Document YjyargdMv1r8g9G3w3BK4d4Q0

February 16, 1939 Mr* Daniel W. Hone Tide Water Associated Oil Company 79 Hew Montgomery Street San Francisco, California Dear Mr* Hone;- Please accept my thanks for havin^infcrmed me fully as to the status of the ^ H H H P ^ c a s e * 1 am sorry Indeed that this matter has turned out so badly. I have gone over your brief in your letter of January 26th and it seems to me that It has made practically every point with regard to the clinical information that could be made, with one exception, The exception to which I refer has to do with the manner in which Dr* Paul Quaintanoe dealt with the analytical information* Just between ourselves having read over Dr* Qualntance's resume, it is quite apparent that he is not an expert In dealing >rith analytical material. However not to labor that point, I wish to call your attention to the fact that the ' two analyses of the urine which were used by Dr. Quaintanee as important evidence, were not carried out in such a way as to inspire confidence in their accuracy, and that, moreover, the quantities of lead reported are of ouch magnitude as automatically to convict the analyst of gross error. X have not re viewed the record which is In my possession but unless I am very much mistaken, these*analytical results were not brought into the record at the last hearing by the plaintiff* s wife and her attorney. They were made a p a r t of the record but X do not remember that they were ever discussed as evidence of this man's illness, or whether I was ever questioned concerning them. On the other hand I pointed out to you In our discussion of the case that these results were grossly at fault and were, therefore of no value at arriving at a diagnosis. The reviewer, Dr. Quaintanoe, had he been familiar with the subject would himself have recognized these results as grossly erroneous. However, instead of so doing, he refers to them as Important evidence of the likelihood that the patient had lead poisoning. On page of the report which you sent me, he states as a fact "Therefore, the applicant's excretion was l6*i- to 205 times "normal"". KE" 0022042 -2- It Is fairly apparent to me that Dr* Qualntance*a report Is the chief reason for the decision of the Commission, for Dr, Quaintanee is very definite In his belief that the; patient had lead poisoning, and died of lead poisoning, and yet he comes out with the bizarre statement that there is no evidence that^PBBBBBfc&bsorbed lead as a con sequence of his occupation* It is# of source, possible for a man to absorb lead from non-occupa11o nal sources but it Is so improbable In the case of an adult that the Commission was right in not giving this statement much weight. It would be fairly apparent to me that of lead poisoning, he obtained it either as a consequence of his occupation or as a consequence of his os or someone* else attempt to practice deception, fhe latter situation, In my opinion. Is scarcely entitled to consideration in this case. In my opinion, therefore, you are not quite right In saying that the decision of the Commission la amazing* In fact I believe the Commission's decision was more or less inevitable regardless of the legalistic aspects of the matter, if it could be granted that Dyv Quaintance*a conclusions were correct* Incidentally I should be pleased to know who Dr, Quaintance is and how he comes by M s ersipert* knowledge. I should be pleased if you would keep me fully Informed. I hope it will not be necessary for ae to return to San Francisco in connection with this case, but if some situation should arise which would quite clearly Justify such a trip on my part, I hope you will bring It to my attention promptly. t am With kindest personal regards. Cordially yours, RAX?is Robert A* Kehoe, k #D. /< 0022043