Document RjZr5ywab7MRBJ5Dbp7Gmnnpa

> A Yes, I am talking about normal people. I Q You are not talking about sick people as well? 2 3 A No, sir. 4 Q They are notincluded in.that group? 5 A No, sir. Q You are saying 10 percent or what percent? 6 7 A Ten percent of people taking medication for sleep. Q Ten percent of normal healthy people take medication for sleep? 8 9 A Yes, sir. Q And Doctor, where do you find that recorded? 10 A I*think it's McBride's Signs and Symptoms, 1983. II Q And It was of a random selection? 12 13 A Normal population, people who come in without any other complaint 14 will complain of headaches, I mean, complain of difficulty sleeping. Q And what about thefatigue, sir? 15 16 A The statement that's by (he same author says most people will 17 complain of fatigue. 18 Q And what about the poor appetite? 19 A On the poor appetite, abQut half of these people complaining of poor appetite here were overweight. 20 21 Q Doctor, what about poor appetite? . 22 A I don't have a number on,that because it's hard to describe. 23 Q What about the neurobehavloral? 24 A Couldn't find anything on neurobehavloral either, but five people 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF ILLINOIS 2 ST. CLAIR COUNTY 3 4 FRANCES E. KEMNER, et al., 5 Plaintiffs 6 V. 7 MONSANTO COMPANY, 8 Defendant ) ) ) ) ) CAUSE NO. 80-L-970 ) ) ) ) 9 10 REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS 11 Before the HONORABLE RICHARD P. GOLDENHERSH 12 Testimony of Dr. George Rousch 13 July 16, 1985 14 IS APPEARANCES: 16 MR. REX CARR, Attorney at Law, and MR. JEROME SEIGFREID, Attorney at Law, 17 On behalf of the Plaintiffs; 18 MR. KENNETH R. HEINEMAN, Attorney at Law, and MR. JOSEPH NASSIF, Attorney at Law, 19 On behalf of the Defendant. 20 21 22 23 PATRICIA A. GANDY, CSR, RPR 24 Official Court Reporter another final report, and you've said these two things within two minutes 1 of one another, Doctor. Do you recognize that, sir, what you are saying 2 3 in this case? 4 A Yes, sir. 5 Q Now, Doctor, from 1980 up until one month ago or less than a month ago the document that you have before you was the final report, 6 7 wasn't It, sir7 8 A It was the draft of the final report, 9 Q Were you ever told by anybody at any time that It was not his 10 final report? 11 A We told him It wasn't. 12 Q Were you ever told at any time by Dr. Suskind that that was not 13 his final report? 14 A Yes. IS Q When did he tell you that, sir, and where is the document that 16 says it? 17 A I don't have it. 18 Q No, you don't have it because it doesn't exist, Isn't that correct, 19 sir? 20 A It doesn't exist? 21 Q Yes, because you were never told by Dr. Suskind In any kind of 22 written form at all that this was not a final report, isn't that correct, 23 sir? 24 A No, sir. Q Where Is the document then where he says this Is not the final 1 report, Doctor? 2 3 A There is none. 4 Q And you were never told that In any document, were you, sir, that 5 this Is not the final report? A Tes. 6 7 Q Where Is the document then? A I don't have the document. 8 9 Q Doctor, listen to my question. You were never told in writing 10 that this was not the final draft, were you, sir? 11 A Wo, sir; no, sir. 12 Q And from 1980 up until 1985, June of 1985, there was nothing in 13 writing from Dr. Susklnd other than this Is the final draft, isn't that 14 correct, sir? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q Doctor, did you ever write him a letter saying this doesn't look 17 like a final draft to me, send me a final draft? 18 A Never wrote-- 19 Q He never wrote you saying that It was not a final draft, he 20 wrote you saying It was a final draft, isn't that right, sir? 21 A No, sir; no, sir. 22 Q What did he tell you about this? 23 This is a draft of the final report. 24 Q Where does he say It Is a draft, sir? 1 A It doesn't say It. 2 Q Then why do you tell me he says It was a draft? He doesn't say 3 It was a draft, he tells you It Is his final report, doesn't he, sir? 4 A No, sir. 5 Q Doctor, does he give you,the results that he's reached? 6 A He gave me preliminary results. 7 Q Where does he call these preliminary results, Doctor? 8 A He doesn't. 9 Q Doctor, if he doesn't call them preliminary results, where are 10 they described as preliminary results? 11 A It doesn't say It. 12 Q Do you have a single document in existence that describes this 13 report as preliminary results? 14 A No, sir. 15 Q Do you have anything In existence other than telling you that 16 this la the final report, sir? 17 A No, sir. 18 Q And Doctor, you have a union that you negotiate with, don't you, 19 air? 20 A We have a number of unions we negotiate with. 21 Q And you have a union that has asked you for these results, isn't 22 that right, sir? 23 A I would suspect so. 24 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1501 was marked for Identification.) Q Handing you now what has been marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 1501, 1 which consists of about four pages, ask you if you recognize that as a 2 3 document dealing with this report and the union's request for this report. 4 MR. HEINEMAN: This is what number, 1501? 5 MR. CARR: Your Honor, I don't think I offered 1500 into evidence. 1 offer 1500 of the report Itself into evidence. 6 7 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1500 was offered into evidence.) 8 THE COURT: He has just handed you 1501. 9 MR. CARR: 1500 is the report, counsel. 10 THE COURT: Do you have any objection to 1500, the report? II MR. HEINEMAH: No, we have no objection to 1500, your Honor. 12 THE COURT: Fine. It Is admitted without objection. Thank 13 you. 14 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1500 was admitted Into evidence.) 15 MR. HEINEMAN: But we haven't said anything about 1501 yet. 16 THE COURT: Not yet. The question has been asked, I don't 17 believe it's been answered yet. 18 Q Doctor, you recognize 1501 as a Monsanto document dealing with 19 the dioxin Information and the Susklnd report, do you not, sir? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 MR. CARR: I offer 1501 Into evidence If It please the Court. 22 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1501 was offered Into evidence.) 23 THE COURT: Any objections to 1501? 24 MR. HEINEMAN: Your Honor, my only objection would be that there Is no evidence that this witness has ever seen this document before. He I didn't write it, it isn't written to him, there is no evidence that he 's 2 3 ever seen the documents that comprise Plaintiff's Exhibit 1501 and 4 therefore I don't think an adequate foundation has been laid for Its 5 admission. I object to it. THE COURT: Objection overruled. It is admitted over objection. 6 7 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1501 was admitted into evidence.) (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1501A was marked for identification.) 8 9 Q Doctor, 1501A, a blow-up of 1501? 10 A Yea, sir. 11 HR. CARR: I offer 1501A,into.evidence if it please the Court. 12 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1501A was offered into evidence.) 13 THE COURT: Same objections? 14 MR. HEINEMAN: Which page is it? 15 MR, CARR: Last page. 16 MR. HEINEMAN: Same objections, your Honor. 17 THE COURT: I 'll incorporate those same objections. 18 MR. HEIHEMAN: In addition, your Honor, if I might object to it 19 as a hearsay document as well. 20 THE COURT: Okay. That objection is also noted and denied. 21 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1501A was admitted into evidence.) 22 Q Doctor, the first page of 1501-- oh, by the way, who Is Shaneberger? 23 A He's one of the workers at the Krummrich plant. 24 Q Isn't he more than that? Isn't he plant superintendent? 1 A Molloy Is plant superintendent. 2 Q Well no I'm sorry, Shaneberger was general superintendent of 3 personnel? 4 A I don't know that. 5 Q Well, he's described as such on the last page. 6 A Yes, sir. 7 Q And Molloy who also received a copy of this, Is the manager of 8 the plant superintendent, Isn't he, sir? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q And the first page points out that the union has asked for 11 Information about dioxin and they want to-- It1s Important enough to them 12 that they even want to make It part of the union negotiations, don't they, 13 sir? 14 A Yes, sir. IS Q And the-- there Is a suggested response there that's on the second 16 page, but to get first things first, before ve get to that, the request for 17 Information came from the union dated October the 13th, 1983, that's 1501A, 18 isn't It, sir? The last page? 19 A Yes, sir. 20 Q And the union wants the list of all persons that's worked In 21 Departments 236, 237, 239 and also on 262 and 266, correct, sir? 22 A * Yes, sir. 23 Q Now, 262 and 268 Is where the 2,4,5-T`was sent from Nltro, 24 West Virginia, was mixed with the 2,4-D manufactured at the Krummxlch plant, Isn't that correct, sir? I A I think that's correct. I wasn't a member of Monsanto at that 2 3 time. 4 Q Well, you received Information to that effect, haven't you, 5 Doctor? A Yes, but my memory is not accurate on that. But I think what 6 7 you are saying Is correct. Q Let me help your memory a little, sir. I don't need to make It 8 9 as an exhibit, but this deals with questions dealing with the Krummrlch study 10 and It identifies when agent orange was made at the Monsanto plant, doesn't 11 It, sir? 12 A Yes, but my problem was the number. I knew that It was done. 13 Q See Department 238 there, sir? 14 A Yes 15 Q Yes. Now, Doctor, the union, the officials of the union wanting 16 Monsanto to give the list of the workers that worked in Departments 236, 17 that's a pentachlorophenol, 237, that's the chlorophenol where orthochloro18 phenol, parachlorophenol, 2,A-dichlorophenol, all that Is made, isn't that 19 right? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 Q And 238, which is also a chlorophenol department, I forget just 22 what did they make in 239? 23 A I don't know. I forgot. 24 Q They want the list of all the people that work there, don't they, sir? 1 A Yes, sir. 2 3 Q And they also want a copy of the soil sample analyses that were 4 taken recently? 5 A Yes, sir. Q You recall that you did sample the soil and you did find dioxin 6 7 Ln some of the areas of the plant, sir? You made It Into a parking lot, lo you recall that, sir? S 9 A Yea, sir. r 10 Q And they wanted a copy of those soil samples, didn't they, sir? 11 A Yes, sir. 12 Q And they also wanted that you take tests ln and around the 13 squipment in 237 and 239 and to give those results to them before the 14 equipment was dismantled, do you recall that, sir? 15 A I'm not sure of the relationship between that request and the 16 time it was dismantled. 17 Q Well, it says, number four, when you read number four It says 18 they want the tests of that equipment to be made before dismantling of 19 the equipment. 20 A Yes, sir, yes. 21 Q And we had the other day the memo that was dealing with the 22 ilsmantllng of the equipment and the fact that you told the people from the 23 laden Contracting Company that dioxin would be there and that there could 24 se severe health effects from that dioxin, do you recall that, sir? 1 A Tee, sir 2 Q Sir? 3 A Yes, sir, 4 Q And your own workers now.are wanting teststo be madeofthat 5 equipment and wanting Information about that, aren't they, sir?Aren't 6 they, sir? 7 A Yes, sir. 8 Q And they also want you tp test the people working In Departments 9 237 and 239, don't they, sir? 10 A Yes, sir. n Q And theywant a joint letter to be Issued to Dr. Raymond Susklnd 12 demanding a report on the results of this testing In 1979? 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q And Doctor, you at Monsanto had that report since September of 15 1980, didn't you7 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q And here, the union wants You to join with them In a joint letter 18 demanding that you get these results, and you had It for three years and 19 never gave it to them and they're getting so desperate for It they want you 20 to join with them In a joint letter, aren't they, sir? 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q Sir? 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q And Doctor, you tell them the responses that, one of the responses I Chat you give them is the union, and this Is the second document, second 2 page of this document, the union will be Informed that DMEH has made 3 requests for a final report on this study, such requests have been made 4 again recently, If they Insist, we will give them Susklnd's address If they 5 desire to make a request of their own, do you see that, sir? 6 A Yes, sir. 7 Q And of course you had It all this time, didn't you, sir? 8 A No final report. 9 Q Oh, Doctor, we have gone through that farce once already. It 10 was treated and you had It as a final report, and that was the only form II you had it in, and you had it and you didn't give it to the union, isn't 12 that correct, sir? 13 A Tes, sir. 14 Q And you told them that you had made requests, well, you had made IS requests for the report and you had received response to those requests, 16 you received the report, didn't you? 17 A No, sir. 18 Q You didn't receive the report dated September 29th, 1980 in 19 response to requests made? 20 A We had subsequent requests after that report was received. 21 Q Doctor, I beg to differ. x You did not, and if you did, where are 22 they, sir? Where are the subsequent requests? 23 A They're not written. 24 Q Now, Doctor, you made no memo either, did you, sir? 1 A No, sir. Q There Isn't a single thing that you made a telephone call to 2 3 Dr. Susklnd where I want a final report. What you are saying now la someth! 4 that has occurred to you since June of 1985, Isn't that correct, Dr. Rousch? 5 A No, sir; no, sir. Q Dr. Rousch, did anybody make a memo, a call to Dr. Susklnd 6 7 requesting a final report when you had this report since September, 1980? A No, sir. 8 9 Q Nobody did, did they, sir? 10 A No, sir. 11 Q Nobody put It In a-- made.a telephone record, a memo of a telephone 12 call, nobody had a letter, nobody's got a carbon copy, and you've got nothing 13 back from Dr, Susklnd responding one way or another, do you, sir? 14 A No, sir. 15 Q You don't have a note from Dr. Susklnd saying It's coming up, 16 and you know why you don't have It, Doctor. 17 A No, sir. 18 Q Because you had the report from September 29th or shortly before 19 September 29th, 1980, Doctor, you didn't even tell the union If you had 20 that report, If It wasn't a final report, did you, sir? 21 A I don't know. 22 Q Well, do you see any place here that they're going to be Informed 23 that you've got this report and you have had It since September, 1980, that 24 It's not final and you are going to send off for a final one, is that contal in there anywhere, Doctor? 1 A Ho, sir. 2 3 Q And Doctor, do you know that the union was In fact told that 4 they had never received a report from Dr. Suskind? 5 A No, sir. 6 Q Doctor, did you have any ,,knowledge that this was going on with t 7 the union as shown In 1501? 8 A I don't recall it. 9 Q Now Doctor, they refer to your department, they say the union 10 will be Informed that DMEH has made a request for a final report on this 11 study you were involved with-- was your department used there without your 12 knowledge, was the name of your department used without your knowledge? 13 A I don't know. 14 Q Now, Doctor, has the union been told now that you've got a result, IS sir? 16 A When Dr. Susklnd said it.was a final report, we called It a final 17 report. 18 Q So what you are saying that you told them since our recess about 19 this report, didn't you, sir? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 Q Doctor, in point of fact, you told them after we attached and afte 22 we gave you a copy of our analysis of the lab results and of the medical 23 reports, that's when you told the union, after we gave them a copy as well, 24 isn't that correct, sir? A I can't relate It to the.timing of your analysis. 1 Q Oh, Doctor, It occurred, .you told them sometime after the second 2 3 week in June of 1985, didn't you, sir? 4 A I don't know the timing related to yours. 5 Q My question Is, you told.them sometime after the second week of June, 1985, didn't you, sir? 6 7 A I'm not sure of the week when Susklnd said that's the final report. Q Doctor, It occurred after our recess, or during our recess, 8 9 didn't it, sir? 10 A Or just before our recess. 11 Q Or just before, Doctor? .. 12 A Yes. 13 Q Now you're changing your testimony. 14 A No. IS Q It occurred, Doctor, and(I've got a copy of the plant bulletin 16 and I Intend to Introduce It Into evidence. It occurred after I served you 17 with a copy of our analysis of this September, 1980 health report, isn't 18 that correct, sir? 19 A I don't know. 20 Q You don't know? Do you know that not to be correct, sir? 21 A No. 22 Q Do you have any documentq, sir, any copy of any documents where 23 you are telling the workers of this result? 24 A No, sir. Q Then how did you tell them, sir? Because I am supposed to 1 receive copies of any documents dealing with dioxin, dealing with these 2 3 health studies, how did you tell them? Did you call them all up on the 4 telephone? 5 A No, sir. I !m not sure I have told them. Q You just got through saying a few moments ago that you did tell 6 7 them. A No, I did not. 8 9 Q Doctor, I ask you, have they ever been told, and you said now they have been told, once we were told by Dr. Susklnd that it was a final 10 report we then told them? 11 A No, sir, I said they can be told after that. 12 13 Q Is that what you believe you said, Doctor? 14 A Yes, sir. 15 Q And as a matter of fact they haven't yet been told, have they, 16 sir? 17 A I don't know. 18 Q Do you have any Information at all as to what they have been told? 19 A No, sir. 20 Q Doctor, from 1980 until 1985 you had these results and they haven't 21 yet been told, isn't that correct, sir? To your knowledge they have hot? 22 A They have not. , ' 23 Q Now, Doctor, have you looked-- well, first of all, let's look at 24 this report, sir. 1 THE COURT: Mr. Carr, before you get into that, is this a good point for a short recess? 2 3 MR. CARR; Yes, your Honpr. 4 THE COURT: Ladles and gentlemen, we will take a short break 5 at this time, and then resume testimony. I remind you that you are not 6 to discuss this matter among yourselves or with anyone outside the panel. 7 The Court is in a short recess. 8 (At this time Court was in recess.) 9 BY MR. CARR: 10 Q Doctor, with regard to the report itself, which was Exhibit 1500, II the very first page of it says it's a study of the health of the workers 12 involved in the production of pentachlorophenol and other chlorinated phenols 13 does it not, sir? 14 A Yes, sir. 15 Q And on the-- in the introduction page, it gives the objective of 16 the study in the very second sentence there on that page, it says the 17 objective was to determine the health status of employees of the W.G. Krummrl 18 plant who have been exposed to chlorinated phenols and to identify those 19 conditions which might be related to the work environment. Do you see that, 20 sir? 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q And on the next page, the page numbered two of this study, it 23 says the scope and conduct of the survey, it talks about the questlonnaire 24 and the medical history, it also talks about all the laboratory tests that 1 are included, blood, CA, F, BUN, creatinine, BUN-creatlnlne ratio, uric acid, 2 glucose, total protein, albumin, globulin, total bilirubin, transaminase 3 SGO and SGP, alkaline phosphotase, LDH, cholesterol, iron, magnesium, sodium, 4 potassium, chloride, G-glutamyltranspepsldase, triglycerides and lipoprotein 5 profiles, CBC and differential, urinalysis and urinary coproporphyrin, 6 uroporphyrins, and creatinine, do you see that, sir? 7 A Yes, sir. 8 Q Now, as far as the coproporphyrin is concerned, he describes it as 9 a single void sample, and says that it was not possible to interpret 10 significance of levels outside the normal range, do you see that, sir? 11 A Yes, sir. 12 Q This single void sample of the copro and uroporphyrins was exactly 13 the same porphyrins that he ordered in the Nltro test that he conducted some 14 four months before this, that is in June of *79, isn't that correct, sir? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q And he ordered these same porphyrins, he could have ordered a 17 24-hour sample if he wanted to, could he not, sir, in each of these instances, 18 that is in Nitro and in the Krummrich plant, couldn't it, sir? 19 A Yes, sir. 20 Q But he chose to order a single sample rather than the 24-hour 21 sample, didn't he, sir? 22 A Yes, sir. _` 23 Q Now* do you believe that.it's a possibility that he chose to -'f( 24 order the single sample rather than the 24-hour sample so that he could use 1 the results If It appeared to support a position that he or Monsanto 2 wanted to take with regard to porphyrins, hut that if it did not support 3 the end result desired, that he could then disregard it because he could 4 say, well, it's not a 24-hour sample if it comes out in a fashion that he 5 did not like the result of, do you think that's a possibility, Doctor? 6 A No, sir. 7 Q And Doctor, if that isn't-- he did as we went through, he did put 8 the porphyrin results in the second draft of his Nltro study, didn't he, 9 sir? 10 A Yes, sir. 11 Q And he didn't call it wrong or void or anything of that sort, 12 did he, sir, but he eliminated those porphyrin results in his final 13 published report, didn't he, sir? 14 A Yes, sir. 15 Q And you know that in this report he makes no mention of the 16 porphyrin results, does he, sir? 17 A No, sir. 18 Q Now, Doctor, why would he order a porphyrin, urine porphyrin test 19 on two occasions and then disregard the results, not comment on the reSfclts 20 in the final published report? 21 A Because he hadn't looked at the Nltro study before he did this 22 one. 23 Q Nell, Doctor, he knew what he was doing. He's a good, competent 24 physician, isn't he, sir? He knows the kind of porphyrins needed for, if he wanted a 24-hour sample, he could have got a 24-hour sample, couldn't 1 he, sir? He ordered the tests In both of these Instances, didn't he, sir? 2 A Yes, sir. 3 Q And he got what he wanted, didn't he, sir? 4 A What he asked for, yes, sir. 5 Q And he Ignored the results of what he wanted and got each time, 6 didn't he, sir? 7 A Yes, sir. 8 Q And we've demonstrated lp the Nltro case that there was 30 to 35 9 percent abnormals for all the workers Involved In the Nltro case, between 10 28.6 to 30 percent abnormals on the tests that he ordered, didn't he, sir? 11 A No, sir. 12 13 Q We didn't show that, sir? 14 A No, sir. MR. CARR: Your Honor, rather than me cross examine to re-establish 15 16 the point, would you direct the witness that he did testify that It was 17 28.6 abnormal porphyrins recorded by Or. Susklnd on the so-called unexposed 18 group and a 35 percent abnormality finding In the porphyrins for the exposed 19 group? MR. HEINEMAN: Your Honor, may I make a point on that? May 1 20 object to that? 21 THE COURT: Go ahead. 22 23 MR, HEINEMAN: Your Honor, he.just changed the question. The. 24 question he asked Dr. Rotisch a moment ago required Dr. Rousch to admit, that the porphyrins were abnormal and that Dr. Rousch has always denied because 1 they werenrt 24-hour urines. Now he's asking you to direct the witness that 2 he did testify that that is what was reported, and I object to the misleading 3 nature of the two separate questions as deliberately trying to mislead the 4 witness. 5 THE COURT: 1 think that's a distinction without a difference. I 6 think the witness had admitted that they were noted in the laboratory reporte 7 as abnormals, and I don't think anything that's stated In the questions to 8 the witness and the request to this Court are contrary either within each 9 other's contradictions or contrary to the point that you've made. Your 10 objection is overruled. Dr. Rousch, you are so ordered to assume those II 12 facts. You may continue, Mr. Carr. BY MR. CASK: 13 14 Q Now, Doctor-- A I'm sorry, I am to assume what fact? I'm hot sure what I am 15 supposed to assume. 16 17 Q That the porphyrins in Nitro were reported to be abnormal In the case of 28.6 of those so-called unexposed workers and 35 percent In the case 18 19 of those that were exposed. A I'll assume that. 20 THE COURT: Yes, you are,ordered to assume that. 21 A Yes, sir. 22 23 Q And assume also as well that you so testified, Dr. Rousch, in 24 your earlier testimony, or also I understand the Court, at least what I've 1 asked for was that you assume that you also testified to that effect. 2 A Yes, sir. 3 Q Now, Dr. Rousch, Dr. Suskind obviously knew as well that these 4 were reported as abnormal, did he not, in the Nitro case? 5 A And I am assuming that they were reported as abnormal. 6 Q And assume that you testified that they were reported by the 7 laboratory to be abnormal. 8 A And now the question? 9 Q Dr. Suskind knew that as well, did he not, sir? 10 A I don't know, 11 Q Dr. Rousch, he reported it as abnormal In his second draft, did 12 he not, sir, with regard to these porphyrins, isn't that the very table 13 that we work with, a table that he created, he reported, you do know, don't 14 you, sir? 15 A Yes, sir, yes, sir, that.second draft, yes. 16 Q Why did you tell me you didn't know it? We spent an hour or so 17 on It. 18 A Because the final report didn't have it in-- 19 Q Well, Doctor, that doesn't take away from his knowledge, does it? 20 If he has the knowledge once, he had It at the time he prepared the final 21 draft, didn't he, sir? 22 A I don't know. 23 Q You don't know that, sir? 24 A No, sir. 1 Q You worked with Dr. Susklnd, you were with him at the University of Cincinnati-- 2 3 A No, sir. 4 Q Well, he was there and you worked with him ever since you have 5 been at Monsanto at least, you communicated with him, you have a high regard for his medical competence, don't you, sir? 6 7 A Yes, sir, Q If he knew something in regard to those tests, he wouldn't be llkel 8 9 to not know it when he prepared the next draft, would he, sir? 10 A I don't know. 11 Q You think he just simply^forgot that he had found these to be 12 abnormal? 13 A I don't know why he changed-- 14 Q Well, I'm asking you what you think, sir. Do you think he Just 15 forgot it? 16 A No, sir. 17 Q He deliberately ignored it, didn't he, sir? 18 A No, sir. 19 Q It was an accidental Ignoring of it? A No, sir. 20 21 Q He ignored it, didn't he, sir? 22 A No, sir. 23 Q He didn't ignore it in his final draft? 24 A He left it out, I Q And didn't he say that he couldn't place any significance on them? 2 A Yes, sir. 3 Q And then he deliberately.ignored those results, didn't he, sir? 4 A Yes. 5 Q Now, Doctor, if he wanted additional tests done or if Monsanto 6 had wanted additional tests done in the case of Nltro or in the case of 7 Krummrlch, those additional tests could have been ordered, could they not, 8 sir? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q But no additional tests v^re ordered, were there, sir? 11 A No, sir. 12 Q As a matter of fact, so it would follow that Dr. Susklnd, neither 13 Dr. Susklnd nor Monsanto wanted 24-hour urine samples from these workers 14 for porphyrin analysis, isn't that correct, sir? 15 A No, sir. 16 Q Doctor, if Susklnd wanted the 24-hour samples, he could have order* 17 those, could he not, sir? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q He did not order them, did he, sir? 20 A No, sir* 21 Q Therefore, he did not want them, did he, sir? 22 A 1 don't know. 23 Q Doctor, couid he have ordered them if he had wanted them? 24 A Yes, sir. 1 Q Could Monsanto have ordered them If they wanted them? A No, sir. 2 3 Q Monsanto could not? 4 A No, sir. 5 Q Doctor, weren't you working with Dr. Suskind and didn't you have communications with Dr. Suskind in which he asked you whether or not you 6 7 iad ordered additional tests, and you answered to him that you didn't think 8 additional tests were needed? 9 A No, sir. 10 (Plaintiff's Exhibit; 1502 was marked for identification.) II Q I hand you what has been marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 1502 and 12 ask you if you recognize that as a letter from Dr. Suskind, Dr. Suskind's 13 wife, Ida Suskind7 14 A Yes, sir, 15 MR* CARR: I offer 1502 into evidence If it please the Court. 16 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1502 was offered into evidence.) * 17 THE COURT: Any objections? 18 MR. -HEXNEMAN: Your Honor, there is no testimony that this witness 19 has ever seen this document before, and It's not by him nor is it to him, 20 and therefore no foundation has been laid for its admission and I object to 21 it. It's hearsay. 22 THE COURT: Objection is,overruled. It is admitted overobjection. 23 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1502 is admitted into evidence'^^ 24 Q Doctor, this exhibit that you are now looking at, I think i t 's 1 1502 It Is a letter addressed to Paul Helsler of the medical department 2 Is it not sir? 3 A He's not medical department. 4 Q He's described as being In the medical department at least In 5 this letter, Is he not, sir? 6 A Yes, sir. 7 Q Who is Paul Helsler? 8 A He was In charge of environment and safety, as well as medical. 9 They reported to him. He is not a medical man, he just has that man 10 reporting to him. 11 Q What, is your department reporting to him, then? 12 A No, Dr. Osland, the physician at Krummrlch, reported to him. 13 Q Dr. Osland Is within the department of the-- the medical department, 14 Isn't he, sir? 15 A Yes, sir, but he reported to Mr. Helsler. 16 Q He reported to Helsler and not to you? 17 A That's right. * 18 Q And then Helsler reported to you? 19 A No, sir, 20 Q You've got an employee that's in your department that doesn't 21 report to you, but does report to Helsler? 22 A He Isn't In my department, Dr. Osland Is not In my department. 23 Q I thought he said he was In the medical department. 24 A He Is the medical department at that plant. Q Doctor, do you not, are you not in charge of the entire department 1 of medicine and environmental health for the Monsanto Company? Are you not 2 3 over all of these, every plant's medical department? 4 A No, sir. 5 Q You are not in charge of .them? A No, sir. 6 7 Q I thought you testified here that you were in charge of the entire medical department at Monsanto. 8 9 A As defined by our department. 10 Q And Doctor, the medical departments in the individual plant is 11 not part of the medical department of Monsanto? 12 A No, sir. 13 Q And you have no jurisdiction over those persons? 14 A Not direct supervision. ^ 15 Q I said jurisdiction, not^supervision, Doctor. 16 A I'm not sure what the difference is. 17 Q Doctor, Paul Heisler worked with you and your department for 18 this Krummrich health study, isn't that right, sir? 19 A Yes, sir. 20 Q Your department worked with Heisler, Heisler worked with you? A Yes, sir. 21 22 Q And Doctor, this letter was sent to Mr. Heisler, it's part of 23 Monsanto's files, were you aware of its existence, sir? 24 A No, sir. Q Do you see the last paragraph on the first page where It says 1 Mr. Belcher of Metpath laboratories Indicated copies of the results of 2 the clinical biochemical test were sent to the medical department of the 3 Sauget plant at the same time we received our copies, do you see that, sir? 4 A Yes, sir. 5 Q And then it goes oh to ask what follow-ups, if any, were done on 6 laboratory findings suggesting additional testing, if additional tests were 7 done, we would appreciate having the results, do you see that, sir? 8 A Yes, sir. 9 Q And that indicates, does..It not, sir, that Monsanto's medical 10 department could have ordered additional laboratory tests if additional 11 laboratory tests were thought to be needed? 12 A Yes, sir. 13 Q And do you know that no additional laboratory tests were ordered? 14 A I don't know. 15 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1503 was marked for identification.) 16 Q I hand you Exhibit 1503. Do you recognize that as a letter 17 from Heisler to Mrs. Ida Susklnd at the University of Cincinnati? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 MR. CARR: I offer that exhibit into evidence if it please the 20 Court. 21 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1503 was offered into evidence*).V 22 MR. HEINEMAN: Your Honor, again I object on the basis, A,: that 23 it's hearsay, B, that he hasn't established that this witness has evetfSeen 24 1 It, It's not addressed to him, he didn't get a copy of it, and he didn't 2 write it, and I object to it that there is a total lack of foundation for 3 its admission, 4 THE COURT; Objection is overruled. It's admitted over objection, 5 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1503 was admitted into evidence.) 6 Q Doctor, you see that this exhibit as all other Monsanto documents 7 that we have been referring to bears the Monsanto Identification number 8 C13040 and so on, you see that? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q And it's also a letterhead of Monsanto? II A Yes, sir, 12 Q And you recognize Paul E, Helsler as being a Monsanto employee in 13 the medical department? 14 A Yes, sir, IS Q Now, Doctor, the very last paragraph on the last page of this 16 document is what I'd like to direct your attention to. The follow-ups 17 that were done were with only three people, isn't that correct, sir? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q Do you know whether or npt-- and there were no other additional 20 testing done except for those three? 21 A I don't know. 22 Q Well, do you know of any ,,additional testing that was done Other 23 than these three people? 24 A No, sir. I Q And is there any-- this report of Dr. Suskind1s is dated September 2 of 1980, September 29th, 1980, is it not, sir? 3 A This letter from Suskind? 4 Q The report of Dr. Suskind, Exhibit 1500 is dated September 29th, 5 1980, is it not, sir? 6 A Yes, sir. 7 Q Two months after the July 21st, 1980 date on Exhibit 1503, isn't 8 that correct, sir? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q So the report of Dr. Suskind's was written after he learned the 11 additional laboratory tests that were done on those three people, was it not, 12 sir? 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q And at that time he could have ordered, if he had wanted them, 15 additional porphyrin urinalysis tests, could he not, sir? 16 A Dr. Suskind? 17 Q Yes. 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q But he did not, to your knowledge; did he, sir? 20 A No, sir. 21 Q And Doctor, have you looked at the porphyrin results from your 22 Krunmrich people? Do you know how many people at Krummrich had reported 23 abnormal porphyrins by the Metpath laboratory? 24 A No, sir. 1 Q You have looked at the table that ve've prepared and that I am going to show you again shortly, you have seen that, have you not, sir? 2 3 A Yes, sir. 4 Q Sir? 5 A Yes, sir. 6 Q And that indicated abnormal porphyrins, didn't it, sir? 7 A Your report did, yes. 8 Q Did you check the report that.I gave you against the laboratory 9 results shown In these documents that's right in front of you? 10 A Yes, sir. 11 Q Did you check the other results, sir? 12 A What other-- 13 Q Other laboratory results in that study in that analysis that I 14 gave you in June. 15 A It's very difficult, see, I did all of that very well, but I 16 went through all that, yes. 17 Q Now, Doctor, this report makes a reference to all the number of 18 tests that were taken. Would you please point out in this report the place 19 where these lab results are reported other than the lipids? 20 MR. HEINEMAN: What laboratory results? I object, your Honor, I 21 think it's vague. 22 Q Laboratory data referred.to in this report, these clinical 23 laboratory tests that were taken, shown on Page 2 on Exhibit 1500. 24 A No, sir. ] Q Sir? 2 A Only lipids. .| 3 Q And Doctor, there are something like 22 tables referred to in 4 this report, do you see that, sir? Actually It lists 23, but there is 5 Table 13 missing, so there is in fact only 22 tables, do you see that, sir? 6 A Yes, sir. 7 Q Do any of those tables deal with any symptom, any disability, any 8 abnormality or any finding that could relate to dioxin poisoning other than 9 chloracne? 10 A Would you repeat that question? 11 Q Is there any table in this document that deals with anything 12 other than chloracne except Table 14, which deals with other skin conditions' 13 A And the lipids. 14 Q Even the lipid tables, Doctor, relate only to chloracne. They 15 don't relate to another single thing, another single disorder, only chloracne 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q So the only thing, Doctor, there are 22 tables, two of them deal 18 with the type of person, the status of the person studied, one table deals 19 with other skin disorders, and all th other tables deal only with chloracne, 20 isn't that correct, sir? 21 A Well, and lipids and chloracne. 22 Q But lipids only with regard to chloracne. 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q There Is not a-- the report, though, is described as the objective was to determine the health status, Isn't that what It said on the very 1 first page of the text? 2 3 A Yes, sir, 4 Q And what It reported on, ,however, was not the health status of these people, but their chloracne status with regard to, well, just chloracne 5 that's all It talks about is chloracne, doesn't It, sir? 6 7 A And lipids. Q Well, lipids only with regard, not to their health, but only 8 9 with regard to chloracne. 10 A Yes, sir. 11 Q The relationship between.lipids and chloracne, not In regard to 12 relationship of their health, heart disease, cardiovascular disorders, 13 myelin destruction in the nerves, liver damage, psychiatric disorders, 14 neurobehavior disorders, sleep difficulty, fatigue problems, they're not 15 dealt with here, are they, sir? 16 A No, sir. 17 Q The only thing that's dealt with In this is chloracne, isn't that 18 correct, sir? 19 A Yes, sir. 20 Q Do you see any results, there is a long list of laboratory tests 21 that were given, described on the page numbered 2 that I read off, long 22 list of laboratory tests that were conducted. Do you see the results of 23 any laboratory tests other than the lipids and the glutamyltranspepsldase, 24 that is, GGT, as it relates to chloracne? A That is a liver protile with SGOT and SGPT where there 1 was no difference between chloracne and acne. 2 3 Q They're talking about chloracne, they are not talking 4 about anything other than acne. 5 A Yes, sir. Q Doctor, the question was .asked are the-- in the October 6 7 the 2nd, question number 3, why are blood and urine samples included when they've never been before in ,the Exhibit 1498, and 8 9 the answer there, Dr. Suskind has included these tests to verify 10 that there are no ill effects other than chloracne, do you remem 11 that statement? 12 A Yes, sir. 13 Q Where in this report is there a verification that ther 14 are, or any statement at all as to what effects, ill or otherwis 15 effects other than chloracne? Could you find that statement 16 where it talks about a verification that there are no ill effect 17 other than chloracne in that report, sir? 18 A I don11 thinkthere ais one. 19 Q And Doctor, why did ,,you tell these people that the 20 purpose of these tests were for Suskind to verify that there 21 are no ill effects other- than chloracne? Why did you say that 22 to these people? .. 23 A That's what Dr. Suskind thought he was doing. 24 Q Well, he is the one ,,that ,,wrote that report, isn't he, I sir? 2 A Yes, sir. 3 Q Does he say in there that he's talking about ill effec 4 other than chloracne? Where does he say it, on what page does h 5 say it? On what line? 6 A It's not in any one J.ine~ 7 Q Well, what paragraph,? What page?. . 8 A The fact that he did, all ..those things on Page 2 is 9 what he was looking at to .see if there was anything .that would 10 happen in people who have .chloracne or not. 11 Q Where did he report n the ill effects as shown by the 12 laboratory tests, sir? What page of the document does he report 13 on these tests? What table refers to these tests other than the 14 GGDT and the lipids? .. 15 A And the SGOT and the SGPT. 16 Q Only there with regard to the lipids-- with regard to 17 chloracne. It doesn't say whether or not that somebody is ill 18 because of it, or how they are as far as their health is concern 19 because of that. This talks .about only how it relates to chlora 20 A 21 Q 22 sir. Yes, sir. v Show me where in this document he talks about health, 23 A His own statement is to determine health status of 24 employees I Q That's what he said he was going to do. Now, he said 2 the purpose of the health study is to determine their health 3 status. Now, I want you to tell me where in this report did he 4 report on the health status of these employees? Where is it in 5 here, sir, because I've looked and I've looked and I've looked 6 and I cannot see, and I want you to point out to me the single 7 place where he reported on -the whole objective of this study. 8 A This whole document Responds to that question. 9 Q Doctor, my question *is not what he thinks. He said 10 the purpose of it was to determine the health status of those 11 employees who had been exposed to chlorinated phenols and identi 12 those conditions which might be related to the work environment. 13 Show me where he determined their health status, sir. 14 A Thefact that he-- 15 Q Show me, please, sir, don't tell me again the fact, sh 16 me bn this document the single paragraph, the single page where 17 he talks about the health of the workers, at Krummrich. 18 A I can't. 19 Q It doesn't appear on Page 1, does it, sir? 20 A No, sir. * 21 Q It doesn't appear on Page 2, does it, sir? 22 A No, sir. < 23 Q Although he says on ^age ,2 that a thorough review of 24 the records provided by Monsanto, medical insurance claims, 1 workmen's compensation records, personnel records, personal med 2 histories, physician notations, specific problems and so forth, 3 hypertension, diabetes and .so forth, all .went into-- now, but no 4 result is on Page 2, is it,, sir? 5 A No, sir. * 6 Q On Page 3, is there * sir* any mention of this health 7 status of these people? 8 A No, sir. Tf * * 9 Q Page 4, is there any. mention .of it* sir? 10 A No, sir. 11 Q On Page 5, is there any mention-of it, sir? 12 A No, sir. 13 Q On Page 6, is there any mention of it, sir? 14 A No, sir. ?* 15 Q On Page 7, is there a n y mention of it, sir? It talks 16 about acne on Page 7. 17 A Yes, sir, in great detail. 18 Q In great detail. On, Page 8, is there any mention of 19 health status other than chloracne? . . . 20 A Well, there are a lot of .skin problems. 21 Q Excuse me, on Page 8U 22 A I'm looking on Page ,,8. 23 Q Is there mention of ^anything other than acne or chlor 24 A Yes, sir I Q Where? 2 A They did skin cultures and biopsies, 3 Q And that skin culture dealt with just the skin, didn't 4 it, sir? 5 A Yes, sir. 6 Q It didn't make a single mention about their health, 7 did it, sir? 8 A That's part of the health-- 9 Q Well, does it say these people were healthy or were 10 not healthy? 11 A They were trying to determine whether they had a prob3 12 related to health. 13 Q Doctor, he talks about clinical, he puts one paragraph 14 here on clinical laboratory .findings, doesn't he, sir? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q And he did a lot of J.aboratory tests, did he not, sir? 17 A Yes, sir. 18 Q And he says the laboratory data is presented in Tables 19 15 through 22, is the laboratory data presented in 15 through 20 22, sir? 21 A Yes, sir. * 22 Q What laboratory data jother than the lipids and the 23 GGDT and SGOT, sir? 24 A And SGPT Q And SGPT, is the iron results presented there, sir? 1 A No, sir. 2 3 Q Alkaline phosphotasa? 4 A No, sir. 5 Q Albumin? A No, sir. 6 , 7 Q Globulin? A No, sir. 8 9 Q Bilirubin direct? A Creatinine? 10 . A No, sir. 11 *, Q BUN? 12 13 A No, no, sir. 14 Q Blood? A No, sir. IS * 16 Q Coproporphyrin, uroporphyrin, creatinine, any of 17 these things reported, sir.?. _ , 18 A No, sir. 19 Q Glucose? *. A No, sir 20 Q Then let's go down to discussion. Is there any 21 discussion of the health status of these people or any mention 22 23 of their health status on Page 8, sir? 24 A Yes. + 1 Q Where is their health status mentioned, sir, other 2 than chloracne? .., 3 A No significant difference in clinical laboratory find! 4 between penta and the rest of the-- and 237. 5 Q Well, Doctor, that hasn't got anything to do with the! 6 health. 7 A Why, it certainly does. ,, 8 Q Oh, Doctor, if there is no difference between the 9 clinical and the laboratory findings between the people that 10 are exposed solely to penta ;and the people that are exposed to 11 the combined product, that doesn't tell you a thing about their 12 health, they could all be .perfectly healthy and have no differe; 13 or they could all be falling down sick and have no difference, 14 doesn't tell us a thing about their health, does it, sir? IS A Yes, sir. ,,-- 16 Q What does it tell ahput their health? 17 A It says there are no, differences between the two. 18 Q That's fine, then, is anybody told whether these peopJ 19 are unhealthy or healthy?,. ,, 20 A He says more after this. .. 21 Q Where does he say more after that? . Show .me that, sir. 22 A What? , 23 Q Where he says something about their health afterwards, 24 A The laboratory studies as related to chloracne are 1 health studies. 2 Q Chloracne is what we;1re talking about. Now, chloracne: 3 does have something to do .with health status, but excluding 4 chloracne, sir, what does .he talk about as .far as their health 5 is concerned on Page 8? 6 A Nothing else. * 7 Q On Page 9, what doea he talk about as far as their 8 health is concerned? 9 A Besides the cholesterol, JCiDL, SGOT, and SGPT and GDTT, IO those. 11 Q All these, there ar> no differences in these levels? 12 A Yes, sir. ,, 13 Q He doesn't say whether these people are sick or health 14 does he, sir? 15 A No, sir. 16 Q All he is saying is .there is no difference between the 17 chloracne and the nonchloracne group, doesn't he, sir? 18 A Yes, sir. ,, ... 19 Q And that doesn'.t te2*l you anything about whether or 20 not they are falling down sick or hale and healthy and hearty, 21 does it, sir? 22 A No, sir. 23 Q Doctor, is there any, other mention on Page 9 as to the 24 health status of these people? 1 A In that discussion of lipids. 2 Q Sir? .,, 3 A Then the rest of the discussion on Page 9 is on lipids 4 Q But my question is, jdoes _it have anything to do with 5 their health, does it tell you whether or not.they are healthy 6 or not healthy? 7 A No, sir. 8 Q All it does is compare the lipid levels between the 9 people that work in pentachlorophenol and the people that worked 10 in the combined departments or the people that had chloracne and 11 the people that didn't have .chloracne, isn't that right, sir? 12 A Yes, sir. 13 Q It doesn't tell youa thing about their health, does 14 it, sir? 15 A Yes, it does. * 16 Q 17 sir? Where does it tell you something about their health, 18 A It says that these people who. have chloracne do not 19 have any abnormalities compared to ,those who don't have chloracn 20 Q Well, Doctor, that doesnVt tell you anything about 21 their health. 22 A Yes, it does. 23 Q How so, sir? Can you tell whether or not these people * 24 are healthy? i A That those who have Ichloracne "do. not have any 1 abnormalities of lipids as, compared to those who do not have 2 3 chloracne. 4 Q And that tells you something about, well, then is 5 lipids an indication of health, sir? A It is in talking about dioxin. 6 7 Q Then an abnormal lipid is an indication vthat there is 8 something wrong with the .people and it could be caused by dioxin1 9 A No, sir, it just means-- ,, 10 Q Well, Doctor, back up. Does it have something to 11 do with their health as exposed ..to dioxin or not? 12 A It might have. 13 Q Then it does have, dpesn'J: it, sir? Now, Doctor, but 14 even here, does it tell you .whether or not these people with 15 abnormal lipid levels are sick or not sick? 16 A No, sir. 17 Q It just tells you, all it does is compare the abnormal 18 levels between those that -have got chloracne and those that 19 don't have chloracne, doesn't it, sir? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 Q But it doesn't tell .you whether those people are sick 22 or healthy, does it, sir? 23 A No, sir. 24 Q Doctor, is there anything on Page 10 that tells you 1 about the health of these people? 2 A No, sir. ,, 3 Q Then Doctor, and Pag^e- 10 J.s the end of the report? 4 A Yes, sir. ,, 5 Q Is there a single tajble now in all these tables that 6 talks about their health status, sir? 7 A Only by correlation jof chloracne with lipids. 8 Q It doesn't even tell you vthat, sir, all it does is 9 compare the chloracne, the.no chloracne, and the chloracne, do< 10 it, sir? 11 A Yes, sir. * 12 Q .All it does is attempt to show a relationship or no 13 relationship between lipids and chloracne,.doesn't it, sir? 14 A Yes, sir. 15 Q And there is no mention of their health, is there, 16 sir? 17 A As beyond that, there is .not. 18 Q Now, Doctor, could X have a-- there is no mention of 19 all these other labtests, .is there, sir? 20 A No, sir. i. 21 Q Now, Doctor, do you .reckon that those lab reports 22 showed abnormalities in the overwhelming majority of these 23 people working at the Krummriqh plant exposed to dioxin, or do 24 you reckon these lab reports showed few abnormalities in these people that work there, which would you reckon occurred that 1 he did not mention? 2 ,- . 3 A He may have in his tinal ,,report. 4 Q Sir? 5 A He may give it in his final report. Q Doctor, we have gon^ through the final report jazz 6 7 and I am not going to go through it again* You have nothing other than the document that Jxas been described to you as a 8 9 final report, and all you have is something that you did after it came out in this courtroom in June. That's all you did, and 10 I am not going to go through .that with you again. There is no 11 mention of laboratory abnormalities and my question, sir, if you 12 13 were a guessing man, would you guess that the test results that 14 he ignored and left out of this report were normal or abnormal, 15 if you were a guessing man-- . 16 MR. HEINEMAN: .Objection,, your Honor. Mr. Carr's 17 speech had nothing to do with the question, I ask that it be 18 stricken and ask that the Jury be instructed to disregard it. 19 Further objection-- ., 20 MR. CARR: Well, I'll withdraw the question. 21 MR. HEINEMAN; Further objection as to the question 22 as being irrelevant. 23 THE COURT: The question J.s withdrawn. 24 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1504. was marked for identification.,) 1 Q Doctor, I've previo^ly placed before you what's been 2 3 marked as Group Exhibit 1504. You recognize those as the full 4 and complete questionnaire and lab reports .and clinical examinat 5 that Dr. Suskind and his team conducted on the Krummrich plant workers, do you not, sir? '. 6 7 A I don't know yet. * 8 Q Haven11 you looked at it?,. 9 A . I haven't looked at ,*theseu 10 Q You haven't looked at these? ._ 11 A I don't know whether, this is the whole report or not. 12 Q All right, go ahead*, . ,, 13 A Yes, sir, I think that's ,,correct. 14 Q And Doctor, a few of. these reports from what you know 15 ofit do not have any laboratory results appended to them because 16 a few people didn't have the laboratory test performed, isn't 17 that correct, sir? 18 A Yes, sir. - 19 Q But the rest of thos,e reports all have the lab tests 20 as reported by Metpath upon Dr. Suskind*s order attached theretc 21 A Yes, sir. .* 22 MR. CARR: I offer 3.504 into evidence, if it please 23 the Court. , .. 24 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1504 was offered 1 2 3 Honor? 4 5 6 7 into evidence.). MR. HEINEMAN: May counsel approach the bench/ your THE COURT: Sure. . , (The following ^proceedings were held at the bench.) . .- MR. HEINEMAN: Your*Honor, we would object to the 8 admission of these records, on the basis that they're hearsay and 9 that no foundation has been laid by Mr. Carr for their admission 10 and he's never deposed Dr..Suskind, he hasn't brought Dr. Suskin 11 into court. These documents I believe were prepared by Dr. Susk 12 they were certainly not prepared by this witness. We don't have 13 a proper custodian, we don't have the person that prepared the 14 documents, we don't have anybody who had anything to do with IS their preparation to testify about them, and .therefore they are 16 not admissible* They're hearsay. There's been no foundation 17 laid. 18 MR. CARR: Your Honor, the record has established that 19 these are records of Monsanto's, they paid for this study, it 20 was done under contract by. ,Dr. Suskind, as they have admitted, 21 and is in evidence. These ,arei .questionnaires that their agent, 22 Dr. Suskind asked, they had an interview, the documents show 23 themselves to be just that,, and they have been in ,Monsanto's 24 possession, they are lab reports that Monsanto has paid for, 1 these are documents that have been produced by Monsanto and 2 claim to be authentic by Monsanto to us, and I see no need for 3 any further foundation than that. They are Monsanto documents. 4 MR. HEINEMAN: .Now, ,,your Jionor, Mr. Carr knows that 5 about 30 percent of what he just said is patently false. 6 MR. CARR: Oh? 7 MR. HEINEMAN: They *were 4101 in our possession. This 8 Court had to order us to get them ..from Dr. Suskind. My recollec 9 and I think the Court's recollection would be that Dr. Suskind 10 maintained a privilege with respect to these documents. He 11 wouldn't give them to us. The -Court ordered us to get them from 12 him. We finally did get them from him pursuant to this Court's 13 order. You know the procedure that Dr. Suskind required of 14 getting receipts from everybody. IS THE COURT: If I remember correctly, someone in the 16 course of all that made the .determination that due to the relati 17 ship between Monsanto and Suskind that they were under your 18 control, as control is construed in our discovery procedures. *t 19 believe I made that determination along the.line. 20 MR. CARR: You did, ^and in fact they did tell Dr. 21 Suskind to give them the reports and these reports were given. 22 THE COURT: Okay, objection is overruled. 23 (The following ^proceedings were held in 24 open Court.) , THE COURT: Group Exhibit 1504 is admitted over 1 objection. 2 3 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1504, was admitted 4 into evidence.1 v,, 5 BY MR. CARR: Q Doctor, the very first one of a gentleman named 6 7 Andrews, it gives his background, his birthdate, where he lived, what departments he worked in, who his prior employers were, and 8 9 what kind of jobs he had, whether or not he smoked, did he eat-- what did he eat on the job, and a long list of some 21 questions 10 dealing just with what he-did at work, isn't that correct, sir? 11 A Yes, sir. 12 13 Q It talks about tobacco consumption, alcohol consumptio 14 and talks about has a family, history, health history for the 15 family, and it has a personal .medical history as well, does it 16 not, sir? 17 A Yes, sir. ,, 18 Q It asks all kinds o^. queations-all the way from 19 headaches down to cancer, .Isn't that right, sir? 20 A Yes, sir. * 21 Q Skin cancer and other forms of cancer. And it asks 22 about hospitalization, what kind of hospitalization. Then they 23 ask a question, what current symptoms does he show, does he have 24 on Page 11, isn't that right, sir? i 1 A Yes, sir. 2 Q And these are the questions asked currently, do you 3 have headaches, daily weekly, less than weekly? Do you have 4 trouble sleeping? Are you tired most o the time? Do you need 5 more sleep than usual? Do you have a good appetite? Do you 6 lose your temper easily? Do you feel angry often? Those were 7 the six-- I'm sorry, seven .questions asked, isn't that correct, s 8 dealing with the current health status or symptoms currently 9 displayed? .. JO A Yes, sir. II Q And Doctor, there are no ,,other^questions asked in whic 12 they are asked about their .current health problems other than 13 these seven questions, isn't.that correct? 14 A Yes, sir. ^ 15 Q And these deal with Jieadaches, sleep difficulty, 16 fatigue, appetite, and neurobehaviora1 problems, don't they, six 17 A Limited, but, yes. ,, 18 Q Yes. And they're aaked to respond yes or no to each 19 of those questions. 20 A Yes, sir. 21 Q Oh, and this study goes on to ask about medications, 22 what are they taking now, -what kind of health aids they have, 23 and then there is several pages for the clinical examination, 24 isn't there, sir? A Yes, sir. 1 Q For blood pressure, -pulse, respiration, temperature, 2 3 weight, height, and then there is a review of systems, isn't 4 there, sir? 5 A Yes, sir. Q For the physician tm, not only take additional history 6 7 for a review of systems, to indicate problems, abnormal findings, but also a physical examination for the review of systems, isn't 8 9 there, sir? A Yes, sir. 10 Q There are several p e a c e s t h e r e is places for diagnosis li and impression, isn't there,, sir? 12 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q And Doctor, from your prior examination, you know that 15 that same thing is true for each of these employees who took 16 part in this Krummrich plant.health study, isn't that correct, 17 sir? -- 18 A Yes, sir. *_ 19 Q Now, Doctor, the symptomatology that's asked by 20 Dr. Suskind in his questionnaire, could you find any place in 21 the record that he made dated September 29,, 1980 in which he 22 refers to the symptomatology .displayed by these people? 23 A No, sir. * 24 Q Because it does not ,,exist, does:!it, sir? A No, sir. 1 2 Q He asked these questions ,,to find out whether or not 3 they have, what health symptoms .they had or. .to put it another 4 way, what sickness symptoms they had, did they, have neurobehavio problems, do they have fatigue problems,, do they have sleep 5 problems, do they have appetite problems, do they have headache 6 7 problems, all of these things he asks, but he doesn't make a 8 single mention of what he .discovered in this .group report and 9 questionnaire, does he, sir? 10 A Yes, sir. r 11 Q Where does he make a. mention of that, sir? 12 A By not including it* 13 Q Doctor, my question *is he doesn't make a single mentic 14 does he, sir? 15 A No, sir. * 16 Q In this report? 17 A No, sir. ^ 18 Q And he gives no explanation in this report as to why 19 he did not include that which he discovered in this questionnaii 20 does he, sir? 21 A No, sir. vv 22 THE COURT: Okay, Mr. Carr,, is this a good point to 23 break for lunch? 24 MR. CARR: Yes, your Honor THE COURT: Ladies nnd gentlemen, we will break for 1 2 lunch at this time. We will resume again at one o'clock. The 3 admonishments that I gave you earlier will apply during this, 4 lunch break also. The Court is in recess. 5 (At this time,.Court recessed for the 6 noonhour.) ,, * 7 BY MR. CARR: .* 8 Q Doctor, the questionnaire, the physical examination an 9 the laboratory tests, Group .Exhibit 1504, were all basically 10 referred to or related to workers who were exposed to chlorinate 11 phenols and therefore possibly dioxin and more specifically 12 2,3,7,8 TCDD, isn't that correct, sir? 13 A No, sir. 14 Q That isn'tcorrect?, 15 A No, sir. , 16 Q What part of the question or what fact in that questic 17 was incorrect, Dr. Rousch?. 18 A Forty-four of those^people had never been exposed to 19 2,3,7,8. 20 Q Wherein is that stated, Dx. Rousch? 21 A On Page 7, 43 of them had worked in 236. 22 Q And is that the equivalent to saying that they were 23 never exposed to 2,3,7,87.. 24 A Y e s , s i r . Q Doctor, 236 and 237 ^are right next to one another, are I they not? 2 3 A Yes, sir. 4 Q As a matter of.,fact,. pipes go from one department to 5 the other department, don't .'they.,, sir? A Yes, sir. 6 .. 7 Q You can't really teljl the difference between the two departments, can you, sir,, when you're out there at the plant. 8 9 A Yes, sir. Q You can really tell ,,the difference? 10 A There is a separation between the two plants. 11 Q Between the two departments? 12 13 A Yes. 14 Q Aren't theyright next to one another? 15 A Yes, sir. 4 16 Q And Doctor, these pepple ,of necessity, the people that 17 work in Department 236 walk .through Department 237 from time to 18 time, don't they, sir? 19 A I'm sure they did. , , 20 Q And Doctor, these people ,are people that are working 21 right within a few feet of one another, aren't they, sir? 22 A They work close to eysiGh other, but they are separated. 23 Q Doctor, they are separated simply because you have a 24 number on one department that says 236 and right .next to it you 1 have the other department that says, you've got a number on it 2 that says 237, isn't that correct, sir? 3 A Yes, sir. 4 Q And they're working,, they can work right just within 5 a few feet of one another? 6 A I don't think that'a right. 7 Q Well, Doctor, aren't these departments just butted up 8 right against one another? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Doctor, the people that work in 236, they've worked in 11 this plant for a number of years, well, anybody that goes throug 12 that plant, we went through it on a bus, but anybody that goes 13 through that plant during the time that it's manufacturing these 14 materials, the exposure, the dust, the spillage or whatever, 15 anybody that goes through there is exposed at one time or 16 another, are they not, sir? 17 A To a degree, yes. ,, 18 Q That's what I said, ,,all of these people, all of these 19 people working in the chlorinated phenol department had some 20 exposure to dioxin, do they not, sir, 2,3,7,8 TCDD dioxin? 21 A But the difference is-- 22 Q Excuse me, did they ..not, sir? 23 A I don't know. 24 Q Well, Doctor, you know that there has to be some 1 exposure on the part of each person, you know that, don'^t you, 2 sir? 3 A I would presume so, .but I don't know. 4 Q Well, it's a presumption .that you can make, a deductic: 5 that you can make based upon the facts that you know about 6 Departments 237, 236, 239,. 262, 268, isn't that correct, sir? 7 A No, sir. , .8 Q What is wrong there sir?. .That is a presumption that 9 you made based upon your knowledge about those departments, 10 isn't it, sir? 11 A I think there is a difference between working in 236 12 and 237, those who work in 236 are not exposed to 2,3,7,8. 13 Q Doctor, 2,3,7,8 is in Department 237, is it not, sir? 14 A Yes, sir. 15 Q And has been for ever since Department 237 was 16 organized back in what, the 40s, didn't we decide the other day? 17 A I think so. 18 Q So in the mid or late 40a, at ,,least, Department 237 ha 19 sat right next to Department 236 and for all those 30, 35 years 20 it1'was manufacturing chlorinated phenols, it was manufacturing 21 2,3,7,8 TCDD, was it not, .sir? 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q And those workers th^at work in Department 2,3,7,8-- 24 I'm sorry, in Department 236 come into within just a few feet 1 of 237, don't they, sir? 2 A Yes, sir. , 3 Q And do they not of necessity have some exposure to tha 4 which is produced in Department 237 by virtue thereof? 5 A Yes. *. , ., 6 Q And that which.is produced in Department 237 was 7 2,3,7,8 TCDD, was it not, sir? 8 A Yes. 9 Q And therefore they had some exposure to that 2,3,7,8 10 TCDD, did they not, sir? 11 A The only question, what do you mean by some? 12 Q Any exposure. They Jiad some exposure to that which 13 was produced in Department 237? 14 A I don't know. . ^ 15 Q Doctor, I thought yQu juat .got through saying that you 16 did know that they were exposed to that which was produced in 17 Department 237. 18 A I don't know. , *. 19 Q Doctor, didn't you j*ust say that they were exposed? 20 A I don't-- 21 Q Didn't you just say ..that, sir? Are you now changing 22 your mind, sir? 23 A I'm saying I don't know whether .there was exposure in 24 236 to 2,3,7,8. If it was., it was so small, but I can't say it I wasn't and I can't say it was so small. 2 Q Doctor, I don't care; about how small it is, because 3 this case deals with symptoms caused by small amounts of dioxin. 4 That's the whole thrust of this case, that is relevant to this 5 case, Doctor. These people that work in these, not just those 6 people in that plant, but everybody that works in that Krummrich 7 plant has some exposure to that which is produced in Department 8 237, do they not, sir? 9 A I don't know. T 10 Q Doctor, are you saying you don't know, because you hav II seen the 2,3,7,8 floating .down on them, or is it you say you 12 don't know because you can't deduce that from the facts that 13 you do know? 14 A I can't deduce it from the facts I know. 15 Q All right. Doctor, you know there is a street that 16 goes right by Department 237, don't you, sir? 17 A Yes, sir. ,, 18 Q And you know there is-- well, there is two streets, one 19 goes one direction and one goes another direction, don't you, 20 sir? 21 A I don't remember that. 22 Q Sir? 23 A I don't remember that. 24 Q You doni t remember that? ,, A I know it goes past it, and that's it. 1 Q There is the main street that goes right through the 2 3 Krummrich plant is just what, ten feet from Department 237? 4 A I don't recall. * Q When is the last time you have been to the Krummrich S plant, Dr. Rousch? 6 7 A Five or seven years .ago. Q Doctor, you recall the main entrance where you have 8 9 the guards and you go in the building to get the hats and all 10 that, and just about a half a block down, you recall that big, 11 wide street there, sir? .. 12 A Yes, sir. v 13 Q And you recall just ^a half a block down that street 14 on into the plant is Departments 216 and 237 off to the right- IS hand side there? 16 A I remember, but I'mjiot sure how close it was to the 17 headquarters 18 Q ' And there is another; street where you can turn right 19 off of that big main street and you go right past 236 and 237, 20 you know that, sir? 21 A I think X recall that. 22 Q Now, the workers in that ..Krummrich plant have .occasion 23 to be on both of those streets from time to time, don't they, 24 sir? A Yes, sir 1 Q And the cracking plant or the distilling plant or the 2 pipes and all that, these are all out in the open, they are not 3 4 in an enclosed building, are they, sir? 5 A No, sir. . Q When they said building, .they don't really mean 6 7 building, they mean an area that has been assigned to Department 236 and another area that .has been ^assigned to Department 237? 8 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q So there in fact wei^e no Jbuildings, it's all out there 11 in the open, isn't it, sir,? 12 A Yes, sir. ^ 13 MR. HEINEMAN: I object to that, your Honor. I don't 14 know that Mr. Carr has any evidence that Department 237 was out 15 in the open. 16 MR. CARR: I think X have the evidence right here from 17 this witness, your Honor, 18 THE COURT: Objection is overruled. 19 Q Now, Doctor, because^ this, study, well, you at Monsanto 20 knew the difference between a scontrpl group that has no exposure 21 to 2,3,7,8 TCDD and a group.that could have or did have possible 22 2,3,7,8 exposure, you know, the difference, don't you? 23 A Yes, sir. , 24 Q And none of these popple .that were a part of this 1979 Kruramrich plant study meet that definition of a controlled, 1 unexposed group, do they, sir?. 2 3 A No, sir. , Q They are, therefore* all J.n a part of a groupthat 4 5 could have exposure to 2,3,7,8 TCDD, isn'.t that correct, sir? 6 A No, sir. ^ 7 Q Which of those .workers, Doctor, could not have 8 possible exposure to 2,3,7,8 TCDD? 9 A 236. ,, 10 Q They could have no possible exposure to 2,3,7,8 TCDD? 11 A I can't say that. .* 12 Q I know you can't say that,Doctor, andbecause you 13 know good and well they could have possible exposure to 2,3,7,8 14 TCDD. They could have it just in .that spill that took place in 15 February of 1979, they could have it just from that fumes that 16 went through the plant from that spill, they could have it from 17 the dust that accumulated ,from that spill and blew through the 18 plant, just from that one ^incident out of 30 or 40 years of 19 manufacturing, couldn't they,- sir? 20 MR. HEINEMAN: Objection* your Honor. There is no 21 evidence there was any fumes, .there is no evidence there was 22 any dust. 23 THE COURT: Overruled. 24 A I couldn't say they ^would have no exposure 1 Q That's what I am asIcing you, sir. You can't say that, 2 can you, sir? 3 A No, sir. * 4 Q And Doctor, your 19$4 proposed Krummrich plant study 5 by Northwestern or the one that Northwestern gave you the 6 protocol for, you wanted that study of the Krummrich plant 7 employees, that is, that could have possible exposure to dioxin 8 and compare that to a group of people who never worked in that 9 plant who never had any possible exposure to dioxin, isn't 10 that correct, sir? 11 A No, sir. * 12 Q That isn'tcorrect? 13 A No, sir. ,. 14 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1505, .and 1506 were 15 marked for identification.). 16 Q Doctor, I'll hand you what has been marked Plaintiff's 17 Exhibit 1506 and ask you if that is a Monsanto document dealing 18 with the number of employees at Monsanto with potential exposure 19 to dioxin at Krummrich? 20 A Yes, sir. , 21 MR. CARR: Offer whatever the jiumber is, 1506, in 22 evidence if it please the .Court* . . , ,,, 23 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1506 was offered 24 into evidenceh 1 THE COURTS Any objections? 2 MR. HEINEMAN: Yes, your Jfonor. There's been no 3 foundation laid for the admissibility of this document. He 4 hasn't established that this ..witness ever saw it before, that 5 he wrote it, that he got it. 6 MR. CARR: Your Honor, on its face it says it's 7 department of medicine, environmental health, J.H. Spraul, M;D. 8 MR. HEINEMAN; All i^.ght,> it doesn't mention George 9 Rousch, M.D., does it? And the top document doesn't look like 10 it's any part of what's attached to it there. 11 MR. CARR: I'm giving it *to you the way it was given 12 to me, counsel. ,.. 13 THE COURT: Okay, objection is overruled. It is 14 admitted over objection. 15 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1506. was 16 admitted into evidence.) ,, 17 Q Dr. James H. Spraul 4-3 a .doctor in your department, 18 is he not, sir? ... 19 A Yes, sir. * 20 Q And you and he .and qthera in your department work on 21 this proposed study to be ,,conducted by Northwestern University 22 which we have discussed before? 23 A Yes, sir. * 24 Q Did you not, sir? T^nd this document has as a heading of it The Estimate of Number of Employees with potential Dioxin I 2 Exposure at Krummrich, does it not, sir? 3 A Yes, sir. * 4 Q And it describes in ,,that ,,group as Department 236, 237, 5 268 and 239, does it not, sir? 6 A Yes, sir. ,, , 7 Q Sir? 8 A Yes, sir. * 9 Q And the second page stalks.. about comparing this group 10 with a suitable control population, doesn't it, sir, in the 11 paragraph numbered 2 under tho heading Proposed Program?, 12 A Yes, sir. . . * * 13 Q And the objective of, the ,,study is to get an independen 14 study of the health status of workers in these departments to 15 establish whether or not there are health effects attributable 16 to dioxin, does it, sir? 17 A Yes, sir. 18 Q Then it deals with tfie workers in 236 who have the 19 potential for exposure at ,,Krummrich to dioxin, doesn't it, sir? 20 A Yes, sir. * 21 Q And that is the samo group of people that the Krummric 22 health study worked with .that we are now discussing in Exhibit 23 1500 and 1501 and 1504, isn't that correct, sir? 24 A Y e s , s i r ) ss.1 STATE OF ILLINOIS ) 2 COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR ) 3 4 5 6 7 I, Patricia A. Gandy, CSR, RPR, Official Court Reporter In and 8 for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, and the Official Court Reporter who 9 transcribed the above-styled cause had on July 16, 1985,' do hereby certify 10 that the foregoing transcript of proceedings is a true, correct and 11 complete transcript of the proceedings had on said date. 12 DATED this 19th day of July, 1985. 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 Q So now your department has described these people as 2 having a potential for dioxin exposure, don't they, sir? 3 A Yes, sir. 4 Q And they want to compare -them with the people who have 5 had no exposure, don't they, sir? 6 A Yes, sir, 7 Q Now, Doctor, back to. this group that we're talking 8 about. This group, therefore, all potentially had some exposure 9 to dioxin. By this group, I mean the Krummrich plant health i 10 study, the group that describes in Suskind's report dated Septeir II 29th, 1980. 12 MB. HEXNEMAN: Objection,, your Honor. He was talking 13 about 2,3,7,8 before, and this document talks about dioxin, 14 generally. Object to it <as misleading. IS THE COURT: Objection is .overruled. 16 Q Could you answer that question, please, sir? 17 A Yes. * 18 Q And is that the ans\ier to, my question, yes? 19 A It's a study of those exposed to dioxin, and the 20 answer is yes. 21 Q Yes, Now, Doctor, these,., this study then that we hav 22 here that Dr. Suskind performed was not of unexposed people, 23 was it, sir? 24 A N o , s i r . Q Now, these people, sir, all had various tests performed 1 and you, of course, have seen the test results. But if I under 2 3 stand it correctly, you have not analyzed them except following 4 the-- or during the time we had our recent vacation break, isn't 5 that correct, sir? A I didn't look at the individual records until this 6 7 interval. Q That's what I've asked you, sir. 8 9 A Yes, sir. ^ 10 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1507 was marked 11 for identification.i 12 Q Doctor, I hand you Plaintiff's Exhibit 1507 and ask 13 you if that is the analysis that we prepared that you have seen 14 and saw during this vacation break vthat delivered to Monsanto? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 MR. HEINEMAN: Excuse me,, your Honor. Are we missing 17 a number? What happened to 1505? 18 MR. CARR: I didn't ,,use i,t. I had it marked, but I 19 didn't use it. 20 MR. HEINEMAN: Shouldn't ,,1 get to see it? 21 MR. CARR: The witness didn't see it, I didn't refer 22 to it. I used another document to prove the point, counsel. 23 Your Honor, I'm going to ^ask some questions with the 24 's permission about this exhibit, and I would like the jury 1 to have the exhibit, and I will represent tto the Court that this; 2 exhibit is a summary of those things shown in Group Exhibit 3 1504, and that at the conclusion of Dr, Rousch's testimony--I 4 could have asked to take him off, and X have told counsel and ti. 5 didn't want to do that, I will have a registered nurse who will 6 testify to the results in this and that these are in fact the 7 results shown from and data taken from Group Exhibit 1504, and 8 I will represent to the Court that it will be so connected, and 9 I'd like to pass it to the jury so that I might ask some 10 questions of the witness,. n MR, HEINEMAN: Are you moving its admission now? 12 MR. CARR: I am, based upon the condition that I will 13 tie it up. 14 MR. HEINEMAN: May we approach the bench, your Honor? 15 THE COURT: Yes, you may*, 16 (The following proceedings were held at the 17 bench.) 18 MR. HEINEMAN: Your-Honor, obviously we would object 19 to this document created by somebody employed by Mr. Carr on 20 a number of different grounds. First of all, it's our position 21 that :the evidence on which he has represented it is based is 22 inadmissible. I know the Court has already ruled that it's 23 admissible and admitted it into evidence, but our position is 24 that the underlying data that he represented this is based on 1 is inadmissible. In addition, there is no foundation laid for 2 its admission into evidence. It .is hearsay. . There is no 3 expert who has testified to ..link up what he purports to show 4 by this exhibit with any of the Kemner plaintiffs. Its probativ 5 value and its relevance have not been established. In our 6 opinion, it is inaccurate and it would be unfair. For example, 7 if I am able to establish.in cross examining his next witness 8 who is supposed to qualify, this document, if I am able to 9 establish to the Court's satisfaction that it is sufficiently 10 inaccurate, that it has inadequate probative value and should 11 be stricken, it will be too late. The jury will have already 12 seen it and it will be too late to erase it from their minds. 13 So it isn't fair to us to ,give it to the jury now before we 14 have an opportunity to cross examine the person who is allegedly IS going to establish its foundation, and we object to it. There 16 is a great many things in it which we think are inaccurate. 17 There is a number of things in it which are not in the lab 18 reports that were done and offered .on behalf of the Plaintiffs 19 in the case. In other words, the lab reports that were done of 20 the specimen submitted by the Plaintiffs, there are some things 21 that are in this that are not in that, and it's unfair to compar 22 apples and oranges. 23 THE COURT: You mean. different tests? 24 MR. HEINEMAN: Different ..tests, right. And there's 1 just no foundation for it,, and it puts us in an impossible 2 position to ask the jury to. see it now. We would submit to 3 the Court that eventually it shouldn't be submitted at all, 4 that it's totally inadmissible in any event. 5 MR. CARR: Your Honor, I Jiave the option if I wish 6 to ask the Court leave to take the Doctor off and put on this 7 witness and put the Doctor on for the relatively few questions 8 that I am going to ask him about this exhibit.. I have represent 9 to the Court, I will represent .to the Court that this is a true 10 and accurate summary of the .data that's in this exhibit. They 11 have had this exhibit in .their hands now for, oh,, at least a 12 month or thereabouts. The Doctor has reviewed it, he's reviewed 13 the reports, and if in fact .this Court ultimately strikes this 14 exhibit, it would have to be on the basis that it is not an 15 accurate reflection, substantially accurate reflection of the 16 exhibit that's already in evidence, and I am representing to the 17 Court that it is a substantially accurate summary of the test 18 results. ,,,, *. 19 THE COURT: I'm goii^g to .,,overrule your objection. 20 I'll allow you to have it admitted subject to later connection. 21 MR. CARR: Thank you, your Honor. 22 (The following ^proceedings were held in 23 open Court.) - .. . 24 Q Doctor, to put this ,,in proper perspective, it is a I summary of the Krummrich plant health study, it bears-- it deals 2 with the chlorinated phenol Departments 236 and .237, and it 3 shows the date of examination is 1979, done by Dr. Suskind, and 4 it was reported in September, 1980, do you see that? And that S all is correct, to your knowledge, is it not, sir? 6 A Yes, sir. * 7 Q I'm sorry, I couldn'wt hear you. 8 A Yes, sir. , 9 Q And it discusses the, symptoms reported there are 10 headaches, sleep difficulty, fatigue, poor appetite, and 11 neurobehavioral problems, .and .those are symptoms represented 12 by the questions 3 to 9 that we previously asked you that were 13 part of this study, are they not, sir? 14 MR. HEINEMAN: ..Excuse me/- are you asking him whether 15 the checkmarks there represent those questions? 16 MR. CARRs No, the symptoms reported at the top of 17 the page, counsel. If you see, I just read it, whether or not 18 those are the same symptoms that I discussed with him this 19 morning that were represented by questions 3 to 9 ,on the 20 questionnaire that's part of Exhibit 1504. 21 A Yes, sir. * 22 Q And Doctor, you recqgnize the names as those names 23 of those people that submitted to this examination, do you notj 24 s i r ? 1 A Yes, sir, - Q And there are some 5V8 in number, do you see that, sir? 2 3 I'm sorry, 58 on one page, 50 "on another, 108 in number?- 4 A 105. 5 Q Well, I think you added it up, it added up to be 108, 6 but I won't quarrel with your-- 7 A I'm sorry, you may well be right. I took those numbei 8 and added them up. I thought it was 105, but it does come out-- 9 I thought there were 105 rather than 108. 10 Q Well, be that as it .may, it is all those that recorded 11 the lab results, I counted 108 and your counting certainly cou 12 be as good as mine, that's neither here nor there. The second 13 column shows the symptoms,, have you had occasion to add up 14 the number of people that .reported one or more of these dioxin 15 type symptoms, D r . Rousch?. 16 A Yes, sir. * 17 Q And it's 83, isn't it, sir? 18 A I don't recall. r 19 Q Weli, that's what I .added up, that there is 83. 20 A If you add them, alb of the symptoms together, it 21 comes out to 83. 22 Q 83 persons having one or more of these symptoms as 23 reported to Dr. Suskind. . 24 A Y e s , s i r . 1 Q And Doctor, 83 is 77* percent of the 108. , You can 2 my word for that, I did that on a calculator, is it not, sir? 3 A That's about right. 4 Q So if this summary is correct, it means that more thar S three-fourths of your workers in the chlorinated phenol departme 6 at Krummrich plant had one or more of symptoms and so reported 7 to Dr. Suskind that can be associated with dioxin poisoning, 8 isn't that correct, sir? 9 MR. HEINEMAN: Objection*, your Honor. Well, perhaps 10 if I-- did he say of anyone that ever worked in the plant or 11 produced in the study? 12 MR. CARR: These that are. reported here, counsel, 13 as you know. 14 THE COURT: Objection is .overruled. You may continue. 15 Q Isn't that correct, J)octor? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q Now Doctor, Dr. Suskind asked those questions, the 18 only questions asked on current status, on current health 19 status, he asked those seven questions for a scientific purpose, 20 didn't he, sir? 21 A Yes, sir. . 22 Q And he is the one that designs those questions as 23 he designed this entire study that's associated with or to be 24 the health status study for people exposed to dioxin, isn't 1 that correct, sir? 2 A Yes, sir. 3 Q Sir? 4 A Yes, sir* 5 Q Now, do you not believe that it is significant that 6 the man that asks the questions, he is the one that said these 7 are the symptoms that I am going to inquire o, these are the 8 things that I consider important and for to have results that 9 show here that show 77 percent of the people. Now, some of 10 these people, Doctor, haven't worked in-- well, strike that. You 11 know that some of these people haven't worked in the chlorinated 12 phenol department for years, you know that, don't you, sir? 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q Some of these people* had exposure in the, only in the IS 60s and 70s, or some of them in the 50s and were transferred 16 to other departments and were not currently exposed on a daily 17 basis in '79 to that which was produced in Department 237, isn't 18 that correct, sir? 19 A I don't know that. ^ 20 Q But you know that from the nature of these questionnai? 21 't you, sir? 22 A Some of them. I didn't go through to find out how 23 they had been out. 24 Q That's the only thing you're quarreling with is how I long they had been not in the chlorinated phenol department, is that correct 2 sir? 3 A Yes, sir. 4 Q But now Doctor, for 83 Krummrich plant workers, 77 percent of 5 the people that took part in this study and had laboratory exams as well 6 and asked by a scientist to find that there is a positive relationship in 7 77 percent of the people, isn't that significant, Doctor, to a scientist? 8 A No, sir. 9 Q Wouldn't there be statistical significance to the fact that 77 10 percent of your workers have one or more of these abnormalities, these 11 symptoms? 12 A No, sir. 13 Q Doctor, he asked the question for a purpose, he didn't ask it 14 idly, did he, sir? 15 ,A X can't tell. 16 Q Doctor, didn't we just establish that he asked it for the purpose 17 of determining the possible effects, health effects by exposure to dioxin, 18 didn't we just establish that a few minutes ago? 19 A No, sir. 20 Q Doctor, wasn't this study for the purpose of determining the 21 health status of these people that are employees of this plant have been 22 exposed to these chlorinated phenols? 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q And didn't he ask these questions in order to determine that 1 health status? 2 A No, sir. 3 Q Then why did you ask these questions, Doctor? 4 A That's a typical medicine question. 5 Q Well, no, he picked out, ,he designed these questions, he didn't 6 ask did you have a pain In the side, he didn't ask do you have a backache, 7 he didn't ask a number of questions that are typical questions, he designed 8 these, he took these six questions because they were the only questions 9 asked about your current health condition, isn't-that right, sir? 10 A Yes, sir. 11 Q Of all the questions asked these people, only six related to 12 their current health condition, Isn't that right, sir? 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q And these six were as reported in, as described In this document, 15 these symptoms reported,weren't they, sir? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q Then he's not asking It In general, he wants It because he consldei 18 It to be Important or to shed some light on their health status, Isn't he 19 asking it for that reason, Doctor? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 Q Now, he finds that 77 percent respond positively to those questions 22 but he didn't make one single mention of It, does he, sir? 23 A No, sir. 24 Q Doctor, If you were to find that 77 percent had signs, symptoms of 1 dioxin poisoning, wouldn't you consider it important that 77 percent of 2 your workers have got symptoms of dioxin poisoning, why don't you consider 3 that important, sir? 4 A You can't make a diagnosis of dioxin poisoning-- 5 Q Doctor, I'm not asking you to make a diagnosis, that's what 6 Dr. Suskind was- going to do with his lab test reports with his physical 7 examination and with the symptomatology and with the records and everything 8 else. I'm not asking to make a diagnosis just on that. What I am asking 9 you is wouldn't you consider it important that 77 percent of your employees 10 had symptoms of dioxin poisoning? II A No, sir. 12 Q Doctor, isn't it Important to you that your Krummrich plant 13 workers, 77 percent have one or more of these symptoms of dioxin poisoning? 14 A No, sir. 15 Q Why isn't that important,,to you, Doctor? Don't you care about 16 their health? 17 A Eighty percent of the general population complains of headaches 18 alone, so 77 percent, just a headache would take care of the 77. 19 Q But Doctor, did you see where it was one or more? If it was 20 just a headache, there would just be one checkmark there, wouldn't there, 21 sir? 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q There is only 26 that have only one checkmark, and that's not 24 necessarily the headache. I'm not representing that it Is. There's only 1 26 out of 108 that have only one symptom. 2 A Yes, sir. 3 Q Now, that means there ar 66 that have more than one symptom or 4 thereabouts, my addition and subtraction may be wrong. And Doctor, the 5 headache question was asked by Dr. Susklnd? 6 A Yes, sir. 7 Q Because he knows that lt^is commonly reported by people who have 8 exposure to dioxin that they get headaches on a chronic, long-term basis, 9 either on a dally or weekly basis, you know that, don't you, sir? 10 A No, sir. 11 Q You don'tknow that? 12 A No, sir. 13 Q Why do you think Dr. Susklnd asked that question then, If he 14 didn't know that? 15 A I don't know why Dr.-- what Dr. Susklnd was going to do with that 16 history. 17 Q Dr. Rousch, you knew Dr. Susklnd was asking these questions 18 because he was studying whether or not there was a relationship between 19 the exposure and their health, he so states, doesn't he, sir? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 Q And that's the reason he.asks the questions, isn't that right, 22 sir? 23 A 24 Q Yes, sir. Now, Doctor, he could have asked any questions, and he could I have put as many questions in here as he wanted, but he selected these 2 seven people, didn't he, sir? 3 A Yes, sir. 4 Q And he had reported to him the sleep difficulty, the fatigue, 5 the poor appetite, and the neurobehavioral problems, hasn't he, sir? 6 A Yes, sir. 7 Q And he doesn't make one mention of it in his report, does he, 8 sir? 9 A No, sir. 10 Q Now, did he consider that, do you think he considered that 77 11 percent wasn't a large figure, a large statistic, do you think maybe he 12 thought it should be 100 percent? 13 A No, sir. 14 Q Well, it is, if that, if these are the dioxin symptoms or chlorinat 15 phenol exposure symptoms and so designed, the questions designed by 16 Dr. Suskind to reveal that, then the answers to those questions become 17 important, don't they, sir? 18 A Possibly important. 19 Q And to have 83 out of 108, with one or more of these symptoms, 20 that becomes important, doesn't it, sir? 21 A No, sir. 22 Q Now, Doctor, why ask the_question if it's not important? 23 A It'8 a medical approach to try to decide whether there is a 24 problem. 1 Q And he doesn't make any decision on that, does he, sir? 2 A He couldn't. 3 Q Sir? 4 A He couldn't. 5 Q What do you mean he couldn't? He could do exactly the same thing 6 I did, or my nurse did, can he not? 7 A When a physician looks at that, he looks at It differently than 8 a nurse would look at It. 9 Q For a diagnosis, but not.for a study. He made these questions, 10 he asked these questions, because he was Interested In the answers because 11 he thought the answers would be relevant to their health, didn't he, sir? 12 A Possibly relevant. 13 Q And he got responses? 14 A Yes, sir. 15 Q Of possibly relevant things? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q Now, if It were all negative, If you didn't have these problems, 18 don't you think he would have reported none of these people or a very 19 small percentage of these people had any symptoms of problems that are 20 associated with dioxin exposure, don't you think he would have said that, si 21 A It couldn't happen that way. 22 Q It couldn't be negative?. 23 A These are nonspecific questions. 24 Q Doctor, why did he ask the questions If he Is not Interested In 1 their health? 2 He was trying to see what the results of that would he. 3 Q And he found out what It would be, didn't he, sir? 4 A Yes, sir. 5 Q He found out that 77 percent were positive, didn't he, sir? 6 A Yes, sir. 7 Q And he didn't use it, did he, sir? 8 A Nor would I. 9 Q Doctor, he didn't use it, did he, sir? 10 A No, sir. 11 Q And he didn't even mention any reason why he didn't use it, did 12 he, sir? 13 A No, sir. 14 Q He didn't say that it wag unimportant, did he, sir? 15 A No, sir. 16 Q He didn't say that he couldn't draw any conclusions from it, 17 did he, sir? 18 A No, sir. 19 Q And he just completely ignored it, didn't he? 20 A No, sir. 21 Q Oh? Where did he make a^y mention of it in his report? 22 A He didn't put it in the Report, but that didn't mean he didn't 23 look at it* 24 Q I asked you whether or not he Ignored It. 1 know he looked at It, 1 I know that he added it up, I know he did exactly the same thing that I did, 2 and you can do, you can look at those reports and look at those symptoms 3 and see 77 percent symptomatology. 4 A Yes, sir. - 5 Q He saw this and he decided to Ignore that result, didn't he, sir? 6 A No, sir. % 7 Q Did he make any mention of it In his final report, Dr. Rousch? 8 A That's not his final report. 9 Q Dr. Rousch, we went through that, it was his final report up until 10 mid June of 1985, wasn't it? 11 A Yes, sir. 12 Q Now, Doctor, did he make,any mention of these symptomatology in 13 his report? 14 A No, sir. 15 Q Do you think he owes the,men at Krummrlch an explanation of why 16 he asked the question, got the answers to his questions, and then decided 17 to Ignore the answers to the questions? 18 A I don't know. 19 Q You don't know whether o not he owes them an explanation? 20 A If he were asked, yes. 21 Q Now, Doctor, he asked thf question to see If there was a 22 correlation between working in the chlorinated phenol department and these 23 symptomatology, did he not? 24 A Yes, sir. I Q And he found that there was a correlation, didn't he, sir? 2 A No, sir. 3 Q Isn't there a correlation, Doctor, between these 77 percent of 4 the people that got it and their exposure to chlorinated phenols7 5 A No, sir. 6 Q Aren't these all these people exposed to chlorinated phenols and 7 potentially exposed to dioxin? 8 A Not if they work in 236. 9 Q Doctor, we just went through that. I just cannot go through the 10 sane thing over and over again. Don't you recall, we had this list of 11 those, this is the exhibit Just before this one, or during the course of 12 this one, the list, you have it in front of you somewhere, those people 13 with potential exposure to dioxin. Do you recall that, sir, that we went 14 through that? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q And Included all these people in 236, didn't we, sir? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Now, Doctor, there is a correlation then between exposure to 19 chlorinated phenols, the possible exposure of dioxin and these symptoms, 20 isn't there, sir? 21 A No, sir. 22 Q Doesn't 83 correlate well with 108 exposed? 23 A If 80 percent of normal population had headaches-- 24 Q Excuse me, Doctor, doesn't 83 out of 108, isn't that a pretty good correlation? 1 A No, sir. 2 3 Q What do you need, 108 out of 108 for it to be a good correlation? 4 A No\ sir 5 Q Huh? A No, sir. 6 - 7 Q How many do you need having headaches before you find there is a correlation? How many do you need with neurobehavioral problems? How 8 9 many do you need with sleep difficulty? How many do you need with fatigue 10 before you find there is a correlation,.Dr. Rousch? 11 A It's got to be above expected. 12 Q And what is expected, Doctor, of these symptoms? 13 A I told you, one of them was headache-14 Q Well, what about fatigue,and sleep difficulty? 15 A Sleep difficulty, at least 20 percent of the population and 16 maybe all of the normal population has some complaint of sleep difficulty. 17 Something of the order of 10, 15 percent of the people who have sleep 18 difficulty take medication. So there were 20 people who had sleep difficult; 19 Q Doctor, let's stop one moment and be fair on this. You're talking 20 about people who are ill, who don't work, you are not talking about a plant 21 population. 22 A I'm talking about normal,,people. 23 Q You're talking about all,the population, you're not talking about 24 normal people 1 complained of both temper and anger together. 2 A And how many complained about one or the other? 3 A A large number, but if you don't have one, you can't have anger 4 without a temper, and.a lot of them complained of anger without a temper. 5 Q Doctor, the questions that were asked In that regard were, "Do you lose your temper easily?" and "Do you feel angry often7" There is a 6 7 distinction between those questions, and It was designed, the questions were asked with that distinction in mind, Isn't that correct, sir? 8 9 A No, sir, 1 don't believe ,,so. 10 Q Then what Susklnd did was just ask two questions that meant the II same thing. 12 A Tea, sir, on purpose. 13 Q And he did It on purpose?. 14 A I would suspect so, I can't speak for him. 15 Q Doctor, why did you say he did it on purpose If you are simply 16 suspecting? Did you talk it over with him? 17 A No, sir. 18 Q Didn't you see these questionnaires before they ever went out, 19 or at the same time they were sent out? 20 A No, sir. 21 Q Doctor, he sent you the sample questionnaire and the letter that 22 he was going to send out by you, I mean your medical department, before It 23 was ever sent out, didn't he, sir? 24 A I don't recall. Q Well, Doctor, you had people that discussed It with him that went 1 over the questionnaire, did you not, sir? 2 3 A I don't think so. 4 Q Then what you're saying then that he just asked the questions, 5 these two questions, for no good or valid reason? A No, sir. 6 7 Q Well, what did he ask it .for? A You will have to ask him, 8 9 Q Doctor, as far as you're ^concerned, there was no good and valid reason to ask these two questions, was there, sir? 10 A It has some value, not much. 11 Q And their equivalent to $ay you feel angry often is the same 12 13 thing as to say you lose your temper easily? 14 A Yes. 15 Q A person can feel angry Qften without ever losing his temper. 16 A I don't know what he means by losing temper and don't get angry. 17 Q Doctor, if you don't know what it means, why are you saying they 18 are the same? 19 A That's what we in medicine do. 20 Q Doctor, you are saying they are the same? 21 A To me they are. 22 Q But now I just got through asking you, Doctor, can you not feel 23 angry often and never lose your temper? That is, you have the ability, you 24 may feel anger, but you have the ability to control it, you don't lose your 1 temper easily, you control it, you can feel angry and not lose your temper, 2 can you not, sir? 3 A Yes, sir. 4 Q So there is a difference between those two questions, isn't there, 5 sir? 6 A That's where the judgment comes. 7 Q There is a difference, in't there, sir? 8 A Yes. 9 Q And he asked the question because he designed the study and he 10 wanted to find out a difference, didn't he, sir? II A Yes, sir. 12 Q And he also asked the question about the tired most of the time, 13 and do you need more sleep than usual. He asked those questions for a 14 reason. 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q And those two questions are tied with fatigue, aren't they, sir? 17 A Sometimes. 18 Q If you are tired most of.the time, you generally need more sleep 19 than usual, don't you, sir? 20 A Hot necessarily. 21 Q Not necessarily, but you,,usually do. 22 A No , sir. 23 Q No, sir? Well, then again heasked these questions for a purpose, 24 didn't he, sir?  Yes. 1 Q Now, and he also asked a,question about trouble sleeping for a 2 3 purpose, didn't he, sir? 4 A Yes, sir. 5 Q But he makes no mention Qf those, any of those problems, does he, sir? 6 7 A No, sir. Q And he doesn't say, well, they have the same problems as the rest 8 9 of the United States population, does he, sir? A No, sir. 10 Q Now, don't you reckon that if he found that that Is the conclusion 11 that because he's being paid by Monsanto and Monsanto has a financial stake 12 13 in showing that dioxin doesn't cause these problems, don't you reckon that 14 he would have stated it if he found that to be the case? IS A No, sir. 16 Q Now, Doctor, Monsanto does have a financial stake in the question 17 of health related to dioxin, doesn't It? 18 A Yes 19 Q And It Is an important financial stake, isn't it. Doctor? 20 A 1 don't know. 21 Q You don't know that it's .an Important financial stake? 22 A 1 don't know how important It is. 23 Q 1 didn't ask you how important, 1 just asked you if it was an 24 important financial stake. A Yes. 1 Q And Doctor, if by these studies you can show that there are no 2 3 health problems related to the exposure to dioxin, that is important to 4 Monsanto from a financial viewpoint, isn't it, sir? 5 A I don't know. Q Haven!t you seen memos, sir, in which it is so described? 6 7 A This has never been publicized. Q Sir? 8 9 A This has never been publicized. 10 Q Doctor, I'm not asking you about that. I'm asking you if you have 11 ever seen memos to the effect that it's Important to Monsanto from a 12 financial interest that you want protection from litigation, and that that's 13 the reason these studies are important. 14 A I don't recall. 15 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1508 was marked for identification.) 16 THE COURT: Any objection? 17 MR. HEINEMAN: Oh, has it been offered, your Honor? 18 MR. CARR: I haven't offered It yet. I'm waiting for you to quit 19 looking at It so I can show it to the witness and then offer It. 20 Q Doctor, I'll hand you Exhibit 1508. Do you recognize that as 21 a memo dealing with the Krummrlch study program that you are planning to 22 undertake with Northwestern, have you got a copy of that memo? 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q And just turn to the second page. Does not that memo discuss 1 that you want, one of the purposes for it is to protect Monsanto's financial 2 interests against unwanted litigation-- 3 MR. HEINEMAN: Excuse me, your Honor, is it being offered now? 4 MR. CARR: No , counsel. 5 MR. HEINEMAN: You are not offering it into evidence? 6 MR. CARR: No, I'm not. 7 MR. HEINEMAN: Well, I'll object to any testimony about it, your 8 Honor. 9 MR. CARR: Well, I'll offer it if he is going to object to it, 10 not that it's going to make any difference. 11 THE COURT: Any objection? 12 MR. HEINEMAN: No objection. 13 THE COURT: Admitted without objection. 14 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1508 was admitted into evidence.) IS Q Doctor, does it not state that one of the purposes of the 16 Northwestern study that you are going to have is to protect Monsanto's 17 financial Interests against unwanted litigation? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q Now, does that refresh your recollection that that's one of the 20 purposes of health studies? 21 MR. HEINEMAN: You're talking^about the Northwestern health studlei 22 MR. CARR: No, counsel. ,, 23 MR. HEINEMAN: That's what that's talking about, isn't it? 24 MR. CARR: I understand that, counsel. Q What is the answer to my question? I A The Krummrich Btudy-- 2 3 Q The Krummrich study or any study that Monsanto pays for. 4 A No, sir. 5 Q That's not one of the purposes, Doctor? A It can be. 6 7 Q Doctor, the study that you paid for with Dr. Suskind that w e 're discussing now didn't serve that purpose, did it7 It would not protect 8 9 Monsanto's financial Interest, would it, sir? 10 A I don't know. Q Doctor, do you know anybody outside of the group at Monsanto if 11 12 the upper echelons in the management that had a copy orreceived a copy of 13 this report at all or even knew of its existence before this Court ordered 14 your lawyers to bring it in to me? Do you know of anybody anywhere that even knew of the existence of this study outside of the people that I IS 16 described at Monsanto? i 17 MR. HEINEMAN: Objection, your Honor. That question mischaracteris 18 what occurred. It is correct as far as it goes, but asMr. Carr knows, 19 this Court ordered us to get it from Dr. Suskind, who refused to give it to him, and-- 20 MR. CARR: That isn't the facts at all. This was in your 21 22 possession, this study was in your possession and had been since September 23 29, 1980. I'm talking about this report. 24 Q Doctor, this so-called health study, September, 1980 Is when you 1 received It from Dr. Susklnd. I'm asking you, Doctor, is there anybody 2 outside of the group at Monsanto that even knew of the existence of this 3 health study until we, until this Court ordered Monsanto to produce It to 4 me? 5 A I don1t think so. 6 Q Doctor, is it a possible reason for the refusal of Monsanto to 7 publish this report or to let it be known, you announced in 1980 that you 8 were going to let the public know of it, Is a possible reason that you didn't 9 is because this report showed that there is a direct relationship between 10 exposure to chlorinated phenols containing dioxin and certain health 11 effects? 12 A No, sir. 13 MR, HEINEMAN: Object to .the form of the question, your Honor. 14 It implies-- it doesn't imply-- it states that we refuse to publish it, 15 refuse to let it be known, and I don't know that there is any evidence of 16 that at all. t 17 THE COURT: Objection is overruled. 18 Q This Exhibit 1504 shows that the union was going to demand that 19 a joint letter be Issued to Dr. Susklnd demanding this report on these 20 results, doesn't it, sir? 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q And it wasn't public so far as the union knew, was It, sir? 23 A No, sir. 24 Q And no one else knew of this report, did they, sir? I A No, sir. 2 Q % w , Doctor, isn't it a possible reason that the abnormal lab 3 reports that are shown in this report correlates with the exposure to 4 these chlorinated phenols containing dioxins, correlate with the symptoms 5 and that that is the reason that you at Monsanto have not caused this to 6 be published? 7 A No, sir. 8 Q That's not a possible reason? 9 A No, sir. 10 Q Now, Doctor, look at the^porphyrin results shown here. 11 A Yes, sir. 12 Q There are 38 people with abnormal porphyrins, according to the 13 Metpath laboratory based upon the sample sent them. 14 A No, sir. IS MR. HEINEMAN: Excuse me, your Honor, which report are we talking 16 about now? I thought he was talking about the Susklnd report. I'm 17 confused. Are you talking about this document you created? 18 MR. CARR: Yes, counsel., 19 MR. HEINEMAN: Mr. Carr20 Q Because Susklnd doesn't mention the porphyrins, does he? 21 MR. HEINEMAN: My question is which document are you talking 22 about? 23 Q Doctor, the document that I have in my hand and that you're 24 looking at is the summary of the abnormal lab reports, it's Exhibit 1507 and 1 it shows-- 2 MR. HEINEMAN: Thank you. 3 Q -- abnormal porphyrins in.38 people tested. 4 A No, sir. 5 Q Have you counted up those checkmarks, Doctor? 6 A No, I did not. 7 Q Well, are you going to count them? I counted them, it adds up to 8 38. 9 A But they're not abnormal. 10 Q Doctor, did not the laboratory report these as abnormal? 11 A No, sir, 12 Q Did not7 13 A No, sir. 14 Q Doctor, if you will look.at the first one that has abnormal 15 porphyrins would be Andrews, would you look to his porphyrins and see what 16 Metpath reported? Metpath reported what for the coproporphyrin, Doctor? 17 The last page. 18 A Nine micrograms per liter 19 Q And what was the normal range given by Metpath? 20 A There is none. 21 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1509 was,marked for identification.) 22 Q Doctor, you are aware of the fact that Monsanto ordered us to 23 give the normal test range for these various laboratory reports, you are 24 aware of that fact, sir? A No, sir. 1 Q I show you Exhibit 1509 and ask you If you have ever seen what 2 3 Metpath says Is normal for Its porphyrins? 4 A Tea, sir. 5 Q You have seen those before? 6 A No, sir 7 Q And Doctor, normal for coproporphyria-- MR. CARR: Offer 1509 info evidence if It please the Court. 8 9 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1509 was offered into evidence.) 10 MR. HEINEMAN: May I see.it? 11 MR. CARR: Sure. 12 Q Doctor, while he's looking at it, you are aware of the fact that 13 Dr. Susklnd used the same laboratory for the Nltro studies and for the 14 Krummrlch studies, the Metpath? 15 A I thought so. 16 Q And do you recollect looking at the Nltro study and it gave normal 17 and abnormal porphyrin ranges in the Nltro study? 18 A No, sir. 19 Q You don't recollect that? 20 A No. 21 MR. CARR: Offer 1509 and I represent to the Court that: this was 22 delivered to us under order of the Court for the normal test references used 23 by Dr. Susklnd in his Krummrlch and in his Nltro study, your Honor. 24 MR. HEINEMAN: I'd like to see the request for production pursuant 1 to which this was produced, your Honor, because I don't recall that being 2 the case. This has written on it "Suskind Nitro study." 3 HR. CARR: I wrote that on there, counsel. 4 THE COURT: Objection is overruled, 5 MR. HEINEMAN: And I object to it further on the basis that 6 there Is absolutely no foundation laid for the admission of this document 7 into evidence. 8 THE COURT: Objection is^overruled, 9 HR. HEINEMAN: The witness has never seen it before. 10 THE COURT: Objection overruled. It is admitted. 11 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1509 was admitted into evidence.) 12 Q Doctor, the coproporphyria normal range from Mayo is from a 13 low of 30 to a high of 2AO? 14 A Is this Metpath or Mayo?,. You said Mayo. IS Q I'm sorry. The Metpath Ranges as from February 25, '79 was from 16 30 to 240, is it not, sir? 17 A For 24 hours. 18 Q Doctor, that's the test range that was given to us. You understand 19 that, and they have their normal range at 30 to 240, do they not? 20 A For 24 hours, otherwise it doesn't count. 21 Q You're saying otherwise it doesn't count, but they have it as 22 their test range of mlcrogram units, 24 hours, 30 to 240, 30 to 240, do they 23 not? 24 A Yes. 1 Q And it is per liter? 2 A No, sir, absolutely not. 3 Q Doctor, we'll get to that; subsequently. But the range that they'vi 4 given here ranges from 30 to 240, does it not? 5 A For 24 hours. 6 Q Whatever, it is the sameLrange that Dr. Suskind used in his study 7 of abnormal porphyrins, was it not, sir? 8 A I don't know. 9 Q Doctor, if you turn to Tble 35 in Plaintiff's Exhibit 1493, on 10 Page 77, are you there, sir? 11 A I've got Page 77, yes, sir. 12 Q And does not Dr. Suskind .describe the normals for the coproporphyr:L 13 the range of 30 to 240? 14 A I need one of the other ones. Yes, sir, I'm sorry, I was trying 15 to see which is right. 16 Q Does not Dr. Suskind describe the normals for coproporphyrin as 17 from 30 to 240 micrograms per liter? 18 A I can't tell, yes, sir. 19 Q And does he not, and you .recognize that It's the same laboratory, 20 Metpath, that he used there that he used here? 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q And that Is the same normal range that I've shown you in Exhibit 23 1509, is it not, sir? 24 A No, sir. Q It's not 30 to 240, sir? 1 A Yes, but that's per liter. 2 3 Q Doctor, he is the one-- you recognize this as the Metpath results 4 that was given, 1*11 represent to you that Exhibit 1509 is the Metpath 5 test ranges given to us by Monsanto for the basis for the normals for the Susklnd/Nltro study, that Is Exhibit 1483, and it was given to us for the 6 7 basis of the normals for the Krummrich study for Metpath as well. Would you take that as represented, sir, are these tests ranges the same range 8 9 in the Krummrich plant study and in the Exhibit 1483 for coproporphyrins, 10 30 to 240? 11 A No, sir. 12 Q Doctor, you see that 30 |s low and 240 is the high? 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q And this table for coproporphyrins, 30 is the low and 240 is 15 the high? 16 A Yes. 17 Q They are the same, are they not, Doctor? ^ 18 A But one is per liter and.the other one is per 24 hours. 19 Q Dr. Suskind interpreted those to mean the micrograms per liter, 20 did he not, sir? 21 A I don't know how he got ^hat. 22 Q Doctor, you can see, doesn't that L stand for liter? 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q And doesn't MCG stand for microgram? A Yes, sir. J Q And didn't he have these_normaIs from Metpath? 2 3 A I don't know, but he must have-- 4 Q Doctor, he must have had* at least your counsel have represented 5 to us that this Is what he used, sir. Now, based upon that representation, has he not Interpreted Metpath*s normal range to be 30 to 240 micrograms 6 7 per liter? A I don't know. 8 9 Q Doctor, does he put it there? 10 A Yes, sir. 11 Q Did he put it there? 12 A No, sir. 13 Q Has he described it at 3Q to 240 micrograms per liter? 14 A Yes, sir. 15 Q And that's how he has used the Metpath normals, is not that 16 correct, sir? 17 A X don't know. 18 Q Doctor, he used it, didnjt he? 19 A I'm not sure where he got that from. 20 Q Doctor, I 'm representing to you that this Is where it came from, 21 that your people have told us under order of Court that these are the 22 Metpath normal ranges, these and no others, Doctor. 23 A Those are the Metpath normal ranges, yes, sir. 24 Q All right, and you know hat for a fact, don't you, sir? 1 A Yes, sir. 2 Q You also know that Dr, Susklnd used Metpath in the Nitro study 3 and in the Krummrich study, you know that, too, don't you, sir? 4 A Yes, sir. 5 Q And you know then that h interpreted the Metpath normal ranges 6 for uro and coproporphyrins to be as he's put it in Table 35 and Exhibit 7 1483, you know that, too, don't you, sir? 8 A Yes, sir. 9 Q And he has put down, he interprets that to be micrograms per liter 10 doesn't he, sir? 30 to 240 micrograms per liter as normal? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Now, based upon his interpretation of the Metpath values, will 13 you now agree that Andrews has an abnormal coproporphyrin and an abnormal 14 uroporphyrin result? IS A No, sir. 16 Q Doctor, what is Andrews'.coproporphyrin result? 17 A It's listed at nine micrograms per liter. 18 Q And what is the range given by Dr. Susklnd in Exhibit 1483 for? 19 A That's-- 20 Q For normal, sir? 21 A It's per liter. 22 Q What is the range, sir, that Susklnd has given for coproporphyrins' 23 A 30 to 240. 24 Q Micrograms per what, sir? A Per liter. I Q And what does this man have mlcrograms per liter? 2 3 A Nine micrograms. 4 Q Is that more or less than 30 micrograms? 5 A It's less than. Q Therefore, It would be low, according to the Dr. Susklnd Table 30 6 7 of normals from 30 to 240 mlcrograms per liter, would it not, sir? A Tes, sir. 8 9 Q And on the uroporphyrins, what does Dr. Susklnd interpret or has he put in Table 35 as being the Metpath ranges for normal? 10 A Fifteen to sixty. 11 12 Q And what did Andrews report in uroporphyrins? 13 A Five mlcrograms. 14 Q Is that less or more than 15? IS A Less. 16 Q Therefore, Andrews has low coproporphyrins and low uroporphyrins 17 according to these ranges set out in Plaintiff's Exhibit 1483 at Table 35, 18 does it not, sir? 19 A Tes, sir. 20 THE COURT: Mr. Carr, is thista good point for a short break? t 21 MR. CARR: Yes, your Honor. 22 THE COURT: Okay, ladles and gentlemen, we will take a short rece 23 at this time. The admonishments that I have given you earlier will apply 24 during this break also. The Court is in recess. 1 (At this time, Court was In recess.) 2 BY MR. CARR: 3 Q Doctor, with respect to these Metpath lab reports, on the lab 4 reports that you have In Exhibit 1504, Metpath has one section for one 5 portion for normals, and then he has a fourth for results outside the 6 reference range, does he not, sir7 7 A Yes, sir. 8 Q And the-- both the uro and the coproporphyrins that we have 9 discussed In the case of Andrews or in that section reserved for the results 10 that are outside the established reference range, are they not, sir? 11 A Yes, sir. 12 Q And this is the placement of these values of these test results 13 as being outside that reference range Is done by Metpath, that wasn't done 14 by Susklnd, was it, sir? This Is their document, Is it not, sir? 15 A This Is their document, yes, sir. 16 Q And signed by one of their laboratory pathologists, I suppose? 17 A Yes, sir. 18 Q And have you had an opportunity to look at the porphyrins or at 19 least a sample of the porphyrins to establish that wherever we, or the 20 nurse that went through this for me, checked off abnormal porphyrins, they 21 were in fact reported as being test results outside the established reference 22 range by Metpath? 23 A No, sir. 24 Q You haven't checked that out? 1 A I haven't gone through It, but it doesn't say outside the 2 reference range. 3 Q It says test results outside established reference ranges or 4 confirmed normal result, doesn't It say that, sir? 5 A Yes. 6 Q And doesn't It say coproporphyrin and uroporphyrin, do they not 7 fall within that category just described? 8 A They list a range. 9 Q Doctor, they have reported the uroporphyrin, the creatinine, the 10 triglycerides, all as test results outside the established reference range, II don't they, sir? 12 A That's what they say. 13 Q And in fact the coproporphyrin and the uroporphyrin were both 14 outside the range that we had shown you before established by Metpath and 15 used by Dr. Susklnd in Exhibit 1483. 16 A No, sir. The reference range that you have for Metpath was 17 in 24 hours rather than liters. 18 Q Doctor, Dr. Susklnd used that as an abnormal result, didn't he, 19 sir? Micrograms per liter as reported by Metpath? 20 A I don't know what was reported by Metpath. 21 Q Well, you know that these results were reported by Metpath. 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q We went through that several times already, Doctor. 24 A Yes, sir. I Q And Metpath puts these in the category of test results that are 2 outside the established range, doesn't he, sir? Don't they, sir? 3 A Yes. 4 Q And look at Riley, sir, one of the part of Group Exhibit 1504, or 5 look at, well, look at Riley because that is one where Metpath also gives an established range. Would you do that, sir? 6 7 A Yes, sir. 8 Q Gives us the range of normal for these porphyrins. 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q Now, again in the category for test results outside established reference range, Metpath has put in both coproporphyrin and uroporphyrin, 11 12 haven't they, sir? 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q And they give the range for coproporphyrin at 30 to 240, do they 15 not, sir? 16 A Micrograms per 24 hours. 17 Q And they call 13 abnormal, don't they, sir? 18 A That's what they reported. 19 Q Yes, and that 13 is outside the normal range that's on this 20 report, on their test results, 16 it not, sir? 21 A That's based on a volume of-- 22 Q Doctor, my question is simply Metpath has put 13 in here and it's 23 put in their category of outside the established reference range, isn't 24 that right, sir? A Based on the-- 1 Q Excuse me, could you answer that question? 2 3 A I am, sir. 4 Q Thirteen Is lower than 30 to 240, isn't It, sir? 5 A But they don't say-- Q Excuse me, Doctor, could you answer that one at a time? 6 7 A Tes, sir. Q Thirty is lower than the range they put right next to that. 8 9 A Yes, sir. Q They put that range in there" 10 A Yes, sir. 11 Q Not Susklnd and not you and not me. 12 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q They put the range in there at 30 to 240, did they not, sir? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q The same as Susklnd used, the same as was in the exhibit that I 17 gave you earlier of the Metpath ranges. 18 A No, sir. 19 Q 30 to 240 Is not the same, sir? A One Is based per liter. 20 21 Q Excuse me, Isn't 30 to 240 the same? 22 MR. HEINEMAN: Objection, your Honor, he interrupted his answer. 23 THE COURT: Objection is overruled. 24 I'm sorry Q Isn't 30 to 240 the range that's established here by Metpath? 1 A Yes, sir. 2 3 Q And Isn't it 30 to 240 that's in the other exhibit that he gave 4 you earlier for these normal values here for the range values, Exhibit 1509? A What's 1509? 5 Q The range, Metpath's ranges, the 30 to 240 for the copro and the 6 7 15 to 60 Is exactly the same, Is It not, sir? It's 30 to 240 on 1509 for coproporphyrin. 8 9 A Micrograms per 24 hours. 10 Q And they got the same 30 to 240 In this result for Riley, don't they, sir? 11 A Yes, sir. 12 13 Q And they call his result of 13 as abnormal, don't they, sir? 14 A Yes, sir. 15 Q And they call his result of In the uroporphyrin of 1.20 as abnorma 16 don't they, air? 17 A Yes, sir. 18 Q And they have as a normal range 15 to 60 in his lab results, don't 19 they, sir? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 Q And they also have the same 15 to 60 as their abnormal In 22 Exhibit 1509, don't they, sir? 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q And Doctor, If you look at Thoman's, out of the same group exhibit I would you look at that, sir? The last page of the exhibit. 2 A Yes, sir. 3 Q They have the copro and uroporphyrin values, don't they, sir, 4 the reference ranges, established reference ranges? 5 A Yes, sir. 6 Q And It Is exactly the same, 30 to 240 for copro and 15 to 60 7 for uro7 8 t A Yes, sir. 9 Q Now,, they show here the copro having 96 micro grams In 24 hours 10 and they show that to be normal, don't they, sir? 11 A Yes, sir. 12 Q They showed the uroporphyrins for Thoman to be 62, and that's 13 outside the normal, Isn't It, sir? 14 A Yes, sir. 15 Q That's high, isn't it, sir? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q And Doctor, these are the same values that exist In each of these 18 exhibits In Group Exhibit 1504 In each of these lab reports, Isn't that corn 19 sir? 20 A No, sir, not at all. 21 Q Sir, do they give any other normal range or established reference 22 range other than 30 to 240 for the copro and 15 to 60 for the uro? 23 A No, sir. 24 Q They use the same In each of these abnormal porphyrins, each of these porphyrin results here, they use that same range, don't they, sir? I A No, sir. 2 3 Q Doctor, show me where there Is a different range that they use. 4 Show me-- 5 A They haven't established a range. Q Doctor, do they not In each of these instances that we have 6 7 checked here, are not these porphyrins and the values that they call outside the established reference range? 8 9 A No, sir. Q Well, look at each of these, look at each one that you want, 10 Andrews was, was It not? 11 A No, sir. 12 13 Q Doctor, didn't we just go through this? 14 A Yes, sir. Q And establish it was outside the 30 to 240, and that they had put IS 16 it in the-17 A No, sir. 18 Q We didn't just go through that for the coproporphyrins. 19 A And I said no, sir then, too. 20 Q Doctor, isn't 9 less than 30 to 240? 21 A It has to be in the same unit. 22 Q Doctor, excuse me, isn't 9 less than 30 to 240? 23 A Yes. 24 Q And do they not have it as. being outside the established reference 1 range? 2 A No, sir. 3 Q Doctor, do you see the line, the name there, test results there 4 outside established reference range, and are they not talking about the 5 coproporphyrin? 6 A Yes, sir. 7 Q Then have they not put the coproporphyrin results as being outside 8 the established reference range? 9 A No, sir. 10 Q Doctor, how can you say that coproporphyrin, they have it listed II here as being outside the established reference range, don't they, sir? 12 A No, sir. 13 Q Doctor, am I misreading this? 14 A Yes, sir. IS Q Coproporphyrin is somehow or another not below this line where 16 it says results outside-- 17 A Yes, sir. 18 Q It is? 19 A Yes, sir. 20 Q And they are communicating to the reader of this document that 21 the coproporphyrin is outside their established-- 22 A No, sir. 23 Q There is an asterisk, asterisk one says number one was no total 24 volume given, and the results are expressed for liter and Metpath has no 1 established range for porphyrins per liter. Doctor, we saw that with the 2 Suskind study, we saw that with Riley and Thoman, didn't we, sir? 3 A Those two were based on 24-hour urine specimens. 4 Q Who says that? 5 A It's in there. 6 Q Where does it say that? 7 A On Thoman, it says total volume of urine, two liters. 8 Q Wo, .20 liters. 9 A Well, that's 2 liters. 10 Q Doctor, it says .20 liters. 11 A No, oh, I'm looking at Thoman. 12 Q I'm sorry, I'm looking at Riley. 13 A The total volume on Riley-- on Thoman was two liters. 14 Q Tea. 15 A And because it's two liters, they then can put a range out here 16 in micrograms per 24 hours, and when it's abnormal and outside the range 17 it will be put down here, the uroporphyrins were outside because-- and they 18 expressed it as 24 hours rather than per liter. 19 Q Well, Doctor, but they treat it normal for the coproporphyrins, 20 do they not? 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q And they treat the uroporphyrin as abnormal, do they not? 23 A Yes, sir, but they don't have that little asterisk for number 24 one, two, and three. ! Q Doctor, where Is there some Indication that these gentlemen 2 gave 24-hour urine samples? 3 A This right here, It says this Is expressed In two liters of urine 4 was sent to them. 5 Q So? 6 A That's the basis for their calculation. 7 Q Two liters of urine doesn't mean It Is a 24-hour sample,.does It, 8 sir? 9 A The Metpath assumed It was 24 hours. 10 Q Well, look at this one, .20 liters. Now, Doctor, In 24 hours 11 somebody is going to urinate .20 liters, that's a fifth of a liter? 12 A I don't understand how they-- 13 Q All these people got the same instructions, and they all deliverer 14 the same amount. 15 A No, sir. 16 Q This is really at .20 liters? 17 A That's what It says. 18 Q And that Is-- 19 A And all these documents express-- 20 Q Excuse me, Doctor, and that was called a normal range for 24 21 hours of urine output? 22 A No, and if we-- 23 Q Excuse me, Doctor, is that what you would call a 24-hour output? 24 A I wouldn't. I q Nobody else would, either, would they? 2 A 1 hope not. 3 Q Now, Doctor, what you have done with this statement Is you 4 have taken figures from Metpath and said, since they put it In liters, 5 therefore it's a 24-hour sample? 6 A No, sir. 7 Q And that's the only thing that you did. 8 A No, sir. 9 Q Oh, really? Now, Doctor, wherein do any of these abnormal values 10 on Andrews, for Instance, don't they call it abnormal? 11 A No, sir. 12 Q Now, Doctor, and I am afraid you're going to be going In circles 13 forever, is it above or below the line for normal porphyrins? 14 A It's below the line. IS Q Tes, the things below the line are outside the established 16 reference range? 17 A No, sir. 18 Q Doctor, does it say that? 19 A But that is-- 20 Q Doctor, does It say that? 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q Now, Doctor, the urinary porphyrins, these were what Susklnd 23 ordered, what Monsanto knew was going to be ordered, and what in fact was 24 reported on, Metpath reported on that which you sent, isn't that correct, sir? 1 A No, sir. 2 3 Q They did not? 4 A Monsanto didn't send them. 5 Q Susklnd was working for Monsanto, was he not, sir? A He was working for himself. 6 7 Q Doctor, he was being paid for every bit of his time and every bit of his effort and every bit of his skill by Monsanto, wasn't he, sir? 8 9 A Yes, sir. Q Now, if you pay somebody for their time, if you pay somebody for 10 their work, if you pay everything that they bill you for, and you pay them 11 and you design the study, they're working for you, aren't they, sir? 12 13 A Not a university. 14 Q Well, Doctor, we're talking about Susklnd. My question is 15 talking about Susklnd. It is his study, is it not, sir? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q And you paid him for it, didn't you, sir? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q And you paid the laboratory, didn't you, sir? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 Q And every expense, everything associated with this study you 22 paid for, didn't you, sir? 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q And you paid for these porphyrin results, did you not, sir? A Yes, sir, 1 Q And didn't you give Susklnd support by way of personnel as well? 2 3 A Yes, sir. 4 Q And It was Monsanto's-- he did It for Monsanto, did he not, sir? 5 A Yes, sir. Q And these porphyrin results, if you at Monsanto or Susklnd 6 7 were dissatisfied with any result, you could have sent and got more, couldn't you, sir? 8 9 A Yes, sir. Q If you weren't satisfied with these results by Metpath, you could 10 have had each of those men send a 24-hour sample, couldn't you, sir? 11 A Yes, sir. 12 13 Q But you didn't do that, did you, sir? 14 A No, sir. Q So there wasn't anything about these results that you were IS 16 dissatisfied with, Isn't that correct, sir? 17 A Dr. Susklnd said they were no good. 18 Q Excuse me, Doctor, would you answer that question, please, sir? 19 A Would you repeat the question, please? 20 (Previous question was read by the reporter.) 21 A No. 22 Q That isn't correct? 23 A No. 24 Q Well, what, did you order any additional tests? 1 Ko, sir. 2 Q Did you have the power, the capacity, the time to order additional 3 tests If you wanted them done, sir? 4 A Yes, sir. 5 Q Would you have ordered additional tests if you were dissatisfied 6 with the test results that you got, sir7 7 A If I thought it was necessary. 8 Q Well, It would be necessary If you can't rely upon these results 9 for porphyrins, Isn't that right, sir? 10 A Yes. 11 Q And so you didn't feel It was necessary for porphyrin results to 12 send another sample, did you, sir? 13 A Not at that time. 14 Q Yes, and you never at any time since then, did you, sir? IS A No, sir. 16 Q So these results, you were satisfied with,.and did not ask for 17 any new or additional tests, did you, sir? 18 A No, sir. 19 Q And these results that were reported to you by Metpth, you've 20 known since 1980, have you not, sir? 21 A No, sir. 22 Q Sir? 23 A No, sir. 24 Q Doctor, do you not recall the exhibit that said that Metpath I sent the results, you've known It since 1979, you're correct In saying no, sir, these results were sent to you in 1979, In October of 1979. 2 3 A To Monsanto. 4 Q Well, that's what I am talking about when I say you, Monsanto, 5 Isn't that right, sir? A It was sent to the plant. 6 7 Q To the Monsanto medical department? A Yes, sir. 8 9 Q And these porphyrin results were reported just exactly as we 10 see them here, weren't they, sir? These are the lab reports just as sent 11 to you at Monsanto by Metpath. 12 A I think so, but 1 didn't see them. I suspect so. 13 Q And Monsanto didn't express any dissatisfaction with that, did 14 they, Doctor? 15 A Dr. Osland did. 16 Q And he's working for Monsanto, isn't he, sir? 17 A Yes, sir. 18 Q He Is paid by Monsanto? 19 A Yes, sir. 20 Q He Is an employee of Monsanto, isn't he, sir? 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q So Monsanto didn't express any dissatisfaction with any of these 23 porphyrin test results, did they, sir? 24 A I don't know what the three that were redone, I don't know what, 1 there were three of then that had something done, and I don't know why those 2 were done. 3 Q Well, if you could look at Isaac, was one of them. He has the 4 same, if you want to look at Isaac's porphyrins, If you would. 5 A They were repeated because they were broken In transit. 6 Q Well, they were repeated for that purpose then, so If you are 7 not satisfied with those, any results, you would have them repeated, wouldn'i: 8 you, sir? 9 A Dr. Osland would have. 10 Q And Dr. Osland is Monsanto In this Instance, Isn't he, sir? 11 A Yes, sir. 12 Q So you at Monsanto were perfectly satisfied with these laboratory 13 reports, aren't you, sir? 14 A Yes. IS Q They gave you the Information that you were looking for and 16 seeking, didn't they, sir? 17 A Yes. 18 Q They gave you the Information that you believe was Important to 19 help you arrive at the conclusion as to whether or not these people had 20 anything wrong with them that might be associated with dioxin, isn't that 21 correct, sir? 22 A I don't know what Dr. Osland thought. 23 Q Doctor, I'm talking about Monsanto, I'm not talking about 24 Dr. Osland himself. It was not his study. He didn't pay for it, he's 1 being paid Just like everybody else, that Is by Monsanto. 2 A Yes, sir. 3 Q So don't try to say that It's Dr. Osland's study, because It 4 Isn't. It Is Monsanto's study, Is It not, sir, and not Dr. Osland's? 5 MR. HEINEMAN: Objection, your Honor. He just demanded that 6 the witness answer everything on behalf of Monsanto because Dr. Osland did 7 It. Now, he doesn't want to know what Dr. Osland thought. I object to 8 it. 9 THE COURT: Objection is overruled. 10 A May I have the question, please? 11 (Previous question was read by the reporter.) 12 A The answer Is yes. 13 Q And Doctor, these porphyrin results, well, we've established 14 earlier that porphyrins are considered by some to be a better hallmark of 15 dioxin exposure than chloracne, do you recall that, sir? 16 A No, sir. 17 Q You don't recall that? 18 A No , sir. 19 Q You don't recall that we went through that, Dr. Rousch? 20 A But I never agreed that that was a hallmark. 21 Q I.didn't ask whether or not you agreed, I said that others have 22 said that, Doctor, I did not, sir. 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q And we went through that, didn't we, sir? 1 A Yes, sir. 2 Q And these porphyrins show this table that you have In front of 3 you from this Metpath results showed 38 abnormal porphyrins, doesn't It, 4 sir, 38 of your workers with abnormal porphyrins. 5 A No, sir. 6 Q It shows 38 who have values other than the range for coproporphyr:. 7 30 to 240, and uroporphyrin from 15 to 60, does It not, sir? 8 A Yes, sir. 9 Q And Doctor, you knew that in 1979, X mean you at Monsanto knew 10 that in 1979, didn't you, sir? 11 A Yes, sir. 12 Q You did not advise any of these workers that had these results 13 to go back and have another urine sample, did you, sir? 14 A No, sir. 15 Q You didn't ask any of them to go back for, a 24-hour sample, 16 did you, sir? 17 A No, sir. 18 Q Now, Doctor, insofar as the lipids are concerned, there are 61 19 persons who have one or more abnoramlitles in the lipids, aren't there, sir? 20 A Yes, sir^ 21 Q And Doctor, as far as the other laboratory results are concerned, 22 there are 80 that have one or more other abnormal lab reports, isn't that 23 correct, sir? 24 A 1 didn't go through it to add those up. Q You dicta*t? I A No, sir. 2 Q Well, there is 36 on the first page and 44 on the second page, 3 4 that adds up to 80, doesn*t it, sir? If my statement to you is correct. A Yes, sir. 5 Q Now, Dr. Rousch, these reports given by Metpath and used by 6 Dr. Suskind show, do have a bearing upon the health of these workers at 7 Krummrich, don't they, sir7 8 A They can. 9 Q Doctor, if you add the lipid results to the other abnormalities 10 and the porphyrin results to the other abnormalities, there is about a half 11 a dozen, there is ten people out of all this work force, there is only ten 12 13 people that have no laboratory or porphyrin or lipid abnormalities, isn't j 14 that correct, sir? MR. HEINEMAN: Let me object, your Honor, to Mr. Carr's question. 15 16 He's asking this witness to make a determination as to whether or not that 17 document created by Mr. Carr is accurate when the witness has never purportec 18 to do that, and I object to It. How can this witness know? 19 MR. CARR: Your Honor, let me withdraw the question, because Mr. Heineman is correct in his objection. 20 Q Doctor, if the results as shown in Plaintiff's Exhibit 1507 are 21 correct, and I've represented to the Court that we will establish the 22 23 correctness of these results by another witness, this shows a large number 24 of your employees who have abnormal lab results and symptoms that can be 1 related to dioxin, doesn't It, sir? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Now, Doctor, these men were al90 asked cancer histories, weren't 4 they, sir, and other histories of that sort, weren't they, sir? 5 A Yes, sir. 6 Q And Dr. Susklnd makes no mention as to the number of people that 7 have cancer, does he, sir? 8 A No, sir. 9 Q And you know that there is about at least five that reported 10 cancer histories to Dr. Susklnd, don't you, sir? 11 A I know there are some. 12 Q And you know this Is In a population of relativej ly young^Lt men, i 13 their average is in the AOs, Isn't it, sir? t 14 A Yes. 15 Q Now, Doctor, have you with Dr. Susklnd ever sat down and 16 attempted to work together to find out why so many abnormalities shown In 17 these lab reports in these men? 18 A ii don't think these are abnormals. 19 Q Doctor, would you assume, please,- that these are abnormalities 20 that were reported in the Hetpath results as outside the test range for 21 Metpath, will you do that, sir? 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q And this is a large number of abnormalities, Is it not, sir? 24 A X don't know. Q Doctor, would you expect 99, and that's what it is, 99 of your-- I of a normal healthy population to have these kind of abnormal results out of 2 3 108? Doctor, doesn't that just shock you? 4 A Mo, sir. Q That you have that many abnormal results, if these are abnormal? S A No, sir. 6 7 Q Doctor, why didn't you in 1979, and by you, I mean you at Monsanto, why didn't you go through the symptoms and these lab reports and 8 9 talk to the men and tell them what showed up here and suggest to them that, well, thsse might be abnormal, but then again they might not be abnormal IO and you ought to go get more tests done? Why didn't you do that, Doctor? li A Dr. Susklnd may have done that. 12 13 Q Re may have done that. 14 A He wrote to 80 of them. IS Q Then is what you are saying that he In fact did find 80 people 16 to be-- to have abnormalities, sir? 17 A No, sir. 18 Q Then why did he write to 80 of them, Doctor? 19 A Because they asked them tb write to their family doctor. 20 Q They asked him to pass on abnormalities, didn't they, sir? 21 A The results of his examination to be sent on to their family 22 doctor. 23 Q And what did he tell them? 24 A I don't know. Q You've never received a copy of what Dr. Susklnd.concluded as I to these people? 2 3 A No, sir. 4 Q Then he could have concluded that there were 80 sick people, 5 couldn't he, sir? A Yes, sir. 6 7 Q Why didn't you ask Dr. Susklnd If 80 of your 108 people were 8 sick and needed treatment? 9 A He told the family doctor that they needed treatment. 10 Q Now, Doctor, you had the lab reports yourself, why didn't you 11 do something about following up? 12 A They weren't given to me. 13 Q Doctor, you had the lab results, they were given to you. 14 A They were given to Monsanto IS Q Why didn't you follow up yourself, sir? 16 A I didn't know we got them. 17 Q By you, I mean Monsanto, not you personally. 18 A Dr. Osland did follow up on three of them: 19 Q On three of them? 20 A In hls judgment, that's all that was indicated. 21 Q Doctor, did Dr. Osland ever put together a picture here to 22 show who was abnormal and how many lipids were abnormal? 23 A No, sir, but he went through every one of those records. 24 Q Doctor, doesn't it shock you that 61 of these people have abnormal lipids? 1 A No, sir. 2 Q Now, Doctor, lipids are connected, strongly connected with 3 4 dioxin exposure, aren't they, sir? 5 A No, sir. Q You don't even agree with that? 6 7 A No, sir. Q Now, Doctor, why did Dr. Susklnd even attempt to make a 8 9 correlation between lipids and chloracne If he wasn't thinking about dioxin? 10 A He was thinking about it. Q And why dioxin causes lipid abnormalities? II 12 A Dioxin in some circumstances has affected lipids. 13 Q Doctor, here you've got 61 people. 14 A Yes, sir. 15 Q With abnormal lipids? 16 i A Yes, sir. 17 Q Over half of your population there with abnormal lipids, doesn't 18 that strike you as strange, Doctor? 19 A Dr. Susklnd addressed that in his report. 20 Q Well, he only addressed it with mere reference to chloracne. 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q He didn't reference It with respect to heart disease or prospect! 23 heart disease or anything else, he only talked about it with reference to 24 chloracne. Doesn't it shock you that over half of your people out there ha1 1 got abnormal lipids? 2 A No, sir. 3 Q Doctor, is it your view that these men with the abnormal porphyri^i 4 with the symptoms and the other abnormalities have no connection to dioxin? 5 A Yes, sir. 6 Q Now Doctor, if that is your view, what is the point in having 7 a study like this? Why even conduct your study if you are not going to pay 8 any attention to the results of it? Why have these lipids tested? Why 9 have all these other things tested? Why have the porphyrins tested if when 10 you get a positive result you say, well, it doesn't mean anything? Why 11 do it then, sir? 12 A Each one of those results had been evaluated by Susklnd. 13 Q That isn't what I asked you, Doctor. 14 A Yes, sir. IS Q Would you read my question to him? 16 (Previous question was read by the reporter.) 17 A The lipids were evaluated and discussed by Susklnd. 18 Q Doctor, that isn't what I asked you. I asked you why do all 19 these tests, if when you get the results and these are positive results, 20 that you don't do anything about it, you draw no conclusions from it? 21 A Which are the positive results? 22 Q The 61 people with abnormal lipids, the 38 people with abnormal 23 porphyrins, the 80 people with other laboratory abnormalities. 24 A The lipids have been handled by Dr. Susklnd. Those without 1 chloracne Is the way to look at lipids, those exposed in the plant and 2 got chloracne or didn't get chloracne, whether they affected the lipids, 3 you look to see whether they've affected them, and you either say based on 4 statistical evaluation there is an excess or there is not, so that they 5 did take care of lipids* And the porphyrins, the porphyrins cannot be 6 evaluated in the form that they were done. 7 Q Doctor, on that point, why didn't you ask for other porphyrin 8 tests if you can't use these? 9 A That should be addressed to Dr, Susklnd, it was his study. 10 Q Doctor, would you answer that question, please, sir? 11 Q 1 don't know what I would have done if I would have seen the 12 data when it came out. I didn't see this data. 13 Q Doctor, that isn't what I asked you. Why ask for the porphyrin 14 tests if you are not going to use It when you get the results? IS MR. HE1NEMAN: Objection, your Honor, that's a different 16 question. 17 MR. CARR: It is a different question. 18 THE COURT: Objection is overruled. 19 A Could you repeat the question, please? 20 (Previous question was read by the reporter.) 21 A I can't use porphyrin results if they are not given. 22 - Q ,Then why don't you ask for more, then, Doctor? 23 A Because we didn't think that those negative results by themselves 24 were important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q Then why ask them to start with, Doctor? A Dr. Susklnd asked for them originally. Q And you approved It? A No, I didn't approve them. Q Did you approve it? You paid for it. The protocol was set up, you knew what he was doing, you knew what he did at Nltro, you knew exactly what he asked at Nltro, you knew he asked for exactly the same laboratory studies that he asked for and obtained at Nltro, you knew that, didn't you, Dr. Rousch? A No, sir. Q You didn't know that? A No, sir. Q Doctor, why is it then that you're paying for something that you don't know whajt you are getting? A When you have a consultant, you have to let them do what they want to do. Q And you just didn't know that he did the-- by you at Monsanto, I mean you didn't know that he did the porphyrins? A The plant probably knew, Q Well, Doctor, the plant is you. Would you please bear in mind that Monsanto Is the you that X am talking about? A Yes, sir. Q Why did you have these done and you knew they were being done if they weren't going to be used? I A They didn't know they weren't going to be used. 2 Q Why didn't you ask for more samples when these came to you and 3 you saw, you at Monsanto saw that these were not 24-hour samples? 4 MR. HEINEMAN: Objection, your Honor, It's been asked and 5 answered. 6 THE COURT: Overruled. You may continue. 7 A We didn't know what the results meant. 8 Q Doctor, you told me that you had worked In the laboratory. 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q And you had experience in there? 11 A Yes, sir. 12 Q You represented that you did that before you came to Monsanto. 13 MR. HEINEMAN: Objection, your Honor, he just demanded that the 14 witness answer on behalf of the Monsanto plant medical department, and 15 now when he says we on behalf of somebody who didn't know the difference, 16 now he's saying you personally have experience. Sure he does, but he 17 didn't see them. That's the point. I object to the way that Mr. Carr 18 keeps flip-flopping on this witness. Let him answer the question. 19 THE COURT: Mr. Carr, you may proceed. Objection Is overruled. 20 Q Doctor, are you suggesting that nobody at Monsanto knew about 21 laboratory results except you, and that because you personally did not 22 see them, that you people at Monsanto weren't aware of the fact that 23 Metpath was reporting these results? 24 A Yes, sir. 1 Q Is that what you are saying? 2 A Yes, sir. 3 Q All right. Then when did you personally become aware of the 4 fact that Susklnd wasn't using these results that Metpath reported? 5 A In his report. 6 Q And Doctor, when you learned that, did you get a hold of Susklnd 7 and say, hey, porphyrins are very Important. People have said porphyrins 8 can be strong indication of exposure to dioxin and liver disease and liver 9 problems, we ought to get that done correctly. Did you tell him that? 10 A No, sir. 11 Q Doctor, doesn't It come down to this, that you at Monsanto 12 and Dr. Susklnd determined that you have the best of both worlds, that you 13 order this kind of porphyrin test, if you like the results, you would use 14 it, and you never mention to the world, like Susklnd didn't mention In 15 Exhibit 1483, won't mention to anybody that these are abnormal porphyrins. 16 If you like the results, you'll use it, if you don't like the results, you 17 say, well, these are void samples, like he did In his final report and 18 like he did in his September 29, 1980 report? 19 A I would never approve doing a spot sample for porphyrin. 20 Q Doctor, I don't think you answered my question. 21 A Would you repeat the question for me? 22 (Previous question was read by the reporter.) 23 A No, sir. 24 Q Doctor, that's exactly what occurred, though, isn't It? You I ordered Susklnd and Monsanto, Susklnd in behalf of Monsanto ordered these 2 porphyrin tests, specifically ordered these urine samples, got the results, 3 started to use it in draft number two in Exhibit 1483, never mentioned anywh< 4 that they were void samples, or not 24-hour samples, never mentioned at all, 5 drew up a table on it, decided that he didn't like what he saw, and then 6 in the final report says, well, I can't use them because they are of no 7 real significance? 8 MR. HEINEMAN: Objection, your Honor. I think the question is 9 misleading. If you look at Page 77 of Exhibit 1483 of that Interim draft, 10 right at the bottom it says the values for coproporphyrin and uroporphyrin 11 were from a single void sample, doesn't it, sir? 12 MR. CARR: Indeed it does, but does it say it Is of no slgnlflcan< 13 and cannot be used? Does it say that anywhere in the document? 14 MR. HEINEMAN: No, but you said he didn't say it was from a 15 single void sample, and he did, and I object to your question as being 16 misleading. 17 MR. CARR: Well, maybe at that time it was misleading, but to 18 make it precise so that It won't mislead anybody-- 19 Q He said in September 29th of 1980 that the sample that he was 20 using that he got was-- could not have significance because it was not a 21 24-hour sample, that's what he said in the Exhibit 1500, didn't he, sir? 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q But now, the Exhibit 1483, which was prepared after September 24 29th, 1980, that is prepared in 1982, you said he doesn't make that 1 statement about these porphyrin results, does he, sir? 2 A In this draft? 3 Q Yes. In that draft, No. 1483 that he wrote and gave you in 4 1982, two years after he said similar porphyrin results can't be used. 5 A But he doeB mention the spot sample-- 6 Q Doctor, would you answer the question, please?. 7 A Could you repeat the question? 8 THE COURT: Doctor, you've got to start listening to these 9 questions more carefully. 10 A I am listening. 11 THE COURT: Well, you don't seem to be remembering any of them. 12 I think you have to try harder to remember them. You may repeat this 13 question. 14 Q Doctor, In 1980 he says on Page 2, "Since the values for 15 urinary coproporphyria, uroporphyrins, and creatinine were determined from 16 a single void sample, rather than the required ten milliliters aliquot of 17 24-hour volume, it was not possible to Interpret significance of levels 18 outside the normal range," did he not, sir? 19 A Yes, sir, apparently so. I didn't read it with you. 20 Q A statement like that does not appear in the document that he 21 created in 1982, that Is Plaintiff's Exhibit 1483, does It, sir? 22 A It doesn't make the same statement. 23 Q A statement like this doesn't appear, does it, sir? 24 A No, sir. 1 Q And he in fact uses those results, creates a Table 35, didn't 2 he, sir? 3 A Yes, sir. 4 Q And now, but later on in 1984, he publishes a report dealing 5 with the Nltro morbidity study in which he makes the same statement that 6 he made in 1980 in Exhibit 1500, doesn't he, sir? 7 A Yes, sir. 8 Q Now, Doctor, doesn't this indicate that where he wants to use 9 the results, he makes the statement as he did in 1500 and in the Susklnd 10 morbidity Nltro study, but where he, let me start over again, where he 11 wants to use the results as he did in this draft 1483, he doesn't make the 12 statement that they cannot be used, does he, sir? 13 A Not in that draft. 14 Q But when he doesn't want to use the results, he makes the 15 statement, doesn't he, sir, as he did in 1980 and as he did again in 16 1984? 17 A Yes, sir. 18 Q So doesn't that indicate, Doctor, that when he wants to use it, 19 he'll treat them as valid? 20 A N o , sir. 21 Q He did treat them as valid in Exhibit 1483, didn't he, sir? 22 A But that was a draft. 23 Q Excuse me, he did treat them as valid in Exhibit 1483, didn't 24 he, sir? 1 A Yes. 2 Q Yes. Doctor, you have also, do you recall an Inquiry that was 3 made of Monsanto based upon a statement by Ralph Nader In which he suggested 4 that your people at Sauget were exposed to dioxin, and that they face a 5 higher cancer risk, do you recall that, sir? 6 A No, sir. 7 MR. HEINEMAN: Objection, the question Is hearsay. 8 MR. CARR: I'm sorry? 9 MR. HEINEMAN: He's Injecting hearsay Into this question. Is 10 there something, Is there a document we can look at? 11 MR. CARR: Well, surely, I always ask the question relating 12 to documents, you know that. 13 THE COURT: Objection Is overruled. Go ahead. 14 Q But first of all, do you recall such an Incident? 15 A No, sir. 16 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1510 was marked for identification.) 17 Q I hand you what has been marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 1510 and I 18 ask you to look at that, please. You recognize that as a document 19 created by Daniel L. Bishop for and on behalf of Monsanto? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 Q And It relates to the health of Monsanto employees, does It not, 22 sir? 23 A I don't know, I haven't read It yet. 24 Q Well, do you want to read It so you can be apprised of it? Have you had an opportunity to read it, Doctor? 1 A Yes, sir. 2 Q You now recall the subject matter, Doctor? 3 A No, sir, I wasn't a part of that. 4 Q Doctor, you're not, you have not been aware of what has been 5 said about Sauget and Nitro exposure? 6 A Not this, I haven't seen. 7 Q Doctor, you may not have seen this particular piece of paper. 8 What X am asking you, are you familiar with the subject of it, sir? 9 A No, sir. 10 Q You're not familiar with the NIOSH, the study? II A The N10SQ, yes, sir, I know about that. 12 13 Q All right. And you are familiar with the fact that Ralph Nader 14 had a press conference relating to It, sir? 15 MR. HEINEMAN: Objection, your Honor. He's trying to sneak in what's in the document without laying a foundation for its admission. 16 17 He hasn't even moved its admission, and I object to it. 18 MR. CARR: I'm in the process of establishing a foundation, if 19 it please the Court. 20 THE COURT: Objection is overruled. You may continue. 21 Q Doctor, were you familiar with that fact that he held a press 22 conference? 23 A No, sir. 24 Q Are you familiar with the, well, you are familiar with the fact 1 that NIOSH came to Monsanto In 1970, aren't you, sir? 2 A Yes, sir. 3) Q And they inspected records at the Nltro and Sauget plant, you 4 do know that, don't you, sir? 5 A I'm not sure how they got the Information, but we are a part 6 of their registry. 7 Q Now, Doctor, Bishop, Is in charge of public relations for 8 Monsanto, Isn't he, sir? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q And this Is a document created by Bishop? 11 A Apparently so. 12 Q And he got the Information about what NIOSH did from your 13 medical department, didn't he, sir7 14 A I would assume so. 15 Q And Doctor,, these persons that got copies of this, do they 16 Include people in the department of medicine and environmental health? 17 A No, sir. 18 Q Isn't Kerney associated with that group? 19 A No, sir. 20 Q Frazier? 21 A No, sir. 22 Q Elsworth? 23 A No, sir. 24 Q Doctor, did Bishop have access to your medical records, that Is, I by you, I mean the department of medicine and environment for the purposes 2 of preparing press reports and press releases? 3 A I don't know where he got the Information. 4 Q My question Is, does he have access to those records? 5 A No, sir. 6 Q Does he have the right to call you or any of your subordinates, 7 any of the other employees, and ask questions about what you know? 8 A Yes, sir. 9 Q And Doctor, Is It true that the NIOSH people did compile a 10 list of registry of the people who may have been exposed to dioxin? 11 A I believe so. 12 Q And Doctor, do you believe that It was true that your employees 13 were fully aware of any potential past exposure? 14 MR. HEINEMAN: Objection, your Honor. Now Mr. Carr Is clearly 15 trying to get In. 16 MR. CARR: I'll offer this Exhibit, If It please the Court. 17 (Plaintiff*s Exhibit 1510 was offered Into evidence.) 18 MR. HEINEMAN: There Is absolutely no.foundation laid for the 19 admission of this document. It Is hearsay. This witness has never seen 20 it, nobody In his department's ever seen It, he's never heard of It before. 21 There Is no foundation whatsoever for its admission. 22 MR. CARR: It Is a document created by Daniel Bishop, who Is a 23 public spokesman for Monsanto and It has been produced to us by Mr. Heinema 24 MR. HEINEMAN: That doesn't establish a foundation for Its 1 admission Into evidence. 2 MR. CARR: It surely does. 3 TOE COURT: It Is admitted over objection. 4 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1510 was admitted Into evidence.) 5 Q Doctor, my question is, do you believe that your employees are 6 fully aware of any potential past exposure? 7 A I think our employees are aware. 8 Q Doctor, my question is, Bishop makes the statement here, does 9 he not, "I can tell you he makes a statement to the people from the Post 10 Dispatch and Independent Network News, according to this document that our 11 employees are fully aware of any potential past exposure," does he not, 12 sir? 13 A Tes, sir. 14 Q You know in point of fact and we established this morning IS that your employees were told an untruth about their potential exposure, 16 weren't they, sir? 17 A Not an accurate statement. 18 Q Doctor, we established this morning that this statement prepared 19 here by Mr. Park was a lie, didn't we, sir? 20 A It's Incorrect. 21 Q Didn't we establish this morning that It was a lie? 22 A No, sir. 23 Q Didn't you agree with me, sir, that It was a lie? 24 A It's Incorrect. I Q Doctor, my question Is, did;you not agree with me this morning 2 when I asked you and you're under oath now, Dr. Rouach, did you not agree 3 with me this morning that It was a lie? 4 A I don't recall. 5 Q Now, Doctor, these employees who Inquired of.Monsanto in this, 6 by means of this memo or what the information would divulge, they were not 7 fully aware of past potential exposure, were they, sir? 8 A It wasn't dealing with our employees. 9 Q Sir? IO A That Is a request from Washington. 11 Q Doctor, are you looking at the same paragraph that I am looking 12 at? This Is Daniel Bishop, your press relation spokesman. 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q He prepared this document, did he not, sir? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q And doesn't he say, "I don't know whether NIOSH Informed our 17 workers who made the registry, but 1 can tell you that our employees are 18 fully aware of any potential past exposure," doesn't he say that? 19 A Yes, sir. 20 Q And that statement is not true, Is It, sir? 21 A I'm not sure they're fully aware, but they're aware of past 22 exposure. 23 Q Doctor, my question Is that statement is not true, Is It, sir? 24 A I don't know. I Q Well, you know from the evidence-- strike that. Do you know of 2 any bulletin put out by Krummrich, put out by anybody that would show that 3 these people have been told that they were exposed to dioxin? '4 A I can't recall any. 5 Q Doctor, what they're told from time to time is exactly like 6 what they were told In October of 1979 by the suggestion of Mr. Park that 7 several analyses have indicated dioxin levels below what's found by OSHA, 8 and we're still checking. That's what they have been told time and again, 9 Isn't that correct, sir? 10 A No, sir. 11 Q Doctor, weren't they told as far as this very report that we're 12 talking about, weren't they told by you at Monsanto that there were no 13 significant health problems found by Susklnd? 14 A Yes, sir. 15 Q And in point of fact, that's not the truth, is it, sir? 16 A No, sir 17 Q And you know it's not the truth because you've seen these lab 18 reports and he made no such finding, did he, sir? He never did find that 19 there was "no significant health problem at the Kruimnrich plant," did he, 20 sir? 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q Where did he make that finding, Doctor? 23 A The form of writing said he-- 24 Q Excuse me, Doctor, where did he make that finding? 1 A No, sir, he*doesn't. 2 Q Indeed, he doesn't, but you told your employees that he did 3 find there were no significant health problems at Krummrlch, didn't you, 4 sir? 5 A Yes, sir* 6 Q When in fact he didn't make that finding, did he, sir? 7 A Yes, he did. 8 Q Well, then, Doctor, I'll ask you again, where is the finding 9 that he made? 10 A The form in which it was written describes it. 11 Q We went through that, Doctor, and he makes no mention of 12 health problems whatsoever, whether they have them or don't have them, he 13 makes no finding that they have no significant health problems, does he, 14 sir? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q Where does he? 17 A There is no specific statement like that, that's correct. 18 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1511 was marked for Identification.) 19 Q Now, Doctor, I'll hand you Plaintiff's Exhibit 1511 and see if 20 you recognize that as a Krummrlch publication or part of a Krummrlch 21 publication. 22 A Yes, sir. 23 MR. CARR: I offer-- well, counsel hasn't seen it yet, your Honor 24 Now I'll offer 1511 into evidence. I (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1511 was offered into evidence.) 2 THE COURT: Any objection? 3 MR. HEINEMAN: He made the offer as he handed It to m e v Judge, 4 I haven't had a chance to read it yet. 5 Q Doctor, while he's looking at that, I might ask you a few more 6 questions on this press release. He makes a statement there that the 7 Nitro employees have been the subject of several epidemiological studies 8 both outside, results of these medical studies have been compared with 9 these employees both in general and specifically as they related to one 10 person, do you see that, sir? 11 A Yes, sir. 12 Q Well, that's not true, either, is it, sir? 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q Doctor, were the employees told about the 28 cancers that were 15 reported to Susklnd as we went into the other day in one of these exhibits? 16 Were they, sir? 17 A 1 can't answer that. 18 Q Doctor, do you have any Information that they were ever told 19 that 28, not 14, but that there were 28 cancers reported to Susklnd In 20 the Nitro study? 21 A Dr. Susklnd went to Nitro and talked to them about results of 22 his study, following the study he went there and spent several hours 23 discussing the results of his study-- 24 Q Were you ever told, hey, there are 28 of you that have reported 1 cancers to me, or 28 cancers have been reported to me, rather? 2 A I don't think there were 28. 3 Q Doctor, we went through that already, have we not? Twenty-seven 4 or twenty-eight, we've got one questionable here, 27 cancers. Did you ever 5 see any document that he reported that to those people? 6 A I don't think there were 27. 7 Q Now, Doctor, assume that you have agreed that there were 27 8 that were reported to Dr. Suskind, would you assume that, please, sir? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q Was the employees at Nitro ever told that, to your knowledge? 11 MR. HEINEMAN: Objection, that's a different question. First 12 he said reported to Suskind, and then he asked the witness to agree that 13 there were, and that's two different things. I think It's misleading. 14 THE COURT: Objection overruled. It Is not misleading. IS A I know that they were told the results of the study, but I 16 don't know what he said. 17 Q Well, you know they were told what he published, you know that, 18 don't you, sir? 19 A Yes, sir. 20 Q But he published only the existence of 14 cancers as reported 21 to him, a history of 14 cancers, didn't he, sir? 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q He didn't publish 27 cancers, did he, sir? 24 A No, sir 1 Q Do you have any Information that he was, that they were told 2 anything other than what was published? 3 A No, sir. 4 Q Now, Doctor, you've also said here that "our workers are not 5 suffering from any chronic or lasting health effects from exposure to 6 dioxin," now these reports that Dr. Susklnd got from the laboratory and 7 these findings that were shown In the laboratory show that these health 8 effects came or lasted long after exposure to dioxin In many of these 9 men, didn't they, sir? 10 A No, sir. II Q They did not, sir? 12 A No, sir. 13 Q Only a relatively few parts of these people presently working In 14 chlorinated phenol department, Dr. Rousch? IS A Yes, sir. 16 Q Over half of them had their exposure years prior to this study, 17 Isn't that correct, sir? 18 A I don't know. 19 Q Well, the reports that, the lab reports you have show these 20 abnormalities In these men and they are not just chloracne, are they, sir? 21 A N o , sir. 22 MR. CARR: Your Honor, X see I've gone past, it's five after 23 four, I'm sorry. 24 THE COURT: All right, ladles and gentlemen, we'll adjourn 1 for the day at this time. We'll start again tomorrow morning at nine 2 o'clock. I would remind you besides the regular admonishments at any 3 break, that you are not to read, listen to, or watch anything about this 4 case In particular or subject matter In general. Thank you for everything. 5 The Court Is adjourned. 6 (At this time Court adjourned for the day.) 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 INDEX 2 WITNESSES: 3 DR* GEORGE ROUSCH Page 4 Continued Cross Examination by Mr. C a r r .............. 2 5 6 EXHIBITS: 7 Plaintiff's 1495A 8 Plaintiff's 1495B 9 Plaintiff's 1496 10 Plaintiff's 1496A 11 Plaintiff's 1497 12 Plaintiff's 1497A 13 Plaintiff's 1498 14 Plaintiff's 1498A IS Plaintiff's 1499 16 Plaintiff's 1500 17 Plaintiff's 1501 18 Plaintiff's 1501A 19 Plaintiff's 1502 20 Plaintiff's 1503 21 Plaintiff's 1504 22 Plaintiff's 1505 23 Plaintiff's 1506 24 Plaintiff's 1507 Marked 2 2 2 3 14 14 18 18 25 27 35 37 55 58 75 92 92 96 Offered 2 2 3 3 14 14 18 18 25 36 36 37 55 58 76 Admitted 2 2 3 3 14 IS 18 18 26 36 37 37 55 59 79 92 93 I 2 EXHIBITS: 3 Plaintiff's 1508 Plaintiff's 1509 4 5 Plaintiff's 1510 6 Plaintiff's 1511 7 8 9 10 li 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 INDEX Cont Harked 119 124 163 170 Offarad 120 125 166 171 Admitted 120 126 167 i ti ; ( l.l ! i i II i- t I ; VIf I r h 1 N