Document RJOkq2wGR2BRO4qzRoDD27dBE

Ohio L.'ur&au t...' Workers' Cct.'iptj isoisoi i Division of Safety & Hygiene 8120 Washington Village Drive Dayton. Ohio 45458 Toll F'CC 1 eOO CHK 77GU Phonr |C13) 433-0876 Fn (513)-:23 602 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT REK-38 October 2, 199 0 J udy Spencer Legal Section Industrial Commission of Ohio . 35 E. Chestnut Street, 6th FIot Columbus, OH 43215 O. D. : Claimant: Company: R. E. Kramig Co., 323 So. Vayne Ave. Cincinnati, OH 45215 Dear Ms. Spencer, is a 58 year-old man who worked as an insulator for the Kramig Co. from 1964 till 1969. After that, he worked for a number of other employers until January, 1989. Insulators were very likely to be exposed to a wide range of type** and concentrations of asbestos-containing dust. The relationsnip between exposures to asbestos-containing dust and the diseases which-are associated with those exposures are well documented. worked at Kraaig prior to the time when these facts were widely known. Also, before the advent of OSHA regulations in 1971, little attention was paid to personal protective equipment in general, and respirators in particular. As a result, exposures were generally high in those occupations that were naturally dusty by virtue of raw materials used and products made. Insulators often mixed and applied bulk asbestos both manually and by machines. High dust levels were generated. Workers were often exposed to high levels on a regular basis. Because of the long latency period from exposure to onset of symptoms, the effects did not show for some time. The response varies considerably from one worker to another. Dr. Kelly made a diagnosis for of asbestosis based upon several tests and signs and symptoms. Several diagnostic tests are generally made to corroborate asbestos- related disease. They can be very ambiguous since a number of diseases share the same, or similar symptoms. X-ray results are especially open to question. A paper by Murphy states "The chest roentgenogram is the best means to exclude many other diseases as well as to quantitate their importance when present. The major problem is with the nonspecificlty of the findings, particularly in detecting slight or early disease. Bilateral, small, irregular, and linear opacification (more predominant in the ]ower lung fields) and associated pleural disease are the raost commonly accepted features of asbestosis. Vhen found in an advanced degiee with known exposure, specificity for asbestosis is high. However, when irregular, linear, basal opacities are present in slight profusion, they are easily confused with the normal vascular markings, with shadowing caused by poor inspiration, with soft tissue densities due to breast or other fatty tissue, and by the effect" of low kllovoltage - making this interpretation one of the most subjective in radiology." Pulmonary function test results indicate mild obstructive disease, according to Dr. Atterbury. Asbestosis usually causes restlctive disease. Obstructive disease, or COPD is roost often caused by snaking. According to the American Lung Association, "Cigarette smoking is the most important cause of chronic obstructive bronchopulmonary disease CCOPD) in the United States. It increases the risk of dying from pulmonary emphysema and whronic bronchitis. Smokers show an increased preval_..ce of respiratory symptoms, including cough, sputum production, and breathlessness, when compared with non-smokers. For the bulk of the population of the U.S., the importance of cigarette smoking as a cause of COPD is much greater than that of atmospheric pollution or occupational exposure". states that he smoked 1 1/2 '- 2 packs of cigarettes a day for 30 years <Dr. Kelly indicates only 2v> years). This is a minimum of 35 pack-years to a maximum of 60 pack-years. By itself, this could cause serious respiratory complications and disease. Combined with asbestos exposures, the likelihood of more serious complications increases by orders of magnitude. There is little doubt thathad varying degrees of exposure to asbestos-containing materials during his employment at Kramig. It is also possible that some effect of those exposures has resulted by now. However, exposure to an agent does not guarantee the development of disease. There are ether complications mentioned in the medical file, such as coronary ai tery disease, which could be important in this claim, also. In summary, was probably exposed to seme levels of asbestos-containing materials during his work at Kramig, but the results may be more a matter of medical Interpretation than environmental. I nay be of further assistance in this claim, please let Sincerely, ames S. Ferguson, \FIH Industrial Hygienist ASBESTOS REFERENCES References: .1 Occupational Lung Diseases. Veill & Turnei-- Warwick, Karcel Dekker-, Inc.', N.Y. ,1901. .2 Pulmonary Function Tests in Clinical and Occupational Lung Disea^-i Miller, Ed. , Grune and Stratton, Inc., N.Y. 19Lv. 3. Asbestos Related Disease: Difficulties in Diagnosing Occupationally Pelated Illness. Murphy, R., Frontiers in Medicine, Feb. 10, 1961. 4. Federal Register. Vol. 5V, #119, June 29, 1986. 5. Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. American Lung Association,K.Y., 1977. .6 Development, radiological zone patterns, and importance of diffuse pleural thickening in relation to occupational exooi-.ure to asbestos. Bohlig and Calavrezos, British Journalof Industrial Medicine, 44:673-681, 1987. 7. Asbestos: Scientific Developments and Implications for Public Policy. Mossraan, et al. Science, vol. 247, February, 1990. 8. Hughes aiid Veill, Asbestos Exposure - Quantitative Assessment of Risk. Am. Rev. Respi* . Dls. , 133:5- 13, 1986.