Document nkQD9geVKB00w3KDypBpwbDna

V December 10, 1931 Dr, F, R* Morton, Standard Oil Co, (Ind), 910 S, Michigan Ave., Chicago, 111. Dear Dr. Morton: Please accept my thanks for your letter of December 4 with its Information concerning the case about which I asked you. ' . I appreciate the difficulties occasioned by a defense of this type of case. If it were possible from : a legal point of view, to defend these cases on the basis of experimental evidence, I believe it would be worth . while to carry our experimentation a hit further. However, there is a considerable doubt in my mind as to whether the same objection would be raised as has been raised in the case of your witnesses. That Is, it Is not possible to demonstrate that a lack of injury in the case of experiment al subjects has anything to do with the existence of an in jury in a given specific case. The question of contribut ing factors Is always one which is raised, and which in my opinion can never be completely defended. There is always a sick man whose illness works upon the sympathy of Compen sation Boards, Courts, and Juries, and this Is always re garded as more important than any type of negative evidence. Some years ago I carried out a series of ex periments on animals, infusing into their eyes gasoline, Ethyl Gasoline, and each of the Ingredients of concentrated fluid. These experiments demonstrated satisfactorily that the gasoline is more immediately Irritating to the eye than any of the other materials. Furthermore, there were no de layed evidences of injury as a consequence of the treatments with tetraethyl lead, ethylene dihroaide, etc. I question very seriously whether it would be either possible or advis able to have these experiments repeated on human subjects. Such subjects will stand for certain risks, but in the main they will not endure pain. This Is obviously a painful type of experimentation, and one which I do not care for particularly, even in the case of animals. Thus, granting that such negative evidence, while It Is Important to our selves, is of very little value in court, I am skeptical about the advisability of carrying it out. Our largest number of complaints of injury have to do with skin diseases of one sort or; another. We have demonstrated a number of these to have been due to skin parasites of one sort or another, and we have found a few instances in which the irritation was appar ently a direct consequence of gasoline exposure. I do not believe experiments could be devised v/hich could satisfactorily answer the questions which arise# > On the basis of satisfactory evidence we are in position to defend any claim that significant quantities of lead have been absorbed out of gasoline. This, which constituted the greatest danger both from a public health point of view and from a legal point of view, has been studies in such a way as to provide facts which are tenable in court cases. In fact, we have been able In an important case to set up a defense in opposi tion to expert testimony, which satisfactorily disposed of the case. I do not believe that any other conclusion would be arrived at before any reasonable magistrate or jury. With kindest regards. Sincerely yours, RAK.-ET .i - .-W*--. V :'J-............... 1 -v- . f5- -V v V. . - WE 0012:022