Document da57D02O01ww0VGpdpyanOjpG

Iflfl / Monsanto Monsanto Company 800 N. Lindbergh Boulevard St. Louis. Missouri 6316? Phone: (314) 694-1000 LAW DEPARTMENT March 16, 1990 Ms. Carol Van Strum 7493 E. Five Rivers Road Tidewater, Oregon 97390 Re: Mortality Studies of Nitro Plant Population Dear Ms. Van Strum: Please find enclosed copies of the two mortality studies referenced during our telephone call today. I have also enclosed for your review, copies of the trial record regarding Dr. Roush and Dr. Suskind which relate to those studies. I have also included in this packet a chart which was prepared during the trial to illustrate for the jury the statistical manipulation which was being undertaken by the plaintiffs' lawyer to artificially create the impression that there was an excess in cancer mortality at the Nitro Plant when as explained by both Dr. Roush and Dr. Suskind? the actual study data would lead to the opposite conclusion. If you have any further questions regarding this litigation or the matters addressed in this correspondence, please feel free to give me a call at (314) 694-2821. Sincerely, DFS/dlr Enclosures CC: Dan Bishop w/o enclosures Telephone: CAROL VAN STRUM Science Writer 7493 East Five Rivers Road Tidewater/ Oregon 97390 (503) 526-7151 Telefax:_____ (via voiceline) April 2, 1990 David Snively Law Department Monsanto Company 800 N. Lindbergh Boulevard St. Louis, Missouri 63167 Re: Information request Dear Mr. Snively: Thank you for the materials you sent from the Kemner case record. They are very informative, and I appreciate the trouble you took to copy them for me. Would it be possible for you to copy page 2 of the Monsanto Offer of Proof for me? It was missing from the copy of the Offer that I received. I also have a question about one document that puzzles me. The attached copy of Table 9 was stapled into the copy of the 1983 Zack and Gaffey study that you sent me, in front of page 586 (Table 9) of the study. There is no exhibit number on this page; is it part of some other document in the record of the Kemner case? I would be most grateful if you could send me a copy of the document it is from. Thank you again for your courtesy and help. Sincerely, CVS:cvs attachment Carol Van Strum t> 11O n iXtiC'.-v v^~tft>^J ^r. r_ ."V* VVfcijvi ou(~ Mfovi Critru^ accxcP. able 9 Observed and Expected Number Deaths During 1955-1977 by Cause and 2,4,5-T Exposure Category Showing Proportional Mortality Ratioss (PMRs) (Not Including Deaths from TCP Incident) oc\ i 'X3 W - - EXpoaed Non - E xpos e d Cause-of Death Observed Expected PHR Observed Expected PHR All causes of death 5B 58.00 100 89 B9.00 100 All malignant neoplasias 9 10.94 82 21 17.19 122 Buccal cavity and pharynx 0 0.3B 0 0 0.64 0 Digestive organa and peritoneum 0 2.80 0 ^ -iV'i 3 5.74 52 Stomach 0 0.52 0 0 1.06 0 Liver All other digestive organs Respiratory system 0 0.19 0 0 0.39 0 0 2.09 0 , ^X-JL1 VI'-iJivx,L 3 4.29 70 6 3.78 159 s 4 5.58 72 Lung 6 3.57 168 4 5.26 76 All other respiratory organs 0 0.21 0 0 0.39 0 Skin Genitourinary organa 0 0.29 0 2 0.96 20B 010 0.35 2.70 0 370* Bladder All other genitourinary organa 2 0.22 909 0 0.74 0 7 0.65 1077* 3 2.05 146 Lymphatic and hematopoietic tissue 0 1.35 0 1 2.07 4B Other sites Diseases of the nervous system and sense organa Diseases of the circulatory system 0 31 1.38 0.61 26.48 72 0 117 3 2.12 142 0 0.B3 0 i52 47.37 110 Arteriosclerotic heart disease, Including CUD 27 19.72 137 43 33.63 128 All other diseases of the circulatory system 4 6.76 59 9 15.66 57 Diseases of the respiratory system 2 2.67 75 4 6.49 62 Diseases of the digestive system All other diseases 1 3.70 27 3 4.31 70 2 4.06 49 2 6.70 30 External causes of death 12 9.29 129 8 9.28 86 Hy analysis showed 65 deaths. * P<.05 |V j C c .vjC p ; \ <WT Monsanto Monsanto Company 800 N. Lindbergh Boulevard St. Louis, Missouri 63167 Phone: (314) 694-1000 April 11, 1990 LAW DEPARTMENT Carol Van Strum Science Writer 7493 East Five Rivers Road Tidewater, OR 97390 Re: Information Request Dear Ms. Van Strum: Thank you for your correspondence of April 2, 1990. Please find enclosed a copy of the missing page from Dr. Suskind's offer of proof. The other material which you referenced in your letter was inadvertently included with materials previously forwarded to your office. It is not a portion of a document in the court record of the Kemner case. To bring you current with the status of that case, I note that the Kemner appeal was argued last week by the parties. Monsanto remains confident that the verdict will be reversed when the decision is issued by the Illinois Appellate Court. Sincerely A:DFS-046.ch ozrti ; ^ODurrii v r o t ; & r u ; 2 e I f report health effects he found in Monsanto's workers when asked by the West Virginia Compensation Commission, and of publishing studies intended to downplay the actual human health effects of dioxin. As a result of the extreme and unfair limitations placed upon his testimony and this Court's subsequent ban on his further testimony, Dr. Suskind never had the opportunity to respond to these charges, and to demonstrate that his recollection was totally accurate. The importance of Dr. Suskind's testimony to plaintiffs' punitive damage case is illustrated by the manner and length (13 days) of cross-examination of Dr. Suskind after a reasonably concise direct exam (2-1/2 days), and the extensive, use of Dr. Suskind's testimony in the cross examination of Dr. James Webster, Monsanto's chief examining expert. Plaintiffs' counsel spent days cross-examining Dr. James Webster, Monsanto's final medical expert, with the unclarified, and at times unduly and erroneously restricted, testimony of Dr. Suskind. In addition, misinformation offered by plaintiffs' counsel which was corrected and clarified by Dr. Suskind during his direct examination (which clarification was left unchallenged by plaintiffs' counsel despite 18 days of cross examination) relating to the number of workers reported by Dr. Suskind in his 184 health study as having cancer was used, nevertheless, in it's incorrect and unclarified state to cross examine Dr. Webster. (Tr. 6/8/87). This Offer of Proof demonstrates that Dr. Suskind's redirect examination is critical to Monsanto's 2