Document O31wxjb3D30L97jOdJMm63J4L

1 1 2 3 ALFRED LEIJA and SANDRA 4 F. LEIJA, 5 Plaintiffs, 6 VS. 7 MARATHON OIL COMPANY, an OHIO corporation; LARRY M. 8 ECHELBERGER; ARDELL K. JOHNSON and GREGORY W. 9 MULLINS, jointly and separately, 10 Defendants and 11 Third-Party Plaintiffs, 12 VS. 13 DOWNRIVER MAINTENANCE 14 CORPORATION, a Michigan Corporation, 15 Third-Party 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 DEPOSITION OF OTTO WONG 20 San Francisco, California 21 Tuesday, March 23, 1999 22 23 24 25 Reported by: 26 LYNNE M. LEDANOIS CSR No. 6811 27 Job No. 7065 STATE OF MICHIGAN WAYNE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT No. 96-617531-NO 2 1 STATE OF MICHIGAN 2 WAYNE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT 3 ALFRED LEIJA and SANDRA 4 F. LEIJA, 5 Plaintiffs, 6 VS. No. 96-617531-NO 7 MARATHON OIL COMPANY, an OHIO corporation; LARRY M. 8 ECHELBERGER; ARDELL K. JOHNSON and GREGORY W. 9 MULLINS, jointly and severally, 10 Defendants and 11 Third-Party Plaintiffs, 12 VS. 13 DOWNRIVER MAINTENANCE 14 CORPORATION, a Michigan Corporation, 15 Third-Party 16 Defendants. 17 18 Deposition of OTTO WONG, 19 taken on behalf of Plaintiffs Alfred and 20 Sandra Leija, at 555 North Point Road, 21 Room 545, San Francisco, California, 22 beginning at 9:26 a.m. and ending at 23 10:45 a.m., on Tuesday, March 23, 1999 24 before LYNNE M. LEDANOIS, Certified 25 Shorthand Reporter No. 6811 1 APPEARANCES: 2 3 For Plaintiff: 4 LAW OFFICES OF MARTIN D. BARRIE BY: MARTIN D. BARRIE 5 Attorney at Law 2603 Augusta Drive, Suite 810 6 Houston, Texas 77057 713-977-7075 7 For Defendant Marathon Oil Company: 8 WOOLF, McCLANE, BRIGHT, ALLEN & CARPENTER 9 BY: LOUIS C. WOOLF Attorney at Law 10 900 Riverview Tower 900 S. Gay Street 11 Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1810 423-215-1000 12 For Defendant Downriver Maintenance Corporation: 13 COLLINS, EINHORN, FARRELL & ULANOFF 14 BY: CLAYTON F. FARRELL Attorney at Law 15 4000 Town Center, Suite 909 Southfield, Michigan 48075-1473 16 248-355-4141 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 1 INDEX 2 WITNESS EXAMINATION 3 OTTO WONG 4 BY MR. BARRIE 7 5 6 EXHIBITS 7 DEPOSITION PAGE 8 1 Renotice of Taking Deposition 7 9 of Otto Wong; 5 pages 10 2 File folder of Otto Wong 7 containing articles and 11 correspondence; 27 pages 12 3 Handwritten notes entitled, 7 "Alfred Leija"; 2 pages 13 4 Invoices from Applied Health 7 14 Sciences, Inc.; 4 pages 15 5 Listing of various cases by 7 year from Otto Wong; 1 page 16 6-A Document entitled, "The Leukemias 7 17 Epidemiologic Aspects"; 12 pages 18 6-B Document entitled, "The 7 Leukemias"; 2 pages 19 6-C Document entitled, "Clinical 7 20 Hematology"; 3 pages 21 6-D Document entitled, "Mortality 7 among Chemical Workers Exposed 22 to Benzene and other Agents"; 10 pages 23 6-E Document entitled, "Mortality 7 24 among Individuals Occupationally Exposed to Benzene"; 8 pages 25 5 1 INDEX CONTINUED DEPOSITION PAGE 2 6-F Document entitled, "An Update of 7 3 Mortality among chemical workers exposed to benzene"; 7 pages 4 6-G Document entitled, "Occupational 7 5 Health"; 3 pages 6 6-H Document entitled, "Benzene and 7 Leukemia"; 7 pages 7 6-I Document entitled, "Leukemia Risk 7 8 Associated with Benzene Exposure"; etc., 8 pages 9 6-J Document entitled, "Risk of acute 7 10 myeloid leukemia and multiple myeloma in workers exposed to 11 benzene"; 5 pages 12 6-K Document entitled, "An industry 7 wide mortality study of chemical 13 workers occupationally exposed to benzene"; 16 pages 14 6-L Document entitled, "An industry 7 15 wide mortality study of chemical workers occupationally exposed 16 to benzene"; 14 pages 17 6-M Document entitled, "Health 7 effects of gasoline exposure"; 18 14 pages 19 6-N Document entitled, "A 50-year 7 mortality follow-up of a large 20 cohort of oil refinery workers in Texas"; 15 pages 21 6-O Document entitled, "An updated 7 22 cohort mortality study of workers at a northeastern United States 23 petroleum refinery"; 12 pages 24 6-P Document entitled, "An updated 7 mortality study of workers at a 25 petroleum refinery in Beaumont, 6 1 INDEX CONTINUED DEPOSITION PAGE 2 6-Q Document entitled, "Cell-type- 7 3 specific leukemia analysis," etc.., 15 pages 4 6-R Document entitled, "Occupational 7 5 exposure to petroleum products in men with acute non-lymphocytic 6 leukemia"; 1 page 7 6-S Document entitled, "Chronic 7 myeloid leukemia in Yorkshire"; 8 4-pages 9 6-T Document entitled, "A cohort 7 study of cancer among benzene 10 exposed workers in China: overall results"; 8 pages 11 6-U Document entitled, "Cancer 7 12 among benzene workers" with attachments; 8 pages 13 6-V Document entitled, "Benzene 7 14 and the dose-related incidence of hematologic neoplasms in 15 China"; 7 pages 16 6-W Document entitled, "Cecil 7 Textbook of Medicine, 19th 17 Edition"; 2 pages 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7 1 San Francisco, California, Tuesday, March 23, 1999 9:26a.m. - 10:45 a.m. OTTO WONG, 4 having been first duly sworn, was examined and 5 testified as follows: 6 7 EXAMINATION 8 BY MR. BARRIE: 9 Q State your name for the record, please. 10 A Otto Wong. 11 Q Where do you reside, sir? 12 A 181 Second Avenue, Suite 628, San Mateo, 13 California 94401. 14 Q And the phone number there, sir? 15 A (650)347-7898. 16 Q Is that a business address? 17 A Yes. 18 Q How long have you been there? 19 A For almost nine years. 20 Q What's the name of the firm or company? 21 A Applied Health Sciences, Incorporated. 22 Q Tell us what Applied Health Sciences is. 23 A Basically, it's a contract research 24 company. We specialize in doing epidemiologic studies 25 for the industry, and we also do consulting for 8 1 different groups of people. 2 Q How long has this company been in 3 existence? 4 A Since 1991. 5 Q Who owns the company? 6 A I do. 7 Q Solely, 100 percent? 8 _ A Well, half of it is owned by my wife, as 9 anything else in this state. So basically I own the 10 company, yes. 11 Q When you say, "half owned by your wife," 12 you're talking about a community property issue? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Have you always owned 100 percent of the 15 company since 1991? 16 A Yes. 17 Q You say that the purpose of the company 18 is to provide consulting services to industry, among 19 other groups? 20 A Also to major projects, if you count that 21 as consulting as well. 22 Q For whom? 23 A For industries, mainly. 24 Q Okay. My name is Martin Berrie and we 25 introduced yourselves prior to the deposition. I'm 9 1 here to take your testimony with respect to the facts, 2 circumstances and opinions that you've arrived at in 3 the Leija case. Do you understand that? 4 A Yes. 5 Q You've given your deposition numerous 6 times; I've read just about every one of them, so I'll 7 try not to duplicate many of the questions, but I do 8 need to be sure when you respond to my question, be 9 sure you understand it. Will you do that for me? 10 A Yes. 11 Q When were you first contacted in this 12 case? 13 A I think sometime in early 1998 or late 14 1997. 15 Q Who contacted you? 16 A A lawyer by the name Michael Latiff. 17 Q Michael who? 18 A Latiff. 19 Q And he was a lawyer that was retained by 20 Marathon Oil Company? 21 A Yes, he's in Detroit. 22 Q Okay. And what did Mr. Latiff ask you to 23 do? 24 A Basically asked me whether I'm interested 25 in working with him in the case, and sent me some 10 1 materials to read, background materials in the case, 2 and also, I guess, be prepared to form an opinion. 3 Q With respect to what? 4 A With respect to exposure to benzene 5 petroleum products, and the risk of developing chronic 6 myeloid leukemia. 7 Q How many times have you spoken with 8 Mr. Latiff? 9 A Probably about six, seven times on the 10 phone. 11 Q Have you spoken with anybody else aside 12 from Mr. Latiff? 13 A Regarding this case? 14 Q Of course. 15 A I have spoken with Mr. Lou Woolf. 16 Q Who's sitting to your right? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Anybody else? 19 A Maybe somebody in the offices, their 20 secretary or 21 Q Aside from talking to Mr. Woolf or to 22 Mr. Latiff or their secretary, have you spoken to 23 anybody else about this case; for example, have you 24 spoken with anybody at Marathon Oil Company, any 25 coworkers of Mr. Leija, the plaintiff in this case, 11 1 any industrial hygienists for Marathon, anything like 2 that? 3 A No, I have not. 4 Q Do you plan on doing so? 5 A Not at this point. 6 Q How many occasions have you worked with 7 and/or for Mr. Woolf? 8 A I probably have about four or five cases 9 ongoing at this point, and he contacted me regarding 10 this case some time ago. Over the years I may have 11 worked for him for some other cases. I don't recall 12 the numbers. 13 Q The current cases that you have, do any 14 of those cases involve allegations of benzene exposure 15 in leukemia? 16 A I think most of them involve exposure to 17 benzene or petro chemicals. I think one or two cases 18 may be some form of leukemia. 19 Q Do any of those cases of leukemia have 20 anything to do with chronic myeloid leukemia? 21 A There may be another old case, still 22 active, I have not looked at the case for some time. 23 It may be another chronic myeloid leukemia case. 24 Q And what would be the name of that case? 25 A I don't remember the name. 12 1 Q Do you remember the lawyers, aside from 2 Mr. Woolf, that are on the other side of the docket, 3 for example, the plaintiff's lawyers? 4 A No. 5 Q You were involved in the Skeen Case, as I 6 recall? 7 A That's many, many years ago, yes. 8 Q But you were involved in that case, there 9 was a case in Texas involving chronic myeloid leukemia 10 and benzene exposure; correct? 11 A Yes. 12 Q And you gave testimony in that case? 13 A Yes. 14 Q What materials were provided you by 15 Mr. Latiff originally in this case? 16 A Some medical records, some M.S.D.S., 17 depositions of coworkers, depositions of the 18 plaintiff. 19 Q Anything else? 20 A I think that's all I can recall. 21 Q And you've been retained in this matter 22 as an epidemiologist; is that correct? 23 A Yes. 24 Q You have not been retained as an 25 industrial hygienist? 13 1 A No. 2 Q You have not been retained to give 3 testimony with respect to toxicology issues on 4 toxicological causation issues; that would be correct? 5 A No. 6 Q No, that's correct, or yes, it is 7 correct? You have not been asked to give testimony as 8 to toxicological issues on causation, have you? 9 A No. 10 Q You have not been asked to give medical 11 opinions as to causation, if at all, have you? 12 A No. 13 Q You have not been asked to give any 14 opinions as to engineering design issues, have you? 15 A No. 16 Q And, again, Dr. Wong, in that same light, 17 you have not been asked to do any opinions or 18 calculations with respect to dose modeling, that is 19 modeling of dosage of exposure with respect to 20 inhalation and/or dermal exposure, that's not been one 21 of the issues you've been asked to address, is it? 22 A No. 23 Q So, really, your area of focus, as it 24 were, is really in the field of epidemiology? 25 A Yes. 14 1 Q And, as I appreciate and it may be a very 2 rudimentary definition of epidemiology, but it would 3 be more or less evaluating cohorts or groups of 4 people; comparing them together, if they are matched 5 as close as possible, to see whether there is an 6 incidence or an elevation in the disease or an illness 7 relative to another group that may or may not be 8 exposed to a particular chemical; would that be a very 9 bad, rough thumbnail sketch? 10 A This is part of what we do, but that's 11 not the entire picture. 12 Q And the other picture would be looking at 13 risk assessment? 14 A Well, you're talking in a gray area, risk 15 area, whether that's epidemiological or not, maybe 16 part of it is. 17 Q Is that something that you were focused 18 on in this case in terms of risk assessment? 19 A It depends on what you mean by "risk 20 assessment." Risk assessment means different things 21 to different people. 22 If you're talking about the EPA-type 23 regulatory risk assessments, no, I'm not doing that. 24 But if you use the word "risk assessment" in a general 25 sense, assess risk, then I would say yes. 15 1 Q So in addition to looking at the 2 plaintiff's exposure, one of the missions that you 3 were asked to address, the second would be looking at 4 risk in terms of what the plaintiff, Mr. Leija, would 5 have been in this case; would that be accurate? 6 A Basically, in this case, it's my 7 assignment really to look at the causation. 8 Q Well, does epidemiology look at 9 biological causation in individuals? 10 A Again, that's kind of in the gray area. 11 We do find a group of people exposed to certain 12 chemicals have an increased risk of certain disease. 13 Certainly it would be wonderful if we can 14 find some explanation for that in terms of biological 15 mechanism. But sometimes we may not be able to do 16 that. So biological mechanism is part of the overall 17 picture. But, again, it depends on how advanced we 18 are in that area. 19 Q But isn't it true that epidemiology does 20 not look at causation of chemical exposure in 21 individual people, what it looks at is groups of 22 people to see if there is an inference of causation; 23 isn't that what epidemiology is about? 24 A Well, there is a couple of things in your 25 statement I do not agree. 16 1 Q Tell me. 2 A I don't care what discipline you are in, 3 you cannot look at a single individual case and come 4 to some kind of causation conclusion. The best you 5 can do is to use epidemiologic data and apply that to 6 someone with certain exposure profiles. 7 Q But data is looking at groups of people; 8 correct? 9 A Yes, we look at groups of people. 10 Q Okay. And from looking at groups of 11 people, you try and ascertain whether there is a risk 12 that an individual within the group may have for 13 developing, say, in this case, chronic myeloid 14 leukemia? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Is there any materials, other than the 17 medical records of the M.S.D.S.s, depositions of 18 coworkers and plaintiffs, that you received and 19 reviewed in the formation of your opinions in this 20 case? 21 A Of course I reviewed some studies, 22 epidemiologic studies. 23 Q We're going to cover that, but I'm 24 talking about what you actually received from either 25 Mr. Woolf or other Marathon lawyers in this case. Was 17 1 there anything else that you received? 2 A Those are all the things that I can 3 recall. 4 Q Is there anything that you've asked for 5 that has not been sent to you that you would like to 6 have to review and evaluate in coming to your 7 conclusions in this case? 8 A No, I have not. 9 Q Is there anything that you're aware of 10 that's outstanding, something that they said they're 11 going to provide you but you have not received to this 12 date? 13 A I think yesterday Mr. Woolf and I talked 14 about the deposition of Dr. Titlebaum in this case. 15 Q You have not reviewed Dr. Titlebaum's 16 deposition? 17 A I don't think so. 18 Q Is that something that you'd like to look 19 at and review? 20 A It's always fun to read his deposition 21 transcripts. 22 Q It's always fun to review and read 23 everything, including your depositions, but in truth 24 of fact, is there something out there that I need to 25 know about that you need to review or evaluate that 18 1 you have not done so at this point prior to the 2 formation of your final conclusions? 3 For example, I don't want to walk away 4 from here at the end of the day and have somebody send 5 you something that you've been looking for that you 6 say, you know, I really need this to look at prior to 7 the formation of my final conclusions. Is there 8 anything like that out there? 9 A No. 10 Q With Mr. Woolf's permission, if there is 11 something out there that you need that may change, 12 alter or modify any of your opinions, would you be 13 kind enough to let Mr. Woolf know so he can let me 14 know, so I can, if I have to, come and just ask you 15 briefly about those questions to see if it changes 16 your opinion; will you do that for me? 17 A Absolutely. 18 Q Have you had any meetings or discussions 19 with Dr. Irons in this case? 20 A No. 21 Q Have you had any meetings or discussions 22 with any of the industrial hygienists that have been 23 retained by Marathon in this case? 24 A No. 25 Q Have you had any meetings or discussions 19 1 with any of the causation experts in this case that 2 Marathon may have retained? 3 A I have not talked to anybody -- not that 4 I know what you mean by "causation experts." 5 Q For example, Marathon may have an 6 individual that -- a physician that may come in and 7 testify that in his opinion, A does not cause B. 8 I mean, have you talked to anybody in 9 Marathon, or Marathon's experts, that may be rendering 10 opinions in this case? 11 A No, I have not. 12 Q Do you plan on doing so? 13 A No. 14 Q Have you drafted any exhibit in this 15 case, anything you intend to rely on at the time of 16 trial? 17 A No. 18 Q Do you intend on doing so? 19 A Most likely, if it does go to trial. 20 Q If you do -- so, once again, I'll ask 21 permission of Mr. Woolf, if you can let him know so he 22 can let me know so I can see those exhibits; would you 23 do that for me? 24 A Absolutely. 25 Q I'll just cover, if I can, you received 20 1 Exhibit No. 1, which is the notice of your deposition, 2 the subpoena duces tecum? 3 A . Yes. 4 Q That requested that you bring with you 5 various documents? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Have you done so? 8 A I believe so. 9 Q Is there anything that was required or 10 requested by way of that subpoena that you did not 11 bring with you? 12 A Number 2, copies of all certificates and 13 publications authored by him, meaning me. I think 14 that request is a little bit unreasonable because I 15 have authored some 120 publications, and not all of 16 them are related to or pertinent to this case. So I 17 have not brought them. 18 Q But those would be reflected in the C.V. 19 that you also handed me? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Is that an up-to-date C.V? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Is there a date on this? 24 A No. 25 Q Just for the record, prior to the 21 1 deposition, Dr. Wong provided me through Mr. Woolf 2 this C.V. And the materials that you're referencing 3 not bringing here today, Item Number 2, are those 4 reflected on this C.V., would that be correct? 5 A Those would be all the articles I 6 authored. 7 Q Would there be any of the articles that 8 are reflected in your C.V. that you will be intending 9 to rely upon in the formation of your opinions in this 10 case, or have you brought them all here today? 11 A At least the ones that I think I would be 12 asked questions about I have brought them. 13 Q For example, if I handed you your C.V. 14 and asked you just to go through the entire list of 15 all your publications, is there several in here or any 16 of them in here that you would say, yes, I intend to 17 rely on this one as well that you did not bring here 18 today, or in summary, the ones you brought here today, 19 they are the major ones? 20 A They are the major ones. 21 Q There may be something in here that may 22 tangentially relate to the formation of your opinions, 23 but in sum total, what you brought here today are the 24 articles that you intend on relying on in the 25 formation of your opinion; would that be accurate? 22 1 A Yes. 2 Q Aside from Number 2 on Exhibit No. 1, the 3 subpoena, are there any other items that you did not 4 bring with you today? 5 A Number 4, basically you asked me to bring 6 all of the documents provided to me by the lawyers. 7 And I talked to Mr. Woolf yesterday and he said that I 8 don't need to bring them. 9 Q That would include the depositions; 10 correct? 11 A Deposition transcripts, medical records, 12 M.S.D.S. and so on. 13 Q Any other items on the subpoena duces 14 tecum referenced as Exhibit 1 that you did not bring 15 with you? 16 A No. That's it. 17 Q Let's go over those items, if we can, 18 very briefly. I'm handing you a folder that's been 19 marked by the reporter as Exhibit Number 2. Tell me 20 what that is. 21 A These are correspondence between myself 22 and the attorneys in this case. 23 Q Is there anything in this Exhibit Number 24 2 that aided or assisted you in the formation of your 25 opinions? 23 1 A Not really. 2 Q I'll show you an article that's entitled, 3 "Cell Type Specific Leukemia Analysis and a Combined 4 Cohort of more than 200,000 Petroleum Workers in the 5 United States 1937-1989" by yourself and Raabe. 6 Are you using that article in any way in 7 the formation of your opinions in this case? 8 A Let me explain to you what this is. 9 These are articles that I, because of my C.V., that I 10 was asked by Mr. Michael Latiff to send to him. And I 11 did that last year. And all those articles that I 12 sent to him I included in the articles that I have 13 with me today. 14 Q Okay. But my question was: How did you 15 use this article, if at all, in the formation of your 16 opinions that you're giving today? 17 A Well, because we talked about chronic 18 myeloid leukemia in that paper, so I do rely on that. 19 Q I appreciate that, and I've read this 20 article. What I'm saying is are these pages from 21 various articles, are they 22 Again I have not compared these to the 23 ones you actually brought, but are these the articles 24 that are being used by you in the formation of your 25 opinion today about chronic myeloid leukemia? 24 1 A Yes. 2 Q Are these front pages, do they match the 3 actual articles that you brought? 4 A Yes, some of them, not all of them. 5 Those are articles that I wrote. 6 Q I appreciate that, but I want to know 7 whether they match. So if we went through the other 8 exhibits here, whether I would be able to find each of 9 the articles 10 A Yes, you will be able to find them. 11 Q Okay. Exhibit Number 3, what is that? 12 A That is simply my notes of the 13 plaintiff's employment history. 14 Q And how did you use that? 15 A Well, just to remind me of some of the 16 dates and so on. 17 Q Dates with respect to what? 18 A Dates with respect to his employment. 19 Q Okay. Have you ever met the plaintiff? 20 A No. 21 Q Have you ever been to the Marathon, 22 Detroit plant facility? 23 A I don't believe so. 24 Q Have you ever actually been in the plant 25 looking for the types of operations and practices that 25 1 Mr. Leija would have been performing? 2 A No. 3 Q Have you ever asked to do so? 4 A No. 5 Q Has Marathon ever invited you to their 6 plant facility to take a look around and review and 7 evaluate the types of work practices that Mr. Leija 8 may have performed to aid and assist you in the 9 formation of your opinions? 10 A No. 11 Q Have you ever contacted Downriver 12 Maintenance who's the contractor that performed 13 maintenance services in the Marathon plant? 14 A No. 15 Q Have they ever asked you to come out 16 there and take a look at their work practices and 17 procedures to investigate the types of work practices 18 that Mr. Leija would have performed as a maintenance 19 worker? 20 A No. 21 Q Have you ever asked to look at any 22 strike that. Have you ever asked to look at any of 23 the personnel records for Mr. Leija, either from 24 Downriver Maintenance or Marathon Oil Company? 25 A No. 26 1 Q Have you ever spoken with any industrial 2 hygienist, whether it was at Marathon Oil Company or 3 Downriver Maintenance, to review and evaluate the type 4 of work practices that Mr. Leija may have performed to 5 clarify in your mind, or help you in formation of your 6 opinions with respect to his exposure to petroleum 7 products including benzene? 8 A No. 9 Q Do you intend on doing so? 10 A Not at this point. 11 Q Exhibit No. 4, tell us what that is. 12 A These are the bills that I sent to 13 attorneys for the time that I spent on this case. 14 Q Is each one a separate invoice? There 15 are four pages. 16 A Yes. 17 Q Is each one a separate invoice? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Can you tell us, just basically, what 20 your billing practices are? 21 A Basically we bill it by the end of the 22 month, unless we only have like one or two hours for 23 the month, we want to accumulate that in the following 24 month. 25 Q Okay. But specifically, I mean, do you 27 1 charge by the hour? 2 A Oh, yes. 3 Q Okay. 4 A If that's what you mean. 5 Q I don't mean to be evasive, but just how 6 much do you charge per hour, for, for example, a 7 review of cases? 8 A In 1999 it's 400 an hour; last year it 9 was 380 an hour. 10 Q Is that for deposition testimony or 11 review testimony? 12 A It's everything. 13 Q Okay. So as of 1998, it was $380 an hour 14 whether you were testifying at trial, whether you were 15 doing depositions or research? 16 A Right. 17 Q And in 1999 it's $400 for all those 18 activities? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Can you give us an idea approximately how 21 much time you've put into this case? And if you would 22 like to do it by 23 A 30, 40 hours. 24 Q That would be at a $400-per-hour rate? 25 A No, some of them. Actually, most of the 28 1 work was done last year. 2 Q So most of it would be at $380 an hour? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Do you have any work that you plan on 5 doing if this case goes to trial, is there anything 6 outstanding that you plan on doing? 7 A The only thing I can think of is to 8 prepare some exhibits. 9 Q Anything else? 10 A Maybe read some experts deposition 11 transcripts. 12 Q Anything else? 13 A I can't think of anything. 14 Q The court reporter has kindly marked 15 Exhibit Number 5. Please tell us what that is. 16 A In a Notice for Deposition you asked for 17 a list of the cases that I have testified in. And 18 this is a list that I come up with. 19 Q And what are the dates that is inclusive 20 in this exhibit? 21 A It goes back to 1994. 22 Q 1994 to 1999? 23 A Right. 24 Q Do you have any list or have you compiled 25 any list or requested to compile any list for cases 29 1 you have been involved in prior to 1994? 2 A No, I don't keep that. 3 Q You don't keep a list? 4 A No. 5 Q You never compiled one? 6 A They always ask for the last four or five 7 years. 8 Q Do any of these cases involve cases where 9 you're testifying on behalf of a plaintiff? 10 A No. 11 Q Would it be accurate to say that for all 12 these cases you've been retained on behalf of industry 13 or the defendant in the case? 14 A For defendants. 15 Q And the defendants would be reflected as, 16 for example, in 1994 Shell Oil Company? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Tosco? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Amoco? 21 A Well, I may not work for Shell Oil in 22 that case, it's just that -- what do you call that 23 the title of that case or the name of that case. 24 Q Okay. 25 A But I would be working for one of the 30 1 defendants. 2 Q Would you be providing -- as working for 3 the defendants, would you be working for all of the 4 companies or it's exclusive for one of the companies? 5 A Sometimes it's one, sometimes it's two, 6 sometimes I don't even know. 7 Q Speaking of the testimony that you 8 provided, have you ever been retained or provided 9 services -- strike that. 10 Have you ever, in your capacity as 11 providing services in the area of epidemiology, have 12 you ever given testimony for a worker who's exposed to 13 chemicals in an allegation against a chemical company? 14 A No. 15 Q In terms of your affiliation with defense 16 lawyers who are representing companies, have you ever 17 had occasion to give any talks or seminars, however 18 informal, to defense companies or their lawyers? 19 A I was asked by the Oregon Bar Association 20 to talk to both plaintiff attorneys and defense 21 attorneys at one time to talk about epidemiology in 22 general. 23 Q Do you recall giving a talk to Shell Oil 24 Company regarding the Skeen Case? That's the case 25 involving chronic myeloid leukemia and benzene 31 1 exposure that was tried in Texas. Do you recall 2 giving a talk to Shell Oil Company and their lawyers? 3 A We had a meeting in the law firm in 4 Houston. I don't know all of the people in the 5 audience. Most of them may be from Shell Oil. 6 Q Do you recall Richard Faulk being there? 7 A Maybe. He is in Houston, so it's very 8 likely. It's a long time ago. 9 Q Do you recall giving out a publication or 10 handout regarding your opinions regarding the Skeen 11 Case specifically, and allegations of chronic myeloid 12 leukemia and benzene exposure; do you recall handing 13 out a pamphlet in discussion about that? 14 A I think we talked about the Skeen Case 15 but I don't remember handing out anything by myself. 16 I don't think I 17 Q You don't recall? 18 A No. 19 Q Let me ask you right off: What opinions 20 have you formed in this case? 21 A My opinion is that there is no causal 22 relationship between benzene exposure or exposure to 23 other petroleum chemicals and the risk of developing 24 chronic myeloid leukemia. 25 Q Any other opinions? 32 1 A This is the major one. 2 Q Any others, however minor? 3 A That's the one that I have been asked to 4 look into. 5 Q So basically, sitting here today, just 6 getting ready for trial, your opinion in this case is 7 that there is no causal relationship between benzene 8 exposure and the risk of development of chronic 9 myeloid leukemia; is that the opinion? 10 A Right. 11 Q No others? 12 A No. 13 Q And what do you base this opinion on? 14 A Based on my own research, as well as 15 studies done by other investigators. 16 Q And those have been produced by you 17 today? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Are you aware that there are studies, 20 epidemiological studies, that support the relationship 21 between exposure to benzene and the risk of leukemia, 22 specifically chronic myeloid leukemia? 23 A When you say "support," what does that 24 mean? 25 Q They make the connection, the cause 33 1 between benzene exposure and the risk of development 2 of CML. 3 MR. WOOLF: Counsel, I would ask if you 4 have any such studies to show the witness so he will 5 know exactly what you're talking about. 6 BY MR. BARRIE: 7 Q I'm asking you, Dr. Wong, as an 8 epidemiologist, are you aware of studies that show the 9 relationship between benzene exposure and the risk of 10 development of chronic myeloid leukemia? 11 A No. 12 Q You're aware of none? 13 A No. 14 Q No? 15 A You always ask double negative questions. 16 I find it difficult to answer. 17 MR. WOOLF: His testimony is he's not 18 aware of any such studies. 19 BY MR. BARRIE: 20 Q Are you aware of any such studies that 21 support the relationship between benzene exposure, at 22 whatever dose, for whatever duration, and the 23 development of chronic myeloid leukemia? 24 A No. 25 Q Let's talk a little bit about some of the 34 1 studies that you've done. 2 When you, as a company, epidemiology 3 services, provide services to a sponsor, how does that 4 work? 5 For example, when I was at the university 6 level doing research and we went out for a grant, for 7 example, from NIH or someplace else, we had a protocol 8 that we submitted and we had a budget we were trying 9 to get. And in order to perform the services, we had 10 to put in a bid and had to have a bunch of discussions 11 in order to get the grant money. 12 When you perform services, whether it's 13 for Mobile, whether it's for Shell, the studies you've 14 done, whether it's for the MCA or the API, or whoever 15 you're doing studies for, how does that procedure 16 work? 17 In other words, walk me through the 18 initial contact, the exchange of information, the data 19 assembly, the acquisition of data, the data analysis, 20 the reports, and then the final article, walk me 21 through that. 22 A It's similar exactly to what you just 23 described, most of the time, unless a project is very, 24 very small. I can give you an example. 25 We have done a very large study of 35 1 gasoline distribution workers for API, at the American 2 Petroleum Institute. And basically we submit a 3 proposal. to API, and my understanding was that there 4 were like ten different institutions asked to submit 5 proposals, and most of them they submit a proposal to 6 API. That includes -- in fact, most of them are 7 university investigators. 8 And API went through the selection 9 process, and so on, by committee, and we were 10 selected. In our proposal, we have an outline of what 11 we will do, what it will cost to do it, and we follow 12 the protocol submitted in the proposal. 13- Q Let's start at the beginning. How do you 14 know that such a study is going to be requested by the 15 Manufacturing Chemists' Association, Chemical 16 Association, the MCA or API, the American Petroleum 17 Institute? 18 How do you know to even submit the 19 proposal in the first instance; does somebody call you 20 on the phone and say we're interested in doing a study 21 on gasoline, we're interested in doing a study on 22 benzene exposure, or whatever? Give us a protocol. 23 Or is there a letter that's sent out, or do you 24 actually call them first? 25 Tell me how you actually get to make the 36 1 proposal in the first instance. 2 A You would be -- we would receive what we 3 call a request for proposal, RFP. 4 Q Once that's done, you then prepare the 5 request for proposal, the proposal itself? 6 A If we're interested, and if we know that 7 we can do it, then we would prepare a proposal. 8 Q Once the proposal is submitted, is there 9 any exchange between -- let's just say the MCA, for 10 example, let's use them as a sponsoring body, the 11 Manufacturing Chemical Association. 12 Do they then send back a letter that says 13 your proposal is accepted, or you need to make the 14 following modifications, or why don't you also include 15 these items, or do they just blanketly say yes or no? 16 A Most of the time it's yes or no. 17 Q Okay. What about the times when it's not 18 ayes or no, do they say, why don't you also include 19 this, why don't you change the protocol to this? 20 Do, on occasion, they ask you to do 21 different activities from that originally submitted by 22 you in your proposal; in other words, is there a 23 dialogue that goes on between you and the MCA, or is 24 it just this blind submission of a document and there 25 is a vacuum and nobody hears anything, and then it 37 1 comes back yes or no? 2 A As I said, most of the time it's yes or 3 no. But .I don't think I can rule out that they would 4 not make sometimes some suggestions in terms of the 5 schedule or the budget, or justify certain ways of 6 doing certain things from the reviewers. 7 Q In terms of suggestions, would they also 8 make suggestions with respect to the protocol, i.e., 9 how you're supposed to do it? 10 A No. Not on those major issues. 11 Q Do they make suggestions with respect to 12 the numbers of people or the cohorts of individuals 13 that would be investigated or evaluated? 14 A No. 15 Q So it's your testimony that once the 16 proposal goes through, and on those rare occasions 17 that or those occasions that there is dialogue back 18 with you, there really is no discussion about the 19 protocol itself, how it's to be done, the nature of 20 how it should be accomplished, the cohorts that should 21 be selected, that does not occur; is that correct? 22 A No. But sometimes when we actually go 23 into a study, when we look at the records and so on, 24 and certain assumptions that we have made in the 25 proposal stage may or may not be true. 38 1 And in that case, there may be some 2 dialogue between us and the sponsor to try to modify 3 that. 4 Q Speaking of sponsors, who have been some 5 of the sponsors of your studies? 6 A Well, you named some, American Petroleum 7 Institute, Chemical Manufacturers' Association, oil 8 companies, Mobile, Chevron, Shell, but I also do a 9 lot of work for non-petroleum companies. 10 Q In that work for non-petroleum companies, 11 have you ever done any services in the area of 12 epidemiology, particularly just for unions, unions 13 whose workers maybe in refineries? 14 A Unions and refineries? 15 Q You bet. 16 A No. 17 Q Once you get this proposal, you have had 18 maybe some dialogue and you're selected, what's the 19 next phase, you just go about and do your study? 20 A Yes. 21 Q And during study procedure, is there a 22 dialogue with the sponsor? 23 A Well, the dialogue would be mostly one 24 sided in the sense that we have to provide progress to 25 them. 39 1 Q For example, in one of the studies that 2 you performed looking at benzene exposure and 3 manifestations of leukemias, it was necessary for you 4 to rely on data submitted by the oil companies as to 5 exposures that their workers may have been exposed to, 6 specifically benzene; that would be accurate; correct, 7 I mean, you rely on them giving you data as to 8 exposure? 9 A Yes. 10 Q You don't go out to the field to 11 corroborate one way or the other whether the exposure 12 is good or bad, the numbers that they are giving you? 13 A Sometimes we do. 14 Q Well, tell me the times that you've 15 actually been to a refinery to corroborate the 16 exposures to benzene to see whether in fact it's what 17 the oil company is telling you it is, who have you 18 gone to? 19 A That study that I am thinking of now is a 20 distribution workers' study that we did for API. In 21 that study, actually we have two components, one was 22 epidemiology, and one was exposure assessment. 23 And for the exposure assessment 24 component, a Professor Thomas Smith at Harvard 25 University was in charge of that, but I worked with 40 1 him in that study. 2 And basically oil companies provide us 3 with industrial hygiene data, with information on 4 engineering changes, controls, and so on. Over the 5 years, we also did some assimilations as well. 6 Q And that's what I'm talking about. I'm 7 not talking about an oil company who's sending you 8 some industrial hygiene data; I'm not talking about 9 them sending you data. 10 I'm talking about you going out there 11 physically, yourself, talking to somebody at the 12 refinery and maybe doing an assimilation to say, yes, 13 you know, this oil company gave us some data that goes 14 back to the '40s or '50s or '60s or '70s that says 15 when you're doing this work practice you get exposure 16 to benzene. 17 They may have been done with a Dreger 18 tube, they may have done it by a continuous monitor, 19 we want to do an assimilation to be sure that, gosh, 20 their numbers are correct. How many times have you 21 personally done that? 22 A We did that in the distribution workers' 23 study. 24 Q Was that just on one occasion? 25 A I think that was the major one, yes. 41 1 Q For example, did you do it in this case 2 with Marathon, did you run out there and say, you 3 know, I'm going to make some assumption on whether 4 this fellow was even exposed to benzene, I want to go 5 out there to a tank, to an API separator and run some 6 assimilations to determine whatever data Marathon is 7 telling me is indeed accurate; did you ever do that 8 with Marathon in this case? 9 A No. This is a case -- this is not a 10 study. No, I did not do that. 11 Q Do you plan on doing that? 12 A No. 13 Q Is it your opinion that regardless of the 14 dose of exposure to benzene, in whatever concentration 15 over whatever length of time and duration, there is 16 just no absolute risk for the development of chronic 17 myeloid leukemia? 18 A The answer is yes to the extent of 19 exposure of the workers included in the studies that I 20 rely on. I mean, there is a limit of what the 21 exposure range would be. 22 Q And it would be true, would it not, that 23 most of the exposures that are provided to you are 24 based on historical records of individuals working as 25 employees in a refinery, for example? 42 1 A Well 2 MR. WOOLF: Object to the timing of the 3 question and the inference that it applies to all of 4 the literature that he relies upon, because the 5 literature that he relies upon includes more than just 6 studies that Dr. Wong himself has done. You may reask 7 the question and you may answer it. 8 BY MR. BARRIE: 9 Q You can answer it. 10 A I was going to say that I don't just rely 11 on the studies that I have done, I rely on studies 12 that other people have done. Any study that talks 13 about benzene or petroleum exposure and chronic 14 myeloid leukemia. 15 Q And I appreciate that. But what I'm 16 saying is as a historical nature for epidemiological 17 studies, they are relying on data submitted by the oil 18 companies to you with respect to industrial hygiene 19 and the concentration that benzene people may be 20 exposed to, but it's limited to employees, it does not 21 include contract workers; would that be a fair 22 statement? 23 A Studies based on company employees, of 24 course, would not include contractors unless some of 25 the contractors -- contract workers have worked for 43 1 them as an employee later on in life or early on. We 2 cannot rule that out. 3 Q Certainly. But, for example, when you 4 work for the CMA, Chemical Manufacturers' Association, 5 or the old MCA or the API, the American Petroleum 6 Institute, you're working for the participants of 7 those organizations, for example, the various oil 8 companies; correct? 9 A Yes. 10 Q And they are supplying data based on 11 their employees, would that be accurate, they are not 12 supplying data for contract personnel who come in and 13 . out of the plants, except as you suggest, if they 14 later turned out to be employees? 15 A No. Some of them would be personal 16 samples, some may be area samples, so that would apply 17 to anyone who worked there. 18 Q In this particular case, did you see any 19 industrial hygiene air sampling, whether it was 20 direct, personal monitoring or area monitoring for 21 Mr. Leija? 22 A There was some industrial hygiene data 23 sent to me, yes. 24 Q Did you see any specific air monitoring 25 data specific for Mr. Leija, any personal monitoring? 44 1 A Not on him, no. 2 Q Let's go through these documents, and the 3 court reporter has kindly marked them as Exhibits 6-A 4 through 6-W. 5 Dr. Wong, those exhibits, as I appreciate 6 your prior testimony, are the articles that you're 7 relying on in this particular case to support your 8 opinion that under any dose, any duration of exposure 9 to benzene, there is no risk for the development of 10 chronic myeloid leukemia; is that correct? 11 A I thought we agreed to the wording of the 12 "major" articles. 13 Q I thought we did too, but you didn't use 14 "major." 15 A Well, I just wanted to be sure. 16 Q Let me just ask you. 17 A It depends. If somebody asks me at trial 18 a question about general epidemiology, of course I 19 have authority -- some articles on general 20 epidemiology. If somebody asks me some questions on 21 meta analysis, of course, I refer to my articles on 22 meta analysis. 23 Q But 24 A But let me finish. But the key is really 25 these are the major articles that I am going to rely 45 1 on. 2 Q We can agree on that, these are the major 3 articles, I appreciate that, and I'm not trying to put 4 you in a corner. I appreciate there may be questions 5 that Mr. Woolf may ask you about your meta analysis or 6 about general epidemiology. You may say here's a 7 paper I've done. 8 But getting down to nuts and bolts, meat 9 and potatoes, as we say, we're talking about these are 10 the articles that support your opinions? 11 MR. WOOLF: These are the major articles. 12 BY MR. BARRIE: 13 Q These are the major articles; would that 14 be correct? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Let me bounce around to a couple things. 17 In prior deposition testimony you've indicated that 18 there is a part per million years risk for the 19 development of leukemias. 20 And I just want to ask you: In one 21 occasion you testified, I believe it's accurate, that 22 for benzene to cause a risk for the development of 23 leukemia you needed 60 part per million years. . 24 Correct me it I'm wrong, am I accurate 25 there, is that still your opinion? 46 1 A That must be very, very old information 2 before we have -- before we have analysis on specific 3 forms of leukemia. 4 Q Many times epidemiological studies do not 5 break down benzene in specific cell types; is that 6 correct? 7 A A lot of studies the authors do not 8 report results by specific cell types for a number of 9 reasons. 10 Q And they amalgamate or bring together a 11 lot of the different types of hematopoietic diseases 12 that IOC codes may be related to lymphomas, lymphatic 13 diseases or leukemias; in other words, they group them 14 all together? 15 A Well, epidemiologic studies -- in cohorts 16 of studies we analyze different causes of death. And, 17 I mean, above all we have all causes of death, that 18 would include everything, cancers as well as 19 non-cancers. And then we break down into different 20 systems. So yes, the hematological system would be 21 one of the categories that we look at overall. 22 Q In some of the epidemiological studies 23 that have looked at, ICD groups of hematopoietic or 24 blood diseases, they found that increased risk for the 25 development of these diseases from exposures to 47 1 benzenes had a statistically significant elevation; 2 would that be correct? 3 A. No, that's just a way the reporting goes. 4 In those studies, I'm sure you will find that they are 5 also providing a-risk ratio for all causes of death, 6 and for that, most of the time, you would be 7 significantly low. 8 Q It's been reported as low, it's been 9 reported as high, that would be accurate; correct, 10 whether it's reported as a relative risk or whether 11 it's been reported as an SMR; correct, it's been 12 reported both ways? 13 A For what? 14 Q For benzene causing an increased risk for 15 the development of blood cancers including leukemia. 16 A I have to look at this. If you tell 17 me -- if you give me a study I'll look at it. 18 Q I understand that. Sitting here today, 19 as an epidemiologist rendering an opinion in this case 20 that benzene is not related to chronic myeloid 21 leukemia, have you seen articles that have linked all 22 hematopoietic diseases such as leukemias, CMLs, not 23 broken it down by cell type, have you seen those 24 cancers that report an increased SMR or relative risk 25 for the development of those diseases? 48 1 A Yes. There are studies reporting an 2 increase for overall leukemia, but it may or may not 3 include CML. 4 Q That brings me around to my first 5 question, which is what is your opinion today about 6 the increased risk for the development of all 7 leukemias as a result of exposures to benzene in part 8 per million percent or part per million months? 9 A Based on what we know now, I don't think 10 that's a correct question to ask. We do not look at 11 leukemia as a single disease, but rather it's a group 12 of different diseases. 13 Q And so you can't give me an answer as to 14 all leukemias? 15 A No, I cannot. 16 Q You're familiar with the Yin study or the 17 Yin paper that was published; you're familiar with 18 that paper? 19 A Yes. 20 Q The Chinese paper? 21 MR. WOOLF: Which? 22 MR. BARRIE: The Chinese paper. 23 MR. WOOLF: The reason I came up is that 24 I don't know whether you're talking about the study as 25 a whole, or whether you're talking about various 49 1 papers that Yin is an author of, and those would be 2 two different questions. 3 MR. BARRIE: I'm talking about the 4 Chinese study where he found that there was increased 5 risk for the development of certain cell types of 6 leukemia in China. 7 Q Are you familiar with that study? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Do you have any criticisms of that study? 10 A Yes. 11 Q What are they? 12 A Number one, people keep referring to the 13 Chinese benzene study. The first part is true, it's 14 Chinese, because all the work was in China. 15 The second part of that characterization 16 is not completely true, benzene, because it's not a 17 single industry or single company study. It's a study 18 that consists of many, many different industries in 19 China. And the workers were exposed to benzene in 20 addition to a variety of different chemicals. 21 So definitely confounding exposure to 22 other substances would be a serious problem in that 23 study. 24 Q Any other criticisms? 25 A The second one would be in this country 50 1 when we do a follow up to find out whether people are 2 still alive or not, we have certain databases to go 3 to. 4 In China they don't have that. They 5 don't have a centralized place that they can use. And 6 that's the reason why they have to have what we call 7 an ad hoc comparison group, a group of workers not 8 exposed to benzene 9 Q Are you talking 10 A -- for comparison. 11 Q I don't mean to interrupt you, but are 12 you talking about the internal comparison group or a 13. national comparison group, for example, groups within 14 the same industry who have no exposure, or groups 15 outside of the industry similarly compared that do not 16 have the exposure; in other words, internal comparison 17 versus, say, like national statistics? 18 A Well, in the Chinese study, it's neither 19 one of them. In China they do not have national 20 mortality rates going back to what they want, or break 21 down by the specific disease category that they want. 22 So they have to rely on some ad hoc group. 23 Now, I don't like to use the word 24 internal comparison because they are not internal 25 groups. They are workers in some entirely different 51 1 industries. So they are not internal, so to speak, 2 internal workers. 3 Q But your criticism would be that that 4 group does not exist? 5 A I don't follow what you're saying. 6 Q I'm just trying to understand what the 7 second criticism is. We've got the first one, the 8 confounding variables that you feel for other 9 exposures; second is that they have no comparison 10 group and they have to use an ad hoc comparison group? 11 A Right. 12 Q That may not be from the same industry? 13 A They are not from the same industry. And 14 that group is very small by comparison. And the 15 rates, the disease, the mortality rates in the 16 comparison group are highly unstable because of the 17 small number of deaths or cases due to specific 18 diseases. 19 Q Would you agree or disagree that small 20 groups present confounding issues for causation or 21 lack of causation when you're doing epidemiological 22 studies? 23 A I'm not even talking about that. I'm 24 saying when you compare, for example, a benzene 25 exposed group to the national average, using the 52 1 national rates, the national rates are very stable, 2 that's what we use in this country. 3 In China, they don't do that. They 4 compare to another group; that group is, by 5 comparison, much smaller. For example, if you looked 6 at the chronic myeloid leukemia findings, they have 7 only two chronic myeloid leukemias in the comparison 8 group, so the entire basis for comparison in the 9 Chinese study is based on two cases only of chronic 10 myeloid leukemia. And if you have one more or one 11 less, the results were completely different. 12 Q I understand that. I guess, as a general 13 proposition, which I think was my primary question, as 14 a general proposition, when you're doing 15 epidemiological studies, is it true or not true that 16 when you have small numbers or small cases that you're 17 looking at, you have a problem with either over 18 estimating or underestimating the results? 19 A Well, when you have a small group, you 20 should really look at -- well, for any study results, 21 you should look at what we call the 95 percent 22 confidence interval. 23 If the study is small, what we are saying 24 is that the estimate, the risk estimate may not be 25 that reliable and you will see a huge, 95 percent 53 1 confidence interval. 2 So if you're talking about certain 3 diseases that that rate is not that high, then by 4 looking at smaller studies, yes, your finding will not 5 be that conclusive. 6 Q Other than those two criticisms, are 7 there any others? 8 A Another major criticism of the Chinese 9 study would be underestimate of the exposure. 10 Q Anything else? 11 A For some of the diseases, the diagnostic 12 accuracy is also very low. 13 Q Anything else? 14 A Those are the major ones. 15 Q In your two papers that are referenced as 16 Exhibits K and L, have you gone back to reevaluate the 17 data that was used in the publication of these two 18 studies? 19 A Since the publication? 20 Q Yes, sir. 21 A No. 22 Q Where does the data for these two studies 23 exist? 24 A I don't even know. That was done when I 25 was with a different company, a different place. CMA 54 1 may have it. I don't know. 2 Q Was there a file tape that was kept; in 3 other words, an electronic -- like a diskette or 4 something that this data was used on for use on 5 computers? 6 A We didn't have diskettes then, we had 7 tapes. 8 Q You have tapes? 9 A We had tapes at that time. I'm sure at 10 that time we have a copy of the tape. 11 Q Where would that be? 12 A Now? 13 Q Yes. 14 A I don't know. 15 Q Is it typical after you get the study 16 done and then you go -- you issue a report, does the 17 report go then back to the sponsor? 18 A Of course the report goes to the sponsor. 19 Q Is that the final report or is it a 20 preliminary report? 21 A Most of the time we have a draft report 22 sent to the sponsor and they may comment on that, and 23 if we accept the comments, we may incorporate that 24 into the final report. 25 If we don't, we may explain why we do not 55 1 accept those comments, but there would be a draft 2 report and a final report. 3 Q If the draft report goes up and there are 4 comments suggested by the sponsor, if the suggestions 5 are made, are they incorporated into the report or do 6 you make a decision one way or the other whether to 7 follow those recommendations for changes and then 8 issue another draft report? 9 For example, I submit my thesis to my 10 doctoral committee; it goes up to my doctoral 11 committee group and my group takes a look at it and 12 they say, uh-huh, here's this guy's thesis and he is 13 saying this, that and the other thing. 14 We think we ought to change A, B, C and 15 D. It comes back to me, I then redo it; it goes back 16 again. You've been through this routine. It comes 17 back again. There is a constant 18 A I did not go through that routine. I 19 think they accepted my thesis the first time around. 20 Q You are a fortunate gentleman. 21 A No, I'm not fortunate. I'm just better 22 than you are. 23 Q That we shall see. 24 A I'm just kidding you. Don't get 25 offended. I'm kidding. I don't remember how many 56 1 times my thesis got sent back. 2 Q But in all seriousness, there are changes 3 that are recommended, usually in studies, candidly, 4 and they come back for revision and go back again. 5 I'm asking you, when somebody -- when a 6 sponsor sends back an answer or a critique or 7 something, they are the people that are paying for the 8 study, number one, and number two, you're going to 9 incorporate them somehow. 10 And I'm just asking you: Is the draft 11 that goes up that comes back, that may go back up 12 again, that may come back down, is that always 13 , referred to as the draft? 14 MR. WOOLF: Counsel, I object to the 15 colloquy and move to strike the characterization of 16 what the witness has already testified to your 17 original question, on the same subject, is that if 18 suggestions come back from the sponsor, they are 19 considered and sometimes they are accepted and 20 incorporated in the final study, that is the final 21 report, and sometimes they are rejected and not 22 incorporated in the final report. 23 Your colloquy suggests that the 24 suggestions are always incorporated in the final 25 report, and that's not what the witness said. So I 57 1 would appreciate if you now ask the question without 2 the characterizations and let the witness answer 3 whatever questions you have in mind. 4 MR. BARRIE: I'm trying really hard to do 5 that. 6 Q The bottom line is, how many times it may 7 go up and down, even if it's once or zero, is the 8 report always labeled as a draft or is it draft one, 9 draft two, or just draft? 10 A I think we will label it as draft. And I 11 can't think of too many occasions you would be back 12 and forth several times. 13 Now, sometimes that sponsor may say wait 14 a minute, you completely left out one analysis that we 15 want to see, or you left out some analysis that you 16 promised to do in your proposal or at some meetings 17 and so on. Then we would go back and do some of those 18 things. But most of the time it would be 19 clarifications of what we did, or maybe provide more 20 discussion on some findings and so on. 21 Q Do you distinguish the drafts? 22 A No. 23 Q If there is more than one, do you say 24 draft one, draft two, or is it always draft? 25 A I would say it would be draft, but there 58 1 would be a date on the report that we can look at. 2 Q I'm trying to understand whether it would 3 be draft one, two, three or just draft? 4 A Personally I don't use that system. 5 Q So it would be draft? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Is it still your opinion that there is 8 only one recognized cause for the development of 9 chronic myeloid leukemia, that being ionizing 10 radiation? 11 A I have not looked at other risk factors 12 of chronic myeloid leukemia. I won't be able to 13 answer your question sitting here today. 14 Q Did you look at any other risk factors 15 for the development of Mr. Leija's chronic myeloid 16 leukemia to rule them in or rule them out? 17 A No. 18 Q I believe -- and correct me if I'm 19 wrong -- I believe you gave a presentation at Rutgers 20 University one time on benzene-related leukemias. Do 21 you recall doing that at Rutgers? 22 A My coauthor gave or delivered the 23 presentation. I did not. 24 Q You didn't do that? 25 A No. Are you referring to a 1995 benzene 59 12 Q That's correct. 3 A Raabe, he was the one who gave the 4 presentation, but I was a coauthor of that paper. 5 Q And .that was a paper that was distributed 6 to the members or the participants there? 7 A I don't know. 8 Q Do you have a copy of that paper, if it's 9 not already been presented here today? 10 A It's based on my 1995 publication. It's 11 the same paper. 12 Q I just want to be sure it's the same 13 paper. 14 A Yes. 15 Q Looking at Exhibit 6-K, which was a paper 16 that you authored, they discuss a variety of plants, 17 facilities, and the paper is rather in-depth about 18 data received, data analyzed. I'm not going through 19 that with you, but just looking here at table one on 20 Exhibit 6-K, you see the plants one through seven? 21 A Right. 22 Q Can you tell me what those plants were in 23 numerical area; what was plant one, what was plant 24 two, three, four, five, six or seven? 25 A I don't remember. 60 1 Q Is there any way that you would have 2 documents to refresh your memory? 3 A No. 4 Q Do you know where those materials would 5 be maintained, this raw data? 6 A The sponsor may remember. I mean, the 7 sponsor may have some documents to refer to. 8 Q Is it your procedure once you finish a 9 presentation or something for one of the sponsors that 10 you just purge all the data or send it back, or what 11 do you do with it all? 12 A Well, in this study it was done with 13 another company when I was there. I left the company 14 some time ago. 15 Q That company was? 16 A The company was -- at that time when I 17 did the study -- was Environmental Health Associates. 18 Later on -- and Environmental Health Associates was 19 merged with another company, LASER Company, and I left 20 them at the end of 1990. 21 Q Did you leave all the data with them? 22 A The data was at LASER. I don't know 23 because this is an old study, but, in general, the 24 studies that I did when I was there, the data remained 25 there. 61 1 Q Where is NSER? 2 A I don't even know whether they are in 3 existence or not. 4 Q Where's the company? 5 A The company? 6 Q Is it still in existence? 7 A I don't know. 8 Q Where were they? 9 A They were all over. The headquarters 10 were in Houston. 11 Q What about Environmental Health 12 Associates? 13 A It's no longer an entity, it merged with 14 NSER. 15 Q When did that merger occur? 16 A 1987. 17 Q Do you know whether NSER is still in 18 Houston, Texas? 19 A I have no idea. 20 Q When you left Environmental Health 21 Associates, who did you report to? 22 A I don't even remember the names. I was 23 there for a short three years, and they had some 24 people changing positions and so on. 25 Q Okay. In either of these two studies 62 1 that are reflected in Exhibits 6-L or 6-K, did you 2 ever go back to redo the study to include and 3 incorporate contract workers? 4 A No. 5 Q What is the name of your company right 6 now? I wrote it down, I apologize. 7 A Applied Health Sciences. 8 Q You said they were formed in 1991? 9 A Yes. Well, actually, I started working 10 there in 1991, but we may have filed for incorporation 11 at the end of 1990 or something. 12 Q And which state are they incorporated? 13- A The best state, California. 14 Q You're talking to somebody from Texas so 15 that can't be true. But seriously 16 A California. I am serious, it is the 17 best. 18 MR. WOOLF: Do you want to ask him or do 19 you want me to ask him? 20 MR. BARRIE: Let's just wait until I'm 21 done. 22 MR. WOOLF: That's fine. 23 BY MR. BARRIE: 24 Q In the formation of your opinions today, 25 have you made any assumptions? Are you there any 63 1 assumptions that you're saying, I base my opinion on 2 the articles, and you've brought them here today, but 3 I'm also assuming A, B, C, D and E, are there any 4 assumptions that you're making here today in the 5 formation of your opinions, aside from the articles? 6 A Well, I mean, there is some facts that I 7 assumed in this particular case, that his diagnosis 8 was chronic myeloid leukemia. That is one of the 9 assumptions. 10 Q You're not sure of the diagnosis, that's 11 an assumption you're making? 12 A That's something that I accepted. 13 Q Okay. 14 A I'm also assuming the employment history, 15 which I summarized in one of the exhibits that I 16 provided to you. 17 Q Why is that important? 18 A That means that he worked at the refinery 19 for a certain number of years. I mean, that's the 20 part that I have to address. 21 Q Any others? 22 A That's it. 23 Q When people work at refineries, are they 24 at risk for exposure to benzene? 25 A I would say so. Some are exposed to 64 1 higher levels than others, depending on the time 2 period we're talking about. 3 Q But, as a general proposition, people 4 that worked in refineries in the '60s and '70s and 5 '80s are at risk for exposure to benzene? 6 A That's correct. 7 Q You're not telling us today that the 8 plaintiff didn't have any risk for exposure to 9 benzene; you're not telling us that today, are you? 10 A No. 11 MR. BARRIE: Dr. Wong, that's all the 12 questions I have at this point. 13. MR. WOOLF: For the deponent's sake none. 14 that means we're through. 15 (Plaintiff's Exhibits 1 - 6-W marked) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 65 1 2 3 4 5 I, OTTO WONG, do hereby declare under 6 penalty of perjury that I have read the foregoing 7 transcript; that I have any corrections as appear 8 noted, in ink, initialed by me; that my testimony as 9 contained herein, as corrected, is true and correct. 10 EXECUTED this day of , 11 19 , at (City) (State) 12 13 OTTO WONG 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A RECORD OF EXCELLENCE E SQU I R E ", Troy Lansing Grand Rapids 248-244-9700 Sli-337-1337 C16-Rio-6U!) Detroit Ann Arbor Kalamazoo' DEPOSITION SERVICES 313-961-5560 7 34-7 69-i S08 C, i 6-i 5=-i. ;,,,