Document mqj4ndwRLvr7Q8vzxO5pweQLO

PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT October 27, 1939 Mr. 1. B. Boot Jr,, Chairman, Occupational.Disease CoMittee, If.1.7.A. Hunt-SpiUer Manufacturing Corporation, 333 Dorchester Itwsu, Boston,. Base, Dear Mr, Root! With further reference to *y letter of October 13, especielly the last paragraph thereof, X aaoloa* soM'material that has just coaa to ay dash* X night add that whan this cast ru appealed to the SupreM Court, it refused to review it. The Attorney General then stated that la his opinion where a disease was activated, accelerated, or intensified by any of working condition, this Bade it an oc cupational disease. Best regards* Sincerely yours. A, J. Lensa, I.D. Assistant Medical Director A / "The case of Grain Handling Company, at al,. A pellaqta. v. Charles J. 8waenev And Kenneth 0. lickanlsal. Commissioner. Appellees. recently dacidod hr the United States Circuit Court of Appeal* for the Second Circuit, waa an appeal involving Che construction of the tern, *injury*, within the nooning of Section 90, subjection of Title 38, of the United States Coda (Longshoremen's Act)* "The Claimant, Sweeney, had been employed for twenty-five yeara aa a "grain scooper"| the last twelve years of this tens was in the employment of the Grain Handling Company, Inc* His duitea exposed bin to considerable quantities of minute particles of dust* In 1916 he had contracted tuberculosis tut had re covered, the dieeaae remaining dormant until 1954, when he experienced difficulty in breathing, suffering a return of hie former tuberculosis* On June 15, 1936, becoming totally disabled, he discontinued his employment and filed claim for compensation* -rat "Compensation was ewarad ty the Commissioner on the ground that his employment required him to "work in thick grain dust, causing the latent tuberculosis con dition to become active", and that, therefore, the injury sustained was an occu pational disease* "The opinion of the Court, filed by Judge L Hand, held that the injury complain ed of was an occupational, disease* Judge Swan, concurring, ealdt % "Although-1 as willing to concur in the judgement 1 cannot refrain from expressing qy doubt whether the interpretation we are putting on the statute does not virtually read out of it the adjective "Occupational" which qualifies such diseases as are made oompensabla* In effect, we are holding that the lighting up of a latent tubercu losis ty the breathing of grain dust creates an "occupational disease" in the particular employee so affected, although 99 per cent of the workmen may never get tuberculosis as a result of laboring under the same conditions for equally long periods of time*" <* "Judge A* 8. Hand, In a separate concurring opinion, said In part as follows S "I think it is a fair inference from the proof that any condition of latent tuberculosis is likely to become active by working in i grain dust* Many persons are subjeot to thio infirmity and if such persons are likely to develop tuborculosis from working in dust the resultant condition would seam to be an occupational disease -- that is, a disease peculiar to and arising from the occupation*" la a letter accompanying the memorandum, Ur* Haters asyst I feel that this case is the most important that has been dsoided by our Court upon the question as to shat is an occupational disease* Its effeot is to make oompensable under "general coverage statutes* those oases there the claimant baa Intent tuberculosis whioh becomes reactivated hr an exposure to any kind of dust* Such construction of v occupational disease statute^ makes, thee general health insurance ................................................................ *3 1 %