Document RpK77xQ8L32jkOqj4MEVQEr0v

PLAINTIFF'S 1 EXHIBIT DUP-966 . MEETING WITH IRVING J. SELIXOFF THURSDAY - NOVEMBER 18, 1982 Dc. Selikoff and I reviewed the Du Font Guidelines for Physicians sections which pertain to asbestos-related findings. He stated that using X-ray findings as the entry point was logical because most cases will j_rjow-- X-ray changes relatively early, even though some may have parenchymal disease without X-ray evidence. These latter cases will, however, have an increased risk of disease and usually show clubbing, rales, cyanosis, and dyspnea. He generally agrees with our categories of Benign Asymptomatic Abnor malities, Benign Symptomatic Abnormalities, end Malignant Dlseesa, because it keeps the categories in medical terms, not legal terms. He believes, however, there can be minimal parenchymal fibrosis and no true disability, hence there should be e category for this under Benign Asymptomatic Abnormalities. He seye there it no asbestos-related condition of Exudative Pleural Thickening, but there is Excessive Pleural Thickening which can be fatal. The term "Exudative'' should be changed to "Excessive." Cancers of the kidney end oropharynx should be added under the Malignant Disease category. All of these change* should be made on the next revision of the Guidelines. We than discussed Du Pone's voluntary handling of cases of occupational asbestos-exposure abnormalities as shown on the attached flow chert. He agreed with our procedure and readily recognised where we would have trouble because of the imprecision in determining percent of disability. He asked if we would consider giving some dollar award even for 0 disability, as e show of good faith. I Indicated it was not out of the question, but was unlikaly because of the difficulty we would have in treating all employees fairly sad equitably in the many different states and localities where we operate. Be is anxious to establish soma criteria which can be used to escribe percent of disability irrespective of where the perijpa lives or works or which pulmonary disease specialist evaluates his or her. He has coeyleted e study of 2,000 asbestos-exposed workers using tha AMA oritaria, the KK criteria, end e double-pronged (leisure end work) 12-point criteria darvelopad at Kt. Sinai, but doesn't yet have the data analysis completed. DU 038100 F60/F 60 dlld 2 We eventually got into a discussion of workers compensation and tort laws and I than explained the unique nature of Delaware law and the problems we are having. He readily recognized and understood the problem and indicated a willingness to help. He has agreed to have our pending Delaware eases evaluated at Mt. Sinai and he will be involved with each case and his name will be associated with each. He was not firm on this, but indicated he generally will not testify, but someone from Ht. Sinai will. His stated reason for not testifying is that he does not want to have to answer questions such as "Should Du Pont have known sooner that asbestos was bad?, etc." He believes there is a big need to establish criteria for deter mining the degree of disability from asbestos exposure and wishes to assign about 2+ people to work full time to review all current procedures on disability evaluation for pulmonary disease. The results can be used to set internal standards for himself and mambars of hia staff and possibly for others. His overall reaction to our requast is yas, he will help us. He pointed out that our program will make other companies look bad. I responded we had conaidared that, but we had an obligation to do what was right and proper for our employees and, after all, soma company had to be a leadar. The than* throughout our discussion was our desire to do what is right and proper for our employees and our wish Chat they recognize this and not fael we were showing poor faith. we agreed to continue the discussion of the workers compensation issue of asbestos-exposed employees on Monday, November 22, at 9>00 a.a. with me, Du Pont workers compensation attorney (A. a. Burton), and Du Pont Assistant Medical Director (B. w. Culpepper, M.D.). X left a copy of the Du Pont guidelines for Physicians sections for handling occupational injuries and illnesses and those for asbestos-related abnofriallties, the flow sheet of our procedure for determining percent of disability and the appropriate compensation, and A. <3. Burton's summary of Delaware workers compensation law for asbestos abnormalities. He is to give me suggestions on the guidelines sections. BWXicsb 11/18/92 DU 038101 DUP 0937095 B V MEETING WITH I. J. SELIJXBT THUHSDAE - NOVEMBER 18 - 9;30 A.M. I. Introductory Raaarjcs A. Swell Talk 1. Upcoming meeting - December 13-16 2. Or. Batf - offar residency and tailor for hia naada. B. Suceasa of Videotapa 1. Within Du Pone 2. OHC phyaiciana group - wall racaivad 3. Wa show, but don't raleaaa copy. AIA request. II. Du Pone'a Aabaaeoa Victim Acknowledgment and Coapanaaeion Procadura A. Intane - to acknowledge raaponaibility and appropriataly ani fairly ooapanaaea employees and former employees if thara ia raaaonatala probability wa caused tha condition. 8. Daacriba varioua Stagaa - aanign Asymptomatic - aeknovladga, but not coapanaaea - aanign Symptomatic - aeknovladga and cceipanaata - Malignant - aeknovladga and compensate C. Aak hia opinion on our procadura 0. Oiaeuaa compensation Plow Chart and solicit opinion III. Daacriba Problem Having with Compensation Lavs, aapacially Delaware. A. Ill-defined B. Hot use AMA Guide, but deciaion of lay members C. Pyramiding Awards D. Du Pont can't offer to Compensate Fairly Before Does to Cocmisaion Because no Formula to uaa to Determine Appropriate Compensation 1. Creates employes relatione problem. Sxployeee knov they can get more money from commission than we offer If they can get right expert witness. 2. we tmnt to offer compensation to which tha employee, or format employee, ia entitled without ha os she having to go to Commiscion. * DU 038102 DUP 0937096 'imaiaMg.# -f.: Ofufiff jffPa aaaAi j,.- *;aiiijia-i wn -2IV. Request Or. Selikoff' s Help la Determining ehe Extent of the Disease and. if Possible, Appropriate Compensation For Delaware Employees A. Evaluate Each Delaware Caae and Oatarmine Extant of Disability 1. Examine employee, or 2. Review other consultant's report of an evaluation B. Advise ue of Beat Estimate of Appropriate Compensation C. Testify if goes to Commission, or 0. Allow us to introduce his report into proceedings. E. Intent is not to deny employees fair and appropriate compensation, but to be able to offer it to them without need for adversary proceedings or being second-guessed. F. Disadvantages to him 1. Dr. Daum r0 o DU 038103 0937097