Document NL1goQKqMbBQLv829oJRKo9y

T. Marmor 1 Page 109 1 Q. Is there a third category? 2 A. As above and beyond the question 3 of publicly available information and judgments 4 about who wouldhaveknownthat,those are the 5 two areas that I have-any Claim-to expertise as 6 opposed to some views about. 7 Q: ''You're not gdihg-to present your 8 views in this case; you'rexmly going to ' 9 present your expert opinions? 10 A. That's correct; 11 Q. Give me your expert machines. 12 please, sir. When 1 say expert opinions, let 13 me be real clear; please give me your expert 14 opinions in'a nutshell.'d'nd we'll flush them 15 out if we need to, regarding What was -publicly' 16 available regarding the dangets Of asbestos and 17 theh who knewWMat, when. Is-that fair? 18 A. I think it is'fair: I can look 19 at my counsel and see, but I think it is fair. 20 I am being asked my opinion, and I will tell it 21 to you. 22 Q. Please. Let me ask-you a 23 question. 24 Why db yon keep calling'h'er your 25 counsel; does she represent you here-today?' Page 111 1 industrial hygiene journals, it's a fair 2 judgment that most American physicians would 3 have some knowledge about this being a 4 pulmonary disease that is associated with 5 asbestos, but not necessarily great detail 6 knowledge. The great detail knowledge would 7 likely be in the specialist community. 8 Medical scientific understanding 9 is people knew a long time before that about 10 pulmonary disease, but thenaming of asbestosis 11 and the association that with asbestos was I 12 think publicly available in the 19 -- by the 13 end of 1920s. 14 That, of course; continues the 15 medical knowledge, but the new element ih the 16 1930s was that public health; and particularly' 17 Worker's Compensation; questions werC raising 18 the issue of asbestos in connection with harms ' 19 to workers, and as Worker's Compensation issues 20 came up it states Whether or not Worker's 21 Compensation would supplant, replace litigation 22 about negligence, asbestos lncreasingly became 23 identified as-either ah occupational disease or ' 24 a scheduled disease under Worker's 25 Compensation. Page 110 l A. No,'no, I'm just'jokihgi -' 2 MS. ROSENBERGi Note fOt the 3 'reCord that-I represent Union Carbide' 4 and I'm here for the witness today as 5 well; I'm clearly defending this 6 deposition. 7 Q. I just want to know if she 8 represents you today.' ; 9 A. I nevieV thou^ht!6f'thSf. f was 10 jokin^'WhehTISOkyd atlier tbait way. The 11 humor didn'tgetacroSs' appkrently;vlt'wasa ' 12 faildtfg^stureof IWiBorv * v. 13 : s e.- The two topics youraised ih a 14 nutshell dfe these. NuHlber one, thh't by the 15 end of the 1920s in the medical scientific 16 literature; there Was a good deal-of publicly 17 available information that asbestos was 18 associated -with asbesfosis, that particular 19 disease. It was particularly prominent as a 20 matter in Britain, in the United States, and 21 findings of that sort wfere published ih both in 22 the most prominent medical journals of the 23 United States and Great Britain; Lancet, BMJ, ' 24 JAMA, and because those journals are general 25 medical journals rather than specialist Page 112 1 So, because it'was either 2 mentioned specifically or cited as an 3 occupational disease, it's fair to say that 4 participants in public health departments and 5 participants in Worker's Compensation cases 6 would have known -- would have heeu likely to 7 know about-the dangers of asbestos. 8 Increasingly, the dangers'of asbestos beyond 9 Worker's Compensation, compensation for 10 asbestosiSj but to lung ckncer, to cancer, leSs' 11 well-known than a possibility then, but growing 12 attention tO that. 13 The third group'that I'would 14 think about here and publicly available 15 information from these sources would be the 16 labor unions. We found evidence that in the 17 1930s, labor 'unions ih connection with Worker's 18 Compensation, which they were pushing for. Wire 19 concerned abotit worker's safety generally; were 20 concerned about industrial diseases as'oppbsed 21 to injury alone, and press'ed for the expansion 22 of that kind, and asbestos was one of the 23 examples they used of why it was'that you 24 needed to expand Worker's Compensation beyond 25 the conception of injury. In there--' 28 (Pages 109 to 112) POHLMAN REPORTING COMPANY (314)421-0099