Document jm10GjZZZZ0eVgOr8MmX78p6Z

MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Montante File 212(a) DLK A u gu st 8, 1384 Reconciliation of plaintiff' raquatt for chloracne document on 219 people with Zeck/Susklnd Mortality Study Cohort Some month ago plaintiffs supplemented a request for production of raw data of mortality studies b y providing a list of 219 names for whom they sought certain Information, including any record showing that each person had (1) a "true cate of chloracne" as defined in the Zack/Suskind mortality study, or (2) a diagnosis of chloracn, rash or 2,4,5-T rash subsequent to March 8, 1949, through the end of 1952. We do not know how the plaintiffs put together the list of 219 (attached), but I do know that it includes: 1) 121 people from the Zack/Suskind cohort, the single exception being Nurse Ruth Morris. 2) 20 people on a list of names used as Exhib it 5 to the deposition of Ju d y Zack oh March 1, 1984, identified as "Deceased Nltro Clients," (attached). For purposes of responding to the request, a "true case of chloracn*" wae taken to be chioracne attributable to the 1949 blow-off and immediate clean-up efforts. Accordingly, attempts were made to reconcile documents from medical and workmen's compensation files on these 219 people with their Inclusion or exclusion in the Z ie k/Su skln d cohort of 122. Listed below are Instances where the information obtained from a review of the medical and workmen's compensation flies does not line up with chloracne as e result of exposure during the accident and clean-up and whsre 004191 yv will need to bo prepared to explain why theta people were not In the cohort. 1. Willard Forbes Medical Fit 1) 9427791 - Notice of Accident Treatment dated 5/7/49 shows Dept. 94, report of raah on face and between legs 2) 9427782 * Notice of Accident Treatment dated 10/7/51 ahowa Dept. 34, report of 2,4,5 -T raah on face - aome on body with date of injury "over a year ago" In support of hfs not being in the cohort, l don't believe he wet on the safety memos and a workmen's comp- claim (9427815) shows 3/26/50 date of injury. We may have to explain the 5/49 rash, however, since it Is similar to reports for those who were in the cohort. O r perhaps the 834 Instead of B41 designation solves the problem. In our response to request for documents we did not Indicate that 9427791 supported a claim of a "true case of chloracne." 2. Charles R. Fowler Medical File 1) 9444339 - Notice of Accident Treatment dated 5/18/49 shows ; D *pt. 41 report of dermatitis on face Workmen's Comp File 1) ` 9444340 - Workmen's Comp claim dated 2/13/50 sa ys injury was reported 5/18/49 and was "chemical rash on face" resulting from "unexpected chemical reaction liberating unknown products of decomposition" Our response to request for documents listed these documents es showing a "true case of chloracne." Jan Y u n g indicated that ha waa not included in the cohort on the basis of a memo dated A u g u st 22, 1949, from W. E. Chandler to Dr. J. R. Durland stating that he had been exposed but had not developed dermatitis (9510339-9510340). We will need to be able to justify hts exclusion based upon that memo In contradiction of the report of dermatitis in hfs file- 3. Haltay, Jesse W. Medical File 2