Document ex1ngk51DO12vj060go12YRE

tive individual by some sort of screening test? For dermatitis, for i example, why not a patch test before he is put Into contact with the suspected material on his job! Generally speaking, we do not recommend this procedure. I be lieve one of the biggest scale atieiupts at this sort of thing was the * testing''df'enionteers with mustard gas at the beginning of World .War 11. A great many were tested in an effort to determine individual variations in sensitivity. One consequence of this program was that' some of the men were sensitized to mustard gas and therefore reacted abnormally whenever they came in contact with small concentrations. So. it is not a practical procedure to. weed out the hypersensitive by a preliminary testing program if ire are dealing with a sensitizer. The other comment is that we can anticipate certain types of difficulty. For example, suppose we are dealing with a chemieal that produces kidney injury. It would not he wise to expose a man who has onlyone kidney; he might very well be abnormally sensitive. And that brings up the importance of an adequate, preplacement medical examination and a classification of a man as fit or unfit for a certain type of exposure. DR. McGEE: May I add one thing which I think is important} It is the absolute necessity of a critical attitude in tying down the diagnosis. I know of a few areas where it is more important to crossexamine a diagnosis and prove it to the extent that it is posable to prove it than in occupational disease. The very act of having a high index of suspicion when supervising an ojieration with a potential hazard sometimes leads to false diagnoses that can he troublesome. I am reminded of the incident of the plant physician who was aware that a chemical could be a sensitizer of the skin ami lead to a dermatitis. He showed roe a case of a very stubborn dermatitis, stub born because the man bad been removed from the exposure for six months and still had the skin lesions. 1 was visiting the plant at the -Xime. l.liaiLa pf g different diagnosis shea J .saw thp man's lemons, partly because I was not expecting contact dermatitis, as was the plant physician who lives with the problem every day. I asked the patient if there were members of his family who had similar skin trouble. There were two members who had similar complaints. The diagnosis proved to be scabies for all three of the patients. MODERATOR AHEARX: Thank von very much. We will go on to the next question. ``Docs the usual Products Liability Policy eover any pud all liability that may be imjwscd ii|>oii a manufacturer for damages resulting from the use of his product ? MR. BA1LE; I think the answer In that question is obviously no. [260] First of all, it provided in t might be imp itself. That 1 product liabi basis."- They damages arisi dent is used i point of time effects which: amount of sp lariy'iriteir-yt liability resul mind that a p a satisfactory be certain thf to call "occur I thing i basis is impi coverage of tl pretty diffieu' more apparei road contract method is a V. ing propertie The other me avoid that. T pensive meth MR. .T. do not insura beyond the c* `Sm.'BA out with the be very hapi would be vor that, of cotirs pany iudivid premium. Th have been ex necessarily v So it is common to ii