.-3 aagregrt8d[l] 27825 sofected [i] 27218 .refection [2] 25218 23 Sefcoff ]i) 2998 send [i] 25521 separate |i] 2597 212-867-8220 From Province to separate UCAREF00011841 Bnc QyiWT Accteacna separately (i] 2555 served [i| 2449 inninn 161 239.5, 7ft 22; 241:17,24; 28921 setting (2) 2S9:17;266:13 sh*(i| 241:16 shlpphgfi] 274,5 shortened [i] 2875 show [2] 2442; 265:11 showtog [2] 244.5; 2733 sign (1) 308:3 signBcant p] 27821; 283:12 SBcap] 2771ft 24 sOca (4) 278:12, 13, 1ft 24 sicosispl 294:5 7 sample (i] 287:8 Stoai [i] 300.4 sra 24224; 24315; 246:16; 247:11, 13 2622; 269:19; 271:10, 1ft 2782; 2843, 13 situation [1] 240:16 mb PI 28313 24 smoke [i] 27625 smoking (4) 27523 276:7, 1ft 14 sold [1] 24725 someone [i] 2735 sony p| 25224; 2625; 2636 sort [SI 2737;274:7, 1327522; 277:13 29318 sorts [i] 291:18 SoUh[lO| 27313 28023 28323 28315; 291:133033, 11, 13 1ft 304.2 specW(i) 29220 "aSVasftft27i.li, 7ft 2734; 27421; 2733 284:14, 78 spodlcsBy [iq 24313 2466; 250ft- 2S5:4' 257ft 264 7ft 277-4; 279:2ft 29Cft- 29222 specfles [2] 2934, 7 DOYLE REPORTING, INC. CONWED v UNION - H. Lawirisohn -10/18/94 spinning [5) 280:2ft- 287ft ft 24; 2838 spto[l] 306.-9 spouses pi 304ft 16; 3063 sprsadhig [1] 27318 sputun [i] 26315 stage |1] 243-7 standard pj 30314; 30315 standards [i] 30322 standpoint [i| 271:16 stands [i] 30312 started (2] 239.11; 252:16 statop] 27325; 284:74 stateaneid p] 266ft 277:7ft 299.8 steps [2] 277:74, 20 stipulate (2) 29323 294:2 Stratford [1] 305:3 strictly (i) 2735 strto [3] 2472ft- 260:2ft 265:8 studiss [10] 25913 26913 2706 ft 279:ft 7ft 2898 2837; 29321; 3045 study [6] 27ft 7ft 2ft 279.17; 2806 282:12 304:75 subjsct[ij 24720 sU>jscls(lJ 2469 subsequently [2] 294:ft 307.20 subsidiaries [2J 307:17.22 subsidiary pi 3022 1ft 307.7 sufficiant [1] 2897 suggested [i| 2605 a*BMI 23825 sun [11 287:75 sunmariz[i] 287:79 stanxnfing [t) 284:19 suvaasncep) 294ft 17, 77 strvey [2[ 25924:2605 SLiveys [4] 25&-7ft- 260:7 7; 2627ft 26ft23 suspicions [i| 257:78 swallowed [i[ 26a-76 synergistic [3] 275:22 27313 25 synonymous [i] 28323 -T- talings [1] 291:14 S[1J 3094 tatksd [i] 29916 talcing [6] 249.ft 265-70; 270:22 2735 29318 21 team [i| 294.5 Tslsphone [i| 264:4 tennis [I] 291:18 terms [15) 25319, 26320; 267:7ft 273:5, 15-274ft 287:75 7ft 20; 2822ft 285-74, 25; 2899, 19, 2972 testified [1] 2385 testify [3] 242:13; 243:23; 274:16 testimony [5] 2393 242.2ft 24ftft 2ft 277.23 tests [i] 2737 textile [7] 279,-ft 2802 27, 24; 287.9,2ft 282.27 Ihwtk [1) 2965 teory [i] 287:10 thoughts [i] 25720 three p] 241:3 24323 29311 threw [i] 2594 tile [i| 23322 B8[1J 277:77 tissue p] 269:75 27; 2709 tobacco [i] 27625 tetelyfij 2893 toured [2] 254:4 77 town [2] 297:7ft 27 tract [i] 26317 transact [i) 307:16 translated [i] 212-867-8220 Orcmm tif Lu*-Se*CS) 280:75 transmission [i] 28322 Transvaal [i) 303-70 tiemofito [io] 2986 7ft 2ft 299:4, ft ft 7ft 22;300:24 truckars [i] 25913 true [4] 26326 2735; 287:20; 309.19 Turarco(l] 3049 Tienar (5) 24912 241:12 15; 2983; 294:19 Typ|21 3035, 6 type [14} 25319 259:24; 2624; 26313: 267:13 2736; 280:17, 7ft 29725; 2927ft 293ft 294:14; 29919;303:3 typeapij 26322267:4,232725 27721; 2734, 7ft 7ft 17; 298:7ft 306:22 -u- U.K.P1 302ft 76; 307:7 UAP| 304.6 305:14; 30311 enable [i] 2634 understand not 2422ft- 2432 249.14; 257:2 26319, 26721; 2732 28915; 297:7; 30124 understandtog [4] 24221; 24920; 29312 30314 indetstood [4] 250,-ft 264:12 28215; 2833 undertaken [i] 2798 mdertook [2] 24915 25320 Union [55] 238.-72 7ft- 239ft; 247:7ft 2ft 242:7ft 27; 24ft7ft 2ft 244:8 17, 7ft 245.2ft 246:7; 247:25; 24913 2594; 25320; 257:4, 132586 2 10,11,13 25922 2693 10, 7ft 25; 261:15 26213 17; 2793 7; 277.2ft- 2724, 7ft 23 2836 29312 23 297:7; 301:13 7ft 21; 3022 14 7ft 76,77, 2ft 3076 United [1] 29327 unBcely p] 265.6 7ft- 2666 update [i] 23923 utifaed [i] 24914 - V- From separately to utilized UCAREF00011842 Sytn <COK3pr______________________ V-e-f-o-o-n [i] 300:15 vasay|i) 268:20 venture |i) 284:20 verbal (i] 29735 Vernon (7] 292:12, 14, 15; 300:13, 14,16 23 versus [4] 238:12, 18; 242:19; 273:10 vicMty (i| 291:5 view [9] 368:4; 2728; 279:12; 280:14; 28123; 283:4; 287.21; 288:3,4 VtM-VtS[1] 29810 - w- Wade [i] 290:15 Wagner {2] 290:14; 291:12 Wdt[1) 296:7 **[1) 297:8 Wiliam [i] 300:3 winding |i] 281:10 withdraw [2] 297:11; 2964 2436; 2445 24622 24311, 14 Wootory [2] 247:14, 17 words |3] 247:13 2875 290:11 work [11] 257.-3.12; 2566 3 26319; 290:12 14; 294:14; 300:17; 305:4 worked (12) 24924; 25215 25310, 23 254:14,19 25 29215 17.16 29415 30422 worker [6] 2588 23 28613 300:10, 12 30421 Workers [3] 260:162526217 workers |es] 23823 241:11; 251:11, 1322 2523 5 16 12 14; 2539 12 15254:16 19 24; 25516 12 15 25613 257:16 24; 25615 21; 2565 16 24; 2805 12 261:3 16 21:2624 16 16 2635 2849,21; 2652 16 2665 14, 1526616 21; 274:16 2767; 277:6 11; 276162793 9 1522 25 2803 1528217:284:11; 28616 29217; 294:11, 12 25 CONWED v UNION - H. Lewinsohn -10/18/94 297:24; 299:18; 304:6, 17; 305:10 wotksig (6] 261:15; 266:15, 20; 287:3; 289:25; 3055 workpiece [4) 275:11; 30613, 16,23 workplaces [1J 30515 world (1) 3069 writings [4] 24619, 25; 247:3, 9 -X- x-ray[6| 251.6, 15 15 20; 253:4; 265:11 x-rays [is] 25025-251:8 11; 252:3, 12 13 14; 254:16 24; 255:6 15 23 257:15 25 2582 2612 - Y- yeera[2] 249233023 Yesterday [i) 239:13 Yorttpl 24021; 30218 youraeff (3| 23923 27425 2754 Cuuioaq by lflok-S**GSj DOYLE REPORTING, INC. 212-867-8220 From V-e-r-n-o-n to yourself UCAREF00011843 CONWED v UNION - H. Lewinsohn 10/18/94 Page 235 to Page 310 DOYLE REPORTING, INC. 212-867-8220 CONDENSED TRANSCRIPT AND CONCORDANCE PREPARED BY: UCAREF00011844 1 Volume I Pages 1 to 139 Exhibits 1-13 N O *fsi <0 M * o C C/) e s. Os o IT) <n on t < ui/ii 3 CD Z U a: < o IinA < 2 Z 0 h" Lft on 0m --I K QJ Ui o Ui H Q -j Z < u. O IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION -........................................................................................................................-x BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF CHICAGO, : : Plaintiff, : . S / : vs. : : A, C, and S, INC., et al., : Defendants. : ...................................................................................................................................x EVANSTON COMMUNITY CONSOLIDATED : SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 65, et al., : Plaintiffs, : No. 9 2 L 9934 Judge Michael Gallagher vs NO. 92 L 9933 A, C, and S, INC., et al., Defendants. .................................................................................................BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 211, et Plaintiffs, - - -x : al., : : vs NO. 92 L 9932 ABITIBI et al . , < ASBESTOS MINING CO., Defendants. BOARD OF TOWNSHIP et al. , EDUCATION HIGH SCHOOLS Plaintiffs, x vs . No. 92 L 9927 A, C, and S, INC., et al., Defendants. x DORIS 0. WONG ASSOCIATES UCAREF00011845