Document Xm4oj5ebmOzgB5K7Zmd9vNXw

FILE NAME: Saranac 7th Symposium (SSY) DATE: 1952 DOC#: SSY034 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Transcript of Presentation by Mr. Tiernan Tina rSCH P1QJ 650. git _r_c_s_sm \ KImi cad Ladle# cad Ocutlc-- # 1 I felt r#tbr lcaeooae ^ cb X arrived. ill *jr flrlaadc that were here at the gjapotiam m n l l j d t la the other ddc of the table, tat X # i*t#reeted . 1b bearing V trim* from Bethlchca rUte that he etteeptad to be lajutlil* X do not 1 i ! think that impartiality can be carried into the courtroom by two attorney*. You must remember that we advocate the position of the individual or company that we presently re present, and we mist, of necessity, present It in the moat favorable light for our client* Ve might say that the carrier's representative should be impartial in favor of the carrier and that the claimant's representative should be Iiqpartial in favor of the claimant* On* thing I'd like to state today, as a represen tative of the United Steelworkers of America, in ftiffalo awl no other part of the state, I only represent the Steelwork ers in Buffalo, is that we are extremely grateful to Ittss Donlon and the administration of the law in this state, for the tremendous advances that have been mad* in silicosis, and we, in steel In Buffalo, realise that without her as sistance and without her real interest in the claimant*, that it never would have occurred so fast* Our position on that point also is not that this legislation is granting rights to the claimants, but that it is merely restoring rights which were, in effect, taken away when this common law was abolished in 1935, and he waw compelled to seek redress under the Workmen'* Compensation Law, and those rights are now fast being restored, and w# thank KissDonlon for the work in that dorection. How, formally, It la my privilege today to outlim the procedure followed by the United steelworker* of Ameri ca in it* council, in presenting a claim for disability due to ailicosi*. I am not going into any other part of the workmen*s compensation, but silicosis only, and I don't mean asbestosis or anthraooaia or acy other thing, Just ailicosis, and if the doctor a have a knowledge of the purpose of or for which a medical report is made, it should be of ma terial aid in hie preparation* In initiating our claim, the claimant files a pa per which he signs, called a C-S, which ia proparad by the Workmen*# Compensation Board; it*s Just a form, and it ia filled in and merely states therein that he has worked in a dusty atmosphere and. h e 's got lung trouble, very general* Immediately upon the filing of that CpS form, it is referred to the full board of consultants. The case need, not be controverted. It doesn't - it is not at that time examined by all members of the board, but only by one of tin members, end we have found that that isn't entirely satis- j factory, iscause it has made, in our experience, every coae-1 pensation case where a claim for silicosis is made, a con troverted case# jjy friend from Bethlehem may well recall the ease in which his doctors and my doctors all agreed that it was a total disability due to compensation, so he paid it, but 653* when It got to the board of cheat consultants, they decided It was only partial disability and then nobody knew what to do, because we have a special fund that has to come into thii matter, but In any event, today, subotantlally every eiliooala case Is a controverted case* The claimant, the consultants then file a report* It Is returned to Buffalo, filed, oopies are given to all parties concerned, and the case is then ready to be placed on the calendar. The claimant's attorney must then proceed to prove the claim* Such proof requires the two major fac tors be established, that need not be asserted in the ord inary workmen's case. The first thing that we must do is prove that there was an exposure to injurious dust, within two years prior to the date of disability, and the seoond is that the claimant is totally disabled* Thosa SLre the two smjor difficulties in silicosis and other ordinary workmen's compensation claims, those are the differences* How, as to that first factor, the claimant is add ed by the provisions of Section 47 of our law, which states i that any exposure to the hazards of harmful dust in the em ployment for a period of sixty days after September 1st, 1935, shall be presumed, in the absence of substantial evi dence to the contrary, to bo an injurious exposure. i Thus, it is possible merely by having the claimant l testify as to the nature of the duet, to establish an injurious exposure* and It Is then the obligation of the carrier to offer substantial evidence that such dust, for a variety of reasons, may not have been injurious. Commonly, if that point is in issue, the carrier offers evidence or attempts to, that the dust may not have contained silica or other injurious matter and that If they are there, that the con centration was of too low a dust count or the particles themselves too large. It is most fortunate that Section 47 is in the law, for otherwise, it would be almost impossible for th# claimant to prevail. Ho dust counts or particle else meas urements are ever available to the claimant, who never has occasion to consider the matter until after the effect ha. been felt. On the other hand, the company man and many do, repeatedly have ite plant examined, Inspected and report, available. Usually, at least for the past several year* it's changing now - but usually such count, are not mad. until after the claim is filed, and unless the carrier or the employer can establish that the conditions under which the clainmnt worked, which remember, must go back over many yeare, he must establish that those conditions were sub stantially the same, as at the time of inspection, and if hi. doe. not do that, then these presumptions as to the Injur ious exposure will not have been overcome, and the claimant then proceed to trie question of total disability. may This, of course, Is primarily a medical question. Present medical opinion appears to toe that silicosis, per sr 9 is not usually disabling. Any disability presently is eval uated on the basis of complicating factors. The attorney for the claiBnnt, therefore, must be able to establish by competent medical proof, either that the condition is complicated by infection, that emphysema exists or that there is a cardiac involvement. Koe, those are the only three involvements that I knoe about. There maybe some others, and you doctors are more familiar with that than I sun, but those are the only three that we have been able to establish as being in any way effected or precipitated or aggravated by the harmful exposure to silica. It is most important, therefore, that the attend ing physician, in reporting to the Workmen's Compensation Board, investigate and detail euch complicated conditions fr>a be prepared to support his opinion. Wow, it is not necessary that the dust disease, in and of Itself, that is the silicosis, be the sole cause of the disability, -it it must be at least a contributing factor. Furthermore, unless the physician is ableto conclude that the claimant is tot ally disabled, then the claimant's proof muet fail. Hov, in evaluating the degree of disability, it ie usually necessary to take into consideration factors . 6 5 6 other than the immediate effects of the diaeaee itaelf and it* complications} the age of the claimant is an important factor, as are other diseases from which he may suffer. Th< extent must be considered# It is proper for the physician to state that even though silicosis, in and of itself, only plays a part in the entire picture, thatnevertheless, if it is a contributing factor in the total disability, then the condition is at least in part related to the occupation. How, I have mentioned then infection, emphysema and cardiao involvement as complicating factors in sillco-- sis. These appear to be the only conditions presently con sidered as complications, but we who have represented the United Steelworkers in the Buffalo area, have observed a significant number of cases in which individuals exposed to silica have also been found to be suffering from carcinoma of the lungs# No physician that I know of has yet expressed, the opinion that exposure to silica has any connection with this. further earlier Ue hope that future studies may throw a little light onthis question, and I understand that in the j i days of the symposium, the matter has ag*i heen dis4 cussed, that it still seems to be the consensus of opinion or almost the unanimous opinion that silica and carcinoma of the lung, there just seems to be no relationship, but I ; trust that the studies are not considered concluded. ;  52* Mow, we aleo believe that this ie a little bit beyond the presentation, but we believe in the Stee2workers, that compensation should be awarded for partial disability* We do not claim that the exact degree can ever be determine*-, but the Cxaet degree of partial disability can never be eval uated in any case. It should be enough that sillcosia, evex^ though not totally disabled, effectively destroyed the earning capaoity of the stone molder, the bricklayer or other mechanic in his skilled occupation and forces him to seek employment at lower wages in other occupations* We hope, therefore, that there may soon be further development in the field of partial disability* How, on behalf of the United Steelworkers of America, I want to thank Doctor Vorwald and Hise Donlon for the opportunity of explaining a few of our problems to members end outlining briefly our objective* in sill* coals cases. Thank you very much. (Applause)* By MISS DOHLOHt Thank you, Mr. Tiernan, for helping to round out the presentation today of viewpoints. I don't know -hat it j vaa altogether nice of you to give away your and Prank I B a m a k o 's problem, to Doctor Edgar Mayer, and the others of i the board of chest consultanto, but 1 think it's something ! for us all to have in mind, that this impartial board calls ; the shots as it sees it, and having examined the record and, t; ------------- ----- - " ~~~ ' 658^ found only a partial disability, that's what they said they did* I don't know what else you're going to do about it. Sow, we have one other speaker on the program thli morning. Ee comes to you from across our northern border* He is known to a good many of you, I'm sure, as the dlstln* guished Counsel to the Quebec Asbestos Producers Association with his office in Montreal, Quebec, and those of us on thli side of the border, who are lawyers, and all the lawyers will recognice the distinction that ha is a Q. C, - fire years ago we would have said K. C, but as a woman I take a little bit of pride in remembering that now they are Queens : Counsel. Mr. Ivan Sabourln. Bf MR, SABOCJRiyt Mr. Chairman and Madam - Mademoiselle and Doctor Vorwald, Members of the Symposium, Ladies and Gentlemans Ted Vatera has asked me to be as brief as possibls. I might skip a few parts of the notes I have, but in an effort at the same time not to break the continuity that I thought I should have* Before couching these notes in final form, I have had the privilege of taking recognition of the texts of both ay predecessors on this morning's program. Doctor Braun andj Doctor Bamako. This should enable me, before discussion j time, to address you without possibly repeating as much of what has already been stated*