Document pdXEr4Y7rVzBQX6ezLmaggoE

1 time--at the time you examined them, that's what I asked you. 2 A Yes, I have some quarrel with that. 3 Q, And how many could you-*-1 say, there are 23, how 4 many do you say had such comp 1aints? 5 A I thought that the significant number would 6 probab1y-- 7 MR. CARRi Your Honor, the witness keeps adding e signlfloanee, he knows that I am not wanting him to interpret 9 whether they are significant or not. He knows that what t am 10 asking him to do is simply to count the ones that have these 11 complaints. 12 A Then 23 is the count. 13 Q Thank you, Doctor. And, Doctor, those 23 persons 14 could be signs of nerve damage, c o u 1d they not, sir? 15 A They might. 16 Q And, Doctor, you told the people at Monsanto that 17 there was no sign of such nerve damage, did you not, in this 18 meeting of 1956 before you went into the Commission? 19 A As I indicated, that1s inaccurate, sir. I 20 couldnrt have said that. 21 Q. Well, you couldn't have said it because it was in 22 error. 23 A Not in error. 24 Q We got into this, Doctor. It was a large number 25 of people that had such evidence of nerve damage, isn't that - 92 1 right, sir? \ 2 " A No, I didn't think it was a large number, and I 3 didn't say what Mr. Ueger puts in his minutes, which I didn't 4 know about until 1983, sir. I have no knowledge of this, 5 these minutes or its accuracy. 6 Q. Doctor, my question is, sir, do you consider ten 7 a large number out of 36, even on the ones that you thought 8 were signifleant? 9 A It a l 1 depends upon the severity, sir. 10 Q Doctor, you were the one that said you found ten 11 sign!f icant, therefore, do you consider ten a 1arge number? 12 A Not really. Not if they're mild. 13 Q Now, Doctor, you didn't say that. You're 14 changing again. 15 A He didn't quote me, sir. 16 Q You picked out, there were 23 that had these 17 comp 1aints. 18 A He didn't quote me, sir. 19 Q Excuse me, Doctor, there were 23 that had these 20 complaints, isn't that correct, sir? 21 A That's what your record shows. 22 MR. CARR: Your Honor-23 A Yes. 24 Q And it isn't my record, is it, Doctor? It is 25 your record that shows that, isn't that correct, Doctor? 11 ' 93 1 is your record that shows that. I didn't prepare the 1953 2 report, did I, sir? 3 A It is your interpretation of my record, sir. 4 Q Excuse me,Doctor. It is yourinterpretation of 5 your records as well, Is It not, sir? 6 A No-- 7 Q That 23 had complaints of pain in the legs, the 8 back, and so forth. That's what you interpreted as well, did 9 you not, sir? 10 A No, sir. 11 Q. Well, pleaseread it and interpret, please. 12 Count the ones that you say had complaints of pain in the 13 legs, the arms, the muscles, the back, and so forth. Please 14 do that, sir. Please interpret the record for us by counting 15 the number of complaints in that regard. 16 A You have counted 23, and that's how it reads in 17 the record. 18 Q And so therefore that is your count also, Isn't 19 it, sir? 20 A No, i t i s n o t my count. 21 Q Then make it your count. ' No,. I want you to make 22 it your count, sir. I want you to interpret these records, 23 Doctor, so there Is no messing around, so you don't have to 24 say this is my interpretation. 25 A There were probably ten significant complaints. 94 1 Q I didn't ask you for that, sir. There are ten 2 that you consider significant, but I want you to interpret 3 your records for us and state if you will by interpreting 4 your records the number of peop1e that had comp 1aints of 5 aches and pains in the legs, the arms, the back, the 6 shoulders, and so forth. Give us your benef it of your 7 interpretation, sir. 8 A Your 23 will stand. 9 Q Not my 23, Doctor. I want it to be your 23. It 10 is your 23, isn't it, sir? It is the way you-- 11 A That's how it reads in the record. 12 Q. That's how you interpret what the records say, 13 isn't that correct, sir? 14 A That* s how the record reads, sir. 15 Q Is the word yes attributable, responsive to my 16 question? That's how you interpret the records, correct, 17 sir? 18 A That's how you interpret the records, sir. 19 Q Doctor, then I want you to go through and 20 interpret the records, because I don't want you to be saying 21 that it is my interpretation. I want- it to be your 22 interpretation. P 1ease go through the records and interpret 23 for us the number of men that made these comp 1aints. 24 A I don't think there is any need to, because we 25 did that yesterday. 95 1 Q Yes, we did, and it was your interpretation 2 yesterday as well, wasn't it, sir? 3 A I went along with your criteria. 4 Q I don't want you to go along with me, I want you 5 to interpret the records yourself for yourself for this Jury 6 so you donft have to tell me any more that it is mine. 7 A That1s how the record reads, sir. 8 Q Is it your interpretation of the record, sir? 9 A That's how the record reads, sir. 10 MR. CARR : Would you direct the witness to answer 11 my question, your Honor? 12 THE COURTi Doctor, that was not in response to 13 the question. Answer the question. 14 A It is. 15 Q So you are not going to tell me any more that it 16 is my interpretation, you agree it is your interpretation, 17 don* t you, sir? 18 A 1 don1t agree, no. 19 Q Is it your interpretation, sir, of the records or 20 not that 23 men had these comp 1aints of pain and so forth? 21 A I say that* s how the record reads. 22 Q I know, Doctor. But what I want you to say is 23 that it is your interpretation or that it is not your 24 interpretation. Is that how you interpret these records, 25 that 23 men complained of aches and pains in the legs and the 96 -----rr---C--:---- - ' 1 muscles, the calves, and so forth, sir. x 2 A In order to save time, 1*11 say yes. 3 Q No, Doctor, not in order to save time,1 won't 4 accept it on that basis. I' ll only accept it on the basis if 5 it is indeed your interpretation, so you won't throw it at me 6 any more that it is my interpretation, because I want it to 7 be your interpretation. 8 A I'm talking about significant complaints and this 9 is not signif leant. 10 Q Doctor, I'm not asking you about s 1gnificance at 11" this time. 12 A Well, that's what I am interested in, sir. 13 Q Now, Doctor, I submit to you that what you are 14 interested In is not necessarily what I am required to ask 15 you. My obligation to my client is to ask questions that 1 16 consider important to my client and not necessarily important 17 to you, so would you please answer my question? Is It your 18 interpretation of the records that these 23 men had 19 complaints of pain and aches in the museles, the legs, the 20 back, arms, shoulders,neck, and soforth, sir? 21 A Yes. 22 Q And, Doctor, you considered that in ten of those 23 cases it was si gni f icant, Is that correct, sir? 24 A About ten. 25 0. And, Doctor, you considered it significant why? 97 1 A Because I would regard their complaints as 2 being knowing the indlvidua1s that they were accurate In 3 their'' comp 1aints , and 1 am not sure the others were. 4 Q Now, Doctor, just because-5 A Also, sir, if I can finish the sentence. 6 Q Well, sure, go ahead. 7 A Everybody at some time or other has aches and 8 pains, and in this examination there were any number of 9 people who were anxious to demonstrate that they were 10 affected by the exposure and some of them indeed were. So 11 that the number of complaints about aches and pains was 12 really much more than they really were. 13 Q. All right, Doctor. Go through the records, 14 please, and tell us how many of these people were anxious to 15 exaggerate their comp 1aints. 16 A I can* t tel 1 you, it is my overal1 opinion. 17 Q. Doctor, if you would listen to me, please, I*d 18 like for you to go through the records and your report from 19 1953 and tell us how many of these men in your judgment from 20 the records you have there were anxious to exaggerate their 21 complaints. - 22 A I can* t do that at the moment, sir. 23 Q Well, please do it, sir. 24 A I have no way ofdoing it, sir. 25 G Doctor, you have the record in front of you. You 98 1 have the only records that you-- \ 2 A It is my clinical Judgment. 3 Q Excuse me, Doctor. If you would allow me to 4 finish my question, sir, you have no record of your 5 examination of these men other than this exhibit, isn't that 6 correct, sir? 7 A We probably have the original records, yes. 8 Q Have you looked at those original records 9 recent 1y, Doctor? 10 A N o , sir, 1 haven* t 1ooked at them since 1953. 11 Q Doctor, is it fair that the only records that you 12 have that you can use to come to the cone 1us ion that there 13 were a number of men that exaggerated their comp 1aints or 14 weren't truthful or didn't have them, you have this record 15 here, have you not, sir? 16 A No, I do not. 17 Q Well, you have it in front of you, you have your 18 original report, don't you, sir? 19 A Yes, sir. 20 Q Please look at that original report and tel 1 us 21 based upon that report how many of these .men in your judgment 22 and the judgment of your examiners at that time exaggerated 23 their complaints, sir. 24 A Well, if there are 23 there, there must have 25 been-- 99 1 Q Doctor, I'm asking you not to speculate, but I'm 2 asking you to 1ook at your record and give us this number. 3 You said a large number were doing this. I want to know-4 A This is an overall-5 Q I know that, Doctor. 6, A --opinion, sir, and I can* t give you--1 am unable 7 to give you case by case-- 8 Q. Well, Doctor, go through the records, please, and 9 tell us from these records and from these records which ones 10 were exaggerated. 11 A I cannot do that, sir. 12 Q Please do it, sir. Look, first of all, at 13 Frank--I'm sorry, Mr. Roy Shank, please, sir. Is there 14 anything in the record that you have regard Mr . Shank to 15 suggest that he is exaggerating, lying, not tel 1ing the truth 16 about his aches and pains? 17 A No, but I don't think these are significant, 18 these are not significant pains. 19 Q. Doctor-20 MR. CARR: Your Honor, could you direct the 21 witness again to wal t unt11 1 ask the question and once he's 22 answered to 1et me ask another one? 23 THE COURT: Doctor-24 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 25 Q Doctor, based upon the records that you have herd 100 . .. \ . 1 that we have the only records that were given us,xwould you 2 please state whether or not there is anything in the record 3 to indicate that Mr. Shank is exaggerating any of his 4 complaints or problems or that he is lying and not telling 5 the truth? 6 A None of these people were lying, sir, 7 Q All right. That's a step forward. They were all 8 telling what they thought was the truth. 9 A Probably. 10 Q. Well, now, Doctor, make up your mind. It can't 11 be probably and it can't be none are lying. Was it 12 your judgment at that time, and is it your judgment now that 13 none of these men were lying? 14 A I don't believe that they were lying, not 15 intentionally, sir. 16 Q All right. It is your judgment that they were 17 telling the truth as they saw it? 18 A I be 1ieve so. 19 Q, All right. Now, if they were having aches and 20 pains, they were telling the truth. If they said they had 21 aches and pains, they were telling wh'at you consider to be 22 the truth, isn't that correct, sir? 23 A I w o u 1d assume so. 24 Q Now, Doctor, I don* t want you to assume so. You 25 just got through telling us that in your judgment they were 101 1 all telling the truth. It was based upon your assessment of 2 the people, their personalities, their character, the kind of 3 men they were at work, and all the o t h e r t h i n g s doctors use 4 to determine whether or not someone is telling the truth. 5 Now, it is your judgment that none of these men were lying, 6 isn't that correct? 7 A That* s true, sir. 8 Q And they were all telling the truth? 9 A I believe so. 10 Q All right. Now, Doctor, did Mr. Shank exaggerate 11 his comp 1aints in your Judgment? 12 A Probab1y not. 13 Q Doctor, exaggeration, a knowing exaggeration is 14 the same thing as a lie, isn't it, sir? 15 A Not necessarily, no, sir. 16 Q Doctor, a knowing exaggeration, if I tel 1 you 17 that I know that I am five foot seven and if I tell you that 18 I am five foot eight or nine, that's an exaggeration of my 19 height, isn't it, sir? 20 A Yes. 21 0. And if I tell you, knowing that I am f ive foot 22 seven that I am five foot eight, that's a lie, isn't it, sir? 23 A If it is w i 1lful. 24 Q It doesn't have to be willful, a lie is a lie is 25 a lie. 102 1 A It could be an error. s 2 Q. 3 an error. 4A 5Q Yes, it could be. But if I exaggerate it is not It couId be an error, sir. An exaggeration can be an error? 6 A Sure. 7 Q How so, Doctor? 8 A That's what I said, sir. 9 Q But my question is, how so? 10 A An exaggeration could be an error. 11 Q. Sir? 12 A An exaggeration co u 1d be an error. 13 Q An exaggeration could be an error? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Now, Doctor, an exaggeration just 1ike a lie is a 16 deliberate thing, isn't it, sir? If you lie accidentally, it 17 is not a lie, is it, sir, because a lie by definition is 18 something that you say on purpose, isn't that right, sir, 19 knowing it not to be the truth, isn't that correct? 20 A I believe so. 21 Q Now, Doctor, did Mr. Sharik exaggerate his 22 comp 1aints in your judgment? 23 A He might have, yes. 24 Q Now, a moment ago, you said probably not in your 25 Judgment. But now you're saying he might have, yes. Now, 103 1 Doctor, do you understand? 2 A Based upon your-- 3 Q Exouse me, Dr. Susklnd. Do you understand that 4 those are two contradictory statements you made In the past 5 two minutes, do you understand that, sir? 6 A No, sir. 7 Q. Doctor, you don't understand that a moment ago 8 you said, two moments ago you said M r . Shank was probab1y not 9 exaggerating, and now you say he might have, yes, been 10 exaggerating. n A Sure, that* s possible. 12 Q Doctor, anything is possible. I'm asking you in 13 your judgment was M r . Shank exaggerating? 14 A Probably not. 15 Q Thank you, Doctor. Frank Mi lam, was he 16 exaggerating in his complaints? 17 A He didn't have any pain. 18 Q Doctor, c o u 1d you answer my question, please, 19 sir? 20 A N o . 21 Q Would you please answer myquestion, sir? 22 A 23 wasn't. 24 Q 25 A You asked whether he was exaggerating, no, he WasFrank No. Milamexaggerating inhis complaints? 104 1 Q Was Ralph Westphal1 exaggerating in his 2 complaints? 3 A About his pains, yes, he might have been. 4 Q Is the answer yes, he was exaggerating? 5 A He might, yes. 6 Q And Jessie Steele, was he exaggerating? 7 A No. 8 Q John Selby, was he exaggerating? 9 A No. 10 Q Paul Willard, was he exaggerating? 11 A Yes, sir. 12 Q What is there in the record, sir, that sugges ts 13 to you that he was exaggerating? 14 A Well, knowing Paul Willard for the length of time 15 I did, and having examined him many times, he was an 16 exaggerater 17 Q Well, Doctor, what you are saying now is based 18 upon examinations you made as recently as 1979 is that you 19 now concluded that Mr. Willard was an exaggerater, is that 20 correct, sir? 21 A Not based upon this examination and the one in 22 56. 23 Q The one in 56 at the hearing, sir? 24 A Yes, sir. 25 Q. Did you describe any complaints about Mr. Wi 1lard' 105 1 at this hearing, sir? \ 2A 3Q 4 there? 5A He continued to complain at the hearing. Doctor, did you describe him as ah exaggerater I be 1ieve so. 6 Q. Doctor, if you turn to Page 96, do you not say 7 there, sir, " 1 would say that the aches and pains were 8 there"? 9A I believe we are talking aboutT53 there, sir. 10 Q. That1s what we're ta\l king about, Doctor. Exact 1y 11 what w e 1re talking about, whether or not these comp 1aints in 12 1953 were real or exaggerated. v 13 A Not in the case of Mr. Willard, sir. 14 Q Doctor, did you not say in 1956 that his 15 complaints were real, that they were there? 16 A We lumped them together, sir. 17 Q. Yes, Doctor . 18 A They asked a general question and l said they 19 were probably real, but we didn't single out-- 20 Q. You didn't say they were probably real, you said 21 they were real, did you not, sir? 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q And you didn't use the word probab1y at all, did 24 you, sir? 25 A That's right, sir. 106 1 Q. And you meant to describe Mr. WiI lard's pains as 2 well, did you not, sir? 3 A No, sir. 4 Q Did you point that out, sir, to anybody? 5 A No, sir. v 6 Q You described his pains as real in T56 following 7 your examination of him in *56, did you not, sir? 8 A Can you find that for me, sir? 9 Q Uhat we just discussed, sir, Page 96. 10 A Ninety-six discusses the '53 group, sir. n Q That's right, Doctor. 12 A I'm talking about *56-- 13 Q No, Doctor, we are talking about the report in 14 1953 where you said Mr. Willard was exaggerating his 15' comp 1aints 16 A That* s right. 17 Q But in 1956, with regard to that report, you did 18 not say he was exaggerating his complaints, did you, sir? 19 A I didn't single Mr. Uillard out, sir. 20 a C o u 1d you answer my question, Doctor? 21 A N o , s ir . 22 0. Is the answer to my question that you did not 23 report Mr. W i 1lard as an exaggerater in 1956? 24 A As of 1953, we lumped him with the others, but-25 a Doctor, could you answer my question, please? 107 1 A What is the question sir? \ 2 3 p 1ease? 4 5 MR, CARR* Could you read the question to him, <The previous question " Is the answer to my question yes, that you did not 6 report Mr. Willard as an exaggerater 7 in 1956?" was read by the reporter.) 8 A That's true, sir. 9 Q And you also describe to the Commission in 1956 10 following your examination of Mr. Willard that he had 11 symptoms of aches and pains and nervousness that were 12 moderate, did you not, sir? 13 A What page is that, sir? 14 Q Ninety-five, bottom of page ninety-four and top 15 of page ninety-five. 16 A We were not talking about *56 at that point, sir, 17 we were talking about '53. 18 Q That* s correct, Doctor, we are talking about 19 1953, you asked me about what did you find In Mr. Willard in 20 1956. 21 Q. No, my question was what 'did you report in 1956 22 about your 1953 exam after you had been examining the man in 23 1956 because you have told u s , Doctor, that'you concluded in 24 1956 that his 1953 report, complaints were exaggerated. You 25 based that upon what you said was an examination that took 108 1 place in 1956 prior to the compensation hearing, isn't that 2 correct, Dootor? 3 A That's true, sir. 4 ft But now, In 1956 at the compensation hearing you 5 make no mention that Mr. Willard was an exaggerater In 1953, 6 da you, sir? 7 A put we-- 8 Q Excuse me, sir, could you answer that question, 9 p 1ease, sir? 10 A No, but in the *53 report-11 Q Doctor, pi ease limit yourself to the question I'm 12 asking. You have oited as evidence that Mr. Willard was an 13 exaggerates that you made that decision in 1956 referab1e to 14 his 1953 complaints because of your 1956 exam, and now 15 following your 1956 exam, Dr. Suskind, you made no mention 16 that Mr. Willard was an exaggerater in 1953, did you, sir? 17 A On Page 46, there is a description of Mr. 18 Willard 19 Q. Yes, yes, go ahead, Doctor. I'm on Page 46. 20 A And we indicated that-21 Q Where do you indicate wht,'sir? 22 A He Is an unstab le person who has made a very poor 23 psycho 1ogica1 adjustment to his origina 1 illness. 24 Q You say that an Page 46? 25 A Page 46 of the T53 report. 109 1 Q Oh, of the '53 report? \ 2 A Right, I'm talking about the '53, right. 3 Q Doctor, we are off again. You said In '56 that 4 you concluded that he was an exaggerate:?, but, Doctor, in 5 *56, where in the '56 record do you cone 1ude he is an 6 exaggerater? 7 A I believe on Page 113, we said that we examined 8 two out of three of the men from the '49-*50 episode, and one 9 man of whom we had no objective findings, except that he was 10 very tense and this was Paul Willard, was concerned not with 11 his acne, not with his liver, but was concerned with the fact 12 that his doctor told him he had heart disease which was 13 incurab1e , and this man I recorded and put into record as 14 iatrogenic, which means doctor causes heart disease from 15 which the man has recovered. 16 0 And, Doctor, where did you say that is an 17 exaggerater? According to the. way I read, you found him to 18 be a very tense person, and he is concerned about the fact 19 that his doctor told him he had heart disease which was 20 incurable, and you said in fact that the dootor caused his 21 heart disease, from which he recovered. .1 don*t read that as 22 a statement in *56 that Paul W i 1lard was an exaggerater. 23 A In my judgment, sir, he was an exaggerater as 24 well. 25 Q. I know you said that, Doctor, but I want to see 110 1 where you said that in 1956, because what you said in *56 is 2 a man that's scared to death. He's got an inourable heart 3 disease, that's what you said in '56* 4 A Which he didn' t have, sir. 5 Q Which he didn' t have according to what you said. 6 But my question is, Doctor, wherein does that say that he is 7 an exaggerater? 8 A Well, we questioned his-9 Q Doctor, could you tell me wherein that says -- 10 A We questioned his complaints, sir* 11 Q Doctor, where did you question his complaints? 12 Where do you say you question his complaints? 13 A We don't have it here in this report, sir. 14 Q Then you do not put in the 1956 compensation 15 hearing any statement whatsoever that Paul W i 1lard is an 16 exaggerater, is that oorrect? 17 A That's true, sir, 18 Q So when you told usearlier that your conclusion 19 that he was an exaggerater was based upon your 1956 20 examination, that was an error also? 21 A No, sir, it wasn't an error; . We didn't have an 22 opportunity to talk about Mr. Willard in that hearing, except 23 one occasion. 24 Q Now, Doctor-25 A But I can rememberthatexamination. Ill 1 Q Doctor, there is a number of places you talked 2 about Mr. Willard. You talked about him on Page 94 and 95. 3 You talked about him on Page 113, you just pointed out. You 4 talked about him at Page 25, you talked about him at Page, 5 w e l 1, there are at least three places, four places there you 6 talked about Mr. Willard. Now, my question to you, sir, is 7 where did you say in these records that he was an 8 exaggerater? 9 A We did not, sir. 10 Q Thank you, Doctor. Now, in 1953, you said here 11 that Page 46 suggests to you or states to you that he is an 12 exaggerater. Doctor, what you have reported here in 1946 is 13 that he is a person thatfs very scared, you call him 14 unstable. He made a poor psychological adjustment to his 15 or igina1 illness, and you say there is a serious possibility 16 that his heart dlesease i3 iatrogenic rather than organic, do 17 you not, sir? 18 A No, sir. 19 Q Report in 1953, on Page 46, isnTt that correct, 20 sir? 21 A Yes, s ir . 22 Q No\w, Doctor, you also say there, "Mr. Willard 23 requires carefu1 rehabilitation. He needs to regain 24 conf idence in his own phys ica1 well-being and productive 25 ability. Psychiatric help is definitely indicated. In 112 1 addition he should be studied clinically with anv eye to 2 thyroid disease and examined repeatedly to clarify his 3 cardiac status. It is recommended that he return to work, 4 but receive psychiatric treatment and guidance to assist in 5 the rehabi1itation." Do you see that, sir? 6 A Ido. 7 Q Now, Doctor, this was in a man that had no 8 problems of this sort prior to, so far as you know, prior to 9 the exposure to the dioxin in 1949 and 1950, ian* t that 10 correct, sir? 11 A I don* t know, sir. 12 Q I said so far as you know, Dr. Suskind. 13 A Yes. 14 Q. Now, Doctor, where is the evidence that Mr. 15 Ui H a r d was an exaggerater? 16 A In my memory, sir. 17 Q Now, Doctor, your memory can fail, because it is 18 some thirty years ago, some thirty-three years ago, his 19 examination in 1953. Could you point out the reoord to us 20 where you consider him to be an exaggerater? 21 A It isn't i n t h e record, but one doesn't put those 22 things in the record, sir. 23 Q O h , yes, one does, sir. 24 A No, sir. 25 Q If they are making a claim for workmen's 113 1 compensation, and you believe the man is exaggerating 2 complaints, it is your obligation appearing on behalf of 3 Monsanto to point that out, is it not, sir? 4 A No, sir. 5 Q. It is not your obligation as an expert if you 6 believe the man is exaggerating and he is trying to get 7 compensation and you have an expert opinion that he is not 8 telling the facts? 9 A Not necessarily to put it in the record. 10 Q Doctor, you know that if a person comes forward 11 with a claim that he can* t support, that he might get 12 workmen* s compensation to which he is not entitled, isn* t that 13 correct, sir? 14 A WouId you repeat the question, sir? 15 Q You know that if a man puts forth claims that are 16 not true, that are exaggerated, that he might get 17 `compenstion from Monsanto to which he is not entitled, you 18 know that, don *t you, sir? 19 A It might be, sir. 20 Q Al 1 right, Doctor. And you made no mention at 21 any time in any of these records that Mr.. Willard was an 22 exaggerater, did you, sir? 23 A That* s true. 24 Q Sir? 25 A Yes. 114 1 Q And Doctor, who else did you consider^in 1953-- 2 THE COURT! Before we get into someone else, is 3 this a good point for a break? 4 MR. CARR* Yes. 5 THE COURT: He will take a short break at this 6 time. The admonishments that I have given you earlier wi 11 7 apply during this break also. The Court is in recess. 8 (At this time, Court was in recess.) 9 BY MR. CARR: 10 Q Dr. Suskind, we had just finished Paul Hillard. 11 The next worker, Lonnie Hurley, was he exaggerating his 12 complaints, sir, in 1953? 13 A Yes. 14 Q And what in the report supports your statement, 15 sir, that he exaggerated his complaints? 16 A When I originally described my view of the 17 complaints of pain, I was talking about my interpretation of 18 the significant, the significant finding, the significant 19 complaints, including exaggeration. Exaggeration is not the 20 only factor in this. 21 Q Now, Doctor, what inthe'report, perhaps you 22 misunderstood my question orperhaps youweren'tlistening. 23 What in your 1953 report supports that M r . H u r 1ey was an 24 exaggerater? 25 A None, but I indicated that exaggeration is only 115 1 one of the factors, sir. x 2 Q Doctor, I understand that. But what you said to 3 this Jury was that any of these men have exaggerated their 4 complaints of aches and pains and nerves in their legs and 5 their arms and their shouIders, that*s what you told us. And 6 Lonnie Hurley has not exaggerated his aches or pains or 7 complaints, has he, sir? 8 A I believe that he may have, yes. 9 Q. And where is the record that supports your 10 be 1ief, sir? 11 A As I indicated, we didn't Include it in that. 12 Q Doctor, please direct me to the report. You have 13 no Independent memory. 14 A Sir, I'm concerned with the significant 15 complaints of pain. 16 Q You didn't tell the Jury that it was significant 17 complaints. You told the Jury today before the recess that 18 many of these men didn't tell their complaints truthfully, 19 and exaggerated their comp 1aints. 20 A That was one of the things. 21 Q I know that* s one of the 'things that we are 22 examining right now, Dr. Suskind. If you don't mind, let me 23 finish my questions, please, sir. I want to explore and have 24 you support if you can the statement that you told the Jury 25 that many of these workers at Nitro either did not tell the 116 1 truth or exaggerated their complaints of aches and pains 2 relative to their legs, arms, shoulders, back, feet, or 3 whatever the pains and aches may have been related to. Now, 4 would you please show me first of all, tell me the page 5 number of the 1953 report which supports your statement that 6 Mr. Hurly is an exaggerater. 7 A It isn't in here, sir. 8 Q There is nothing in this report to suggest to you 9 that he exaggerated his complaints of leg pains that he had 10 in 1953, is there, sir? 11 A There is none in this report, but in my 12 judgraent-13 Q Sir, is there any record that you know of where 14 you made the statement that M r . Hurley exaggerated his 15 complaints in 1953? 16 A I don* t believe so. 17 Q. Doctor, as a matter of fact, Mr. Hurley told you 18 in 1953 that he felt he had improved steadily, did he not, 19 sir? 20 A He did, sir. 21 Q Now, Doctor, doesn't a worker, that tells you that 22 he believes he has improved steadily, isn't that the exact 23 opposite of an exaggerater? 24 A Not necessarily. 25 Q. Now, Doctor, would you want to explain that? How 117 1 somebody can tell you they've Improved steadily?-. He had, 2 originally, he had developed pains In the calf muscles, he 3 comp 1alned of painful twitching of these museles, especially 4 at night, developed nervousness, genera 1ized weakness and 5 fatigue, and then In 1953 you say, HMr. Hurley feels he has 6 improved steadily and at the present time his comp 1aints 7 consist of a skin eruption on the face, mild fatigue which 8 increases on exertion, together with nervousness and 9 occasional leg pains." Now, Doctor, is a man that tells you 10 he has an occasional leg pain exaggerating that he is 11 improving steadily, is that your definition of an 12 exaggerater? 13 A That is no definition at all. 14 Q Is that how you describe somebody that you 15 cons ider to be an exaggerater? 16 A He could still be exaggerating the pains. 17 Q Excuse me, Doctor. Is that how you describe 18 somebody to be an exaggerater, where he tells you that he has 19 improved so steadi1y that he now only has occasiona1 leg 20 pains? 21 A He could still be exaggerating. 22 Q He could still be exaggerating? Indeed, he still 23 c o u 1d b e . 1 want to know if there is any way you can make 24 the judgment other than sheer speculation. Anybody can be 25 exaggerating just as you can be exaggerating in the testimony lie 1 in this case, and wherever you do, I attempt to^point out 2 records that show you are exaggerating and not being 3 accurate. 4 NR. HE INEMAN: Nay counsel approach the bench? 5 (The f o 1lowing conference was 6 held at the bench.) 7 MR. HEINEMAN* We have yet another improper Jury 8 speech that I object to. I ask that it be stricken. I ask 9 that the Jury be instructed to disregard it. It is improper. 10 Mr. Carr knows it. Everybody knows it. I object to it. 11 THE COURT! What's the rest of your question? 12 M R . CA R R ! I want to know where in the record is 13 there something that supports his claim that this man is an 14 exaggerater that he knows from the course of this trial 15 where people do exaggerate, and there is evidence to show 16 that he does exaggerate. You can point it out. You can show 17 it as I have done with him because the man is feigning 18 ignoranee on this point. He is not ignorant on this point. 19 He is feigning ignorance In order to get away with a 20 statement that was made earlier. 21 MR. HEINEMAN: May I make a `further record on it, 22 your Honor? I am happy to have Mr. Carr's views on that 23 subject, The fact of the matter is that he is not entitled 24 to make a speech to the Jury about this witness exaggerating 25 and then being caught in it by him. That's not a question, 119 1 that's not a proper statement, and I move that tt be 2 str ioken. 3 THE COURT: The record indicates that the 4 objection came in the middle of the question before argument, 5 actually, there was some argument. But I ask the rest of the 6 question be comp 1eted so I can see the contents of the 7 statements within the total question. It was not a Jury 8 speech, it is a proper question. It was objected to, it was 9 properly illustrative. It happens to be supported by the 10 record. Your objection is overruled. Let's go. n (The following proceedings were 12 held in open Court.) 13 BY MR. CARR: 14 Q Now, Doctor, you know that that is the way that 15 it's done in your experience in this case. Now, if you 16 would, sir, point out to me where in this record there Is 17 anything to support even a speculation that Mr. H u r 1ey was 18 exaggerating. 19 A My recollection, my best recollection-- 20 MR. CARR! Your Honor, would you direct the 21 witness to answer the question as I posed it? 22 THE COURT: Doctor, you heard the question. 23 Please answer the question as directed. I believe it was 24 directed to the records. 25 A It i s n o t i n t h e records, sir. 120 1 Q Okay. Doctor, Barry Hudnal1, would 'you read the 2 record, sir, and tel 1 us whether or not you consider Mr. 3 Hudnal1 an exaggerater? 4 A Yes, I do, sir. 5 Q And there is something in the record to support 6 what you say in the instance of Mr. Hudnall, isn't there? 7 A Yes, there is, sir. 8 Q, And as a matter of fact, good physicians point 9 out where they belleve a person Is exaggerating, don* t they, 10 sir? 11 A 12 Q They might. W e ll, th e y s h o u 1d, s h o u 1d th e y n o t, D o c to r, i f 13 t h e y w a n t t o p r e s e n t t o t h e e m p 1o y e r , t o t h e i r e m p 1o y e r , t h a t 14 i s t h e M o n s a n to C h e m ic a 1 C o m p a n y , t h e s c l e n t i f i c , m e d 1 c a 1 1 y 15 s o u n d ju d g m e n t t h a t t h e s e e x a m in in g te a m s h a v e w i t h r e g a r d t o 16 t h e p e o p le t h a t t h e y a r e l o o k in g a t , t h e y s h o u ld p o i n t o u t , 17 s h o u 1d t h e y n o t , w h e r e t h e y b e l i e v e s o m e b o d y i s e x a g g e r a t in g ? 18 A Ifitisvery evident,sir. 19 Q If they have that judgment, they should point it 20 out, shou1dn11 they, sir, if that is their judgment? 21 A They shouId. 22 Q. And Doctor, it is in the case of Barry Hudnal1 23 that they pointed out, and only in the case of Barry Hudnal1 24 that it was pointed out in this report that the man was an 25 exaggerater, isn't that correct, sir? 121