Document jgz9NqeDB4xVk728oekbmaj85

FILE NAME: US Gypsum (USG) DATE: October 8, 1937 DOC#: USG018 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: 1937 Letter to CM Price from JJ Cuneo regarding Wetzel v National Asbestos Mfg Co J O H N J . C U N E O LAW OFFICES T r us2t 1C oBmEpRaGnEyNo fAVn E. NJ .UBElo g . JERSEY CITY, N. J . T iu n o m Journal square a - m -o is s Charles M. Price, Esq., . ;c/o Scott, MacLeish & Falk, Esqs., : United States Gypsum Company. .300 West Adams Street, . Chicago, Illinois. ' , ' October 8, 193?. My dear Mr. Price:- Re: Wetzel vs. National Asbestos Mfg. Co. . Mr. John A. Scharwath has suggested that I A - write you concerning a claim of asbestosis made by a ` former employee of his with the thought in mind that ' H ,, reaso^ of,^ouf experience in cases such as this, ie a$le some suggestions which may . be of value to us in defending this suit. . . . r . . JJ3} facts briefly are these: -Mr. Wetzel, the plaintiff in this matter, was employed as an assistant bookkeeper in the office of the National ' Mfgi Co*> being employed by them for a period ?r b5ref or ^uryears. On occasions he had to enter tne factory where actual manufacturing took place. Subsequent to the time that National Asbestos Mfg. Co., ` sold their business to the United States Gypsum Co., Mr. Wetzel proceeded to institute suit claiming that as the result of the nature of his work he contracted a disease known as asbestosis. He further claims that t0 iri a!u asbestos dust which circulated wwhniicchh failed to removethastucihhdfurestWafsromimPthrePeairr.ventilation ^ We have no precedent in this State on such a cSIIs!nd are proceedinS along the same lines as silicosis i f TM informed by Mr. Scharwath that you defend ed a somewhat similar suit and was successful therein I w o l d therefore appreciate your informing me on what theory you defended the suit in which you were involved wh^t experts you used and whether you have any record of the proceedings which you could forward me. 7 1 ... rM r ' Clemens Scharwath, who is now connected with the United States Gypsum Company, info r S e H e some- time ago, that a suit defended by you on behalf of Unite Stui eL Gypsum Co*> was on the theory that there was no such disease known as asbestosis. In this n n n n p o H ^ T '' - <<r7 cc / 7 might say that although we have no precedent SS an as ro b , / j c? J O H N J . C U N E O IAW OFFICES T r' u9s2t1C oBmEpRaGnEyNo rAVNE. NJ .UbEl d o . JERSEY CITY. N. J. T iL irm m J w m u . i m u f W M i n Charles M. Price, Esq. _2. October 8, 1937. uSfS case, Physicians whom I have consulted agreed that they recognize asbestosis as a disease somewhat akin to silicosis. ' . Any suggestions that you can offer in this connections will be greatly^ appreciated. JJC*M. /