Document qd7kqdXe33LgvK3dadLBD06mG

mmm **.- I. ' ' Hi;' ! "' ^ax*JL BALTIMORE \ N* YOBK ;.j } ClABXSBUftG Tulsa ST. LOU'S .it ;i Chicago ill' COS ANGCCCS I'l:; |- ATLANTA 'f'r PITTSBURGH jJ. SAN FRANCISCO ;. li; **!- ORLEANS MIAMI . ' . PHILADELPHIA ' AiUSXAXBJKa^ <& ALEXANDEIi INCORPORATED INSURANCE AVERAGE ADJUSTERS CONSULTING ACTUARIES 2225 NORTH CHARLES STREET, BALTIMORE 15, MO. April 25, 1961 TGLCPHCNR ruxeoo * *io Beet srsrt* TELETYPE &A S CABLE AOOBES AlCABLLE" w.lh. ; Mr. William L. Hughes,.Manager $ Insurance Deportment &Armstrong. Cork Company vi Lancaster, Pennsylvania. )>... Travelers Policy Ho. .2c 1251 fike *3S<2/T> fcDaar.Sirt- , i Please note dlsposlt'-* made of Che following claim; !i' V'y..* iSrllDate'of Accident: $? ' ` ' .Claimant: . ,Location: - W,1-!-.Wi[ ! Claim Ho.: , ru: . .: f-'v' : }v;- Disposition: I-i.r. IF-1-. R emarks: 1&. We do not appear to have received a previous report of this case* l . . 41'*' fete: Very truly yours, ALEXANDER & ALEXANDER INC. Indicate Whether: .ijir i;*'-! Workmen's Comp. ^ Bl Auto Liability B.I.__ p ; ?.D._ I. General Liability B.I fen.i ' ' ' F.D. Page------ L oL F 1 'iftH4:1' i^ V .J JNT8. /OffICS CQMUUItICAUOa To J. E. Zeller* Lancaster (Armstrong contracting January 11# 1961 j;| .fron A. L. 3tokely# San Francisco j; Subject Industrial Accident Corrmiasion California j Case No. 59 OAK 1053 . I,1. Robert F. Cutfabertaon fLl*& W ^ ' ... i UAttached is a copy of a decision after reconsideration recently j . received by us. i. 11 - * STUART BATEMAN Admission r i. Page. oL RCSERX F. ct: SCfiJ TO. 07ATS CCHfSmnca BSUHASeB TOD, et 4 Clead H. Dues, Rsferee Z&tsasbaT 13* Z&&* . Clalo Bo. OAK 1053 ' Harass eg SKy?mt& cm aacxaxow .wsa sraoropKamog Referee Antes Xo, who toaiM prostioally this sntipo wattor* isauad & doai&l award* t&j el&ia bolajj on of acbestosls. 7hs waiter was csteastively handle*! aadlsally. Subsequent to tho subzrlcolon of tfco S2xa,tfao parties oarsIsas ugaa an indeyo^lsat wodlcal axazslsa?, B. Cortfia Hlro^cy, K.D.. rarred in this eapaoity. Th* ftuasl, wiEihirs further tz^lorot&m of the prcblsa* itself authorised an esaaisation by Sldse? Shimon, Ji.D. It was f(5? the ogesa-ewaataatlaa of this dcetcr that fcfcs is&tta? was agsigstad to this Hsforeo. _ 7ha three doetoro. Klnchcw, Shipjsan and Sresra, ar in unanimity in tfcair opinion that the applicant doss bars aobootoo partioico in his lungs* but they are sen-dlsAbllng* do not require tr&atmst, end that the tef&rcfo of otesorvotloa required as a recruit thareef la sot any ssr than onyono also* Esrnd therein this ftoferaa subnits on reoetae&sd&ti to ths fans1 a rofcifieatiea of the d&otsloa originally iscuod by Bofcrea Artolo. 7ho asiso Is submitted herewith. C53> ter CLAUD M. ZJ03S5, Refer** V> O r'\; . ( *.**."':. *;. N Aamvoiiton eviHGsasscs*--39 owe 1053 Ci^.tD H. DBES* fteferee don yranoisco, Y-6-60 Asbostosi:, rtSPORl OF TvSFSftES tut rgtAsxw Arrga rcs-tguarng qaAgrro SZDS5T SKXttiMI, H.P., <iUJiliriooeionr atlpulnteu, teatl"* su lh-.t pui'ouant to the cppolntornt i*y tho Panel, ha hud uv*n the applicant nd that there hud bosn oju available to hlta tho aaU2*ioal report, labomtoz? analysis of lune tlaccsr ?nd the report# of Bra. Watson and Hlnahaw. Testified that there mm r densonstrnbis svltionce of acixsato*1*. Store vas so disability at that tin, but the on iia havo asbestos particles In the lunjs, as well as is fibrocla. As the years go by the an ay develop cyiaptc*% but ho oocs not have then saw* Sa doc hare an occupational foundation there for* Coml&lnte of cheat pain, vague In location, eero compatible vita aaboeteals, aid periodic x-y, due to the presence in the long* of the asbestos boolee, were Inxleated the aare as for everyone else wertcis* In a clAllar line of wage earning capacity as the applicant but to greater* Testified that it ms Ha opinion that eus yet tha atm did not havo any lung cicesM* He profeably would sot havo. There vea, fcowovcf, defi nite eridenoe of the existence in the can's lungs of nebectos bodies aJ*4u*t 1a alas to produce the dlaeass. Testified that he aoc# thla st&temmt <nvn though the Pfmptaae ar not err* tiroiy coffioiatcxS with ths dls^noaia of ostoato^lo. Re nfferontlatod betvsaea silicosis and asbcotoala m thee eillcoalt jet up a fibrotlc reaction tdtioh oaosatoela did not. Testified that the aopltoaat ought to have x-mp very six worths for sovenl jrsara aJ tJion tho sous overy roar the sate ea ovary other employes similarly empiGyad* T'rntlflcd it-, vn.n true that there ra bodies proaoat in the l?tnga and thsro '.no soset tissue rxusblex 'oat that vhoso ooniltlons Jars lnruffl-lar.t 60 cause dlca&Ult?, Testified after eroeo-exsMiaatlon o-` all the 'mrtour counsel ^pMAMb bo ton ecSXl ef the eaam opinion to oat forth in his repsrt. _ DI3J03tncKi (floo Sttmtes of Itoarlag.) c:-v\ ip vLAUP '<* nuw:, <vfci*r STUA Admission Page. ______ ot-- lJ  IP,;'J vi ! ![-*t i' *! V. tNTfft V. Office CQtiUUiilCATtOti May 18, I960 < W Armstrong To J* S* 2allar ^ncaoter . i; From A* L* Stolcaly% San Fra cola co ,: Subitct Robert ?. s\itp,b$?AnQ3k vo. Employera Rotico of Tine * 2sce of Further Hearing ,:1 Case 59 OAK 1053 v.iv o `9so Wlli Im '' Attached ia our notification of the Tine and Place of Further Hearing for the case of the applicant versus the listed defendants* You will notico that this was also served on Travelers Insurance Co.rspaay* We assume you will want to forward to Arotrong Corlc Ccinpany's Insurance Department* CJM i i i!! ^ STUAR: A "Ff-.rA N riC<**'* on Paga l --J A ; Before the Industrial Accident Comnuss^oS>'; of the State of California \ '' ; / ';/ NA Case No.$S)~4&X-Xo3- ROHSRT F. CUICTESTSOil, Applicant.... vs. PUB? ASBBSTCfl COHPAHY, J. ?. thorpr, VS2TBKW A3aB3?03 COM PAfTT# ARKSTHORG OCRS, TRAVELERS HaBTOtfTCZ COMMIT:, PACIFIC EMPLOYEES IE2CRAHCR COMPANY, standard Accicsn? nssinunes OOXFAHr, X23TXSTRIAL XSDKSirfY CCMPA1JT* and 32.1TB ccMFBmrm iKso?*A^nr ptod* Defendant.... Notice of Time and Place of Further Hearing NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES You ore hereby notified disc further hearing will be held in the above-entitled acrion at RCCM $$0? 455 <2810X3 OATS AVKBt72 3ah mrfirtaco, California rozx 6, I960 -- 9sCO A, H. "cdac: CROSS KtAMIKE OR. SK7PKAU OM RECOtiaiDEFATIO?; ORAtfTBD. Sac Fronaiceo* flalif, :-hy xb0 iwo industrial accident commission* i NOTE; CONTINUANCES AND FURTHER. HEARINGS ARE NOT FAVORED. SERVICE UPON:__ Robert P-. Cutl^crijaoa, 2436 Qsjrrln `ve., Richmond, Calif. Snlth 4c Parrish* 01 Finosolsl doctor Bldg., Oakland, Calif. - Pleat Aabeetos* 1300 - 64th St., RswryviUo, Calif, J. T. Tfcorpo, 1351 0*e*n Ave,* Hawryvillo, Calif. Uestarn Ashoctoe, 675 Totmaosd st,, Son Franois^o* Calif, Ansstrong Cork* 3C4 Shaw Road* San rranolaoo* Calif. Traveler* a Izmuranco Co** 315 Hontjsosvary St.* Sen Franoisao, calif. . Paolfia fcaployero Irwawnos Co.* 244 Pine St., sen Francisco, Calif. State Compensation Insurance Fuad, Personal Service Industrial Iodoaualty do,, 350 Sancojo 3t., San Frcnoiaoo 6* Calif. Hanna M Prophy, 100 Rush 't., San Franelaco, Calif. Mullen fe Pllippi* 315 Hontgonsry St.* San Franelaco 4* Calif, Standard Accident Insurance Co,, k33g^^jU^S^^St*^{\f *F* * Clif. . ' Admission mi' .r Mi- ?t't * 'S'v, intfn, ^ /OfFICC COMMUNICATION <Q^r (Armstrong CONTRACTING February 11, i960 . To ;l '! ' from /1 ' i' i, :; -l l : }.-! J* B* Zeller, Lancaster __ ,) % s* Taylor, San Francisco __ Order Granting Applicant^ Petition for Reconsideration Robert F. Cuthbartaon va. Employers' ^ j"' " --> t;t..r / I!' {h-\} ya if,: N% y't. Enclosed notice of granting; applicant's petition for reconsidera tion in connection with the above case* will We assume you/want to forward this to the Insurance Department* D.7M <K> fI'j:i Ii ( i "\ u J fM J>0> ! , '* . i;j i1|< !i i'.` i Ti 'll' j , f . !i . i IT;! 'Til i STUART T Admisi.Ofl Page. 7_____0t_5Z_ 7 ^ o * i Before the Industrial Accident Co .< V of the State of California \ /. Case AJC~103~ H0H8RT F* CUTCT227S0I1, Applicant.... vs. ?UB7 asbestos cohpahy, j* ? thorps, VS3TE7U1 ASttaSTOS CO* PASTY, ARW3TR0N0 CORE, TRAVELERS TC28raurCB COKRVJTI, PACI7IC HMPL0YSS8 IESURAHCR OOXPAHY, STANDARD ACCICSH? IBStfRAECS COMPANY, IS3TOTRIAL XSSMWIXW CCMPAOT, and SEATS COMPBS3ATTCS IR&UHA3C2 ?W Notice of Time and Place of Further Hearing Page_ _ _ ^_ _ _ _ _ Of NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES You are Hereby notified that further hearing will be held in the above-entitled action at RCCH 30? 455 (28L0K3 CUTS AVKBSS SAW mHtrisno, CMIFOPSXA ZVIX 6, i960 -- 9sCG A. M. 3an Francisco, Calif May a.6, 1*&0 CROSS 1KAMIKE OR, SKXPKA12 OM RKC0H5XDETA7IQS G^A^TTD. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION NOTE? CONTINUANCES AND FURTHER HEARINGS ARE NOT FAVORED. SERVICE UPON^_ ' Robert Pr Cuthhortooa, 243b 3arvln 'va., Riehaond, Calif, Sndth Ct Parriafc, 501 Pincnaial Coctor Bldg,, Oakland, Calif. - Plant Asbaatos, 1300 - 64th St,, aaarjnrillc, Calif* J* T. Thorya, 1351 0**aa Ava,, H*ryvilla, Calif, Woatarn Aaboctoe, 675 Ytmosd Ft*, San Pranaiaco, .calif* Arssstroag Cork, 3CSv Shaw Road, Fan rranolaeo, Calif* Traveler1 Xnnuraneo Co*, J15 Honitsoswry st*, Saa Kroaoisao, Calif* pacific lteploToro I&raranaa Co*, 244 Pina St*, aan Franc iso o, Calif* Stata Ccsapanaatios Insurance Fund, Personal Service Industrial Indcy&sity Co,, 350 Sanoorco 3t., Sait Prcnoiaco 6, Calif* Hanna * Prophy, 100 Such '%*, San Francisco, Calif* Malian ac Pilippi, 315 Montgomery St*, San Franaicoo 4* Calif* Standard Accident Insurance Go*, 433 California St*, S*F,, Clif, . M Vw i i I ,:iirji.: 1.* - H 1 i I asms y. amKsmes* 2e?sr to P54B7 A33SSTG3 QG>A*f2# T 723SIPS* t fil- ' C&S3 $& 183J Stesbsnt fco ?cqt<$cfc <&d *S*3& 220 1&># 5jr 5gd&aao0 $!U <2$t shsa^l $$. r^twmsd to s&o esif?3^ai-> 2Ss- craso escstoaSiiaa 2r* tea i3s0=aer$ ssel^i otxb&mspi XSSSSSZSZfiL 5312287 $3033X0# tbs z&zs o? oAUJcam p. A. UY31ESCJ2 &i!ed Frost San tofto Q!ito MAY 4 1930 k-^uitrtd teCtetM 6o**m!s5lcn tit fcoilfornia JLs^. S^*MSLSSi d::c;:j* j. Tir.r.5, -k^ SSRT STU A D'. T1 O * ? T \f i Adrr?jsi l 3Page_ ____ oL^ZS. I TM -F "INTftil_________________________ jOfftCi COMMUNICATION To J. 12. Zeller, Lancaster From A. L. Stokely, Sen Francisco I Svbjtct Robert F, Cuthbertson r vs* Employers t \ An indicated to yon In John Taylor1s comnnnicn tl on of ^hrnnry 11th, the applicants petition for rec-on3 iueru tl on on hln case wo s granted. We attach the notification from the Industrial Accident Con-ilssion *.)f the State of California that the case should he returned to the calendar of thi3 commission. V/e assume that you will forward this to Armstrong Cork Company1 s I rs ura nee Department,, i roau >soi i*99 t ) ,, f. h^Tt;v: ;v AOiViJwwiCi i Page--&------ o l -- j --~--rrwT X BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION 0? THE STATE 0? CA.LIF05 2 CASS MO. OAK 1053 3 4 ROBERT ?. CUTHBSRT30N, 5 Applicant 6 f ORDER GRANTING APPLICANT 'PETITION TOR RECONSIDERAT 7 ; PUNT ASBESTOS COMPANY, J. T. THORPS, 1 WESTERN ASBESTOS CGXPAHI, ARMSTRONG 3 1 CORK, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, I INDUSTRIAL IHDEHHITI COMPANY, Mailed fcn fftMittJ'OfilcJ 9 ` PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY, * STANDARD ACOIDSHT INSURANCE COMPANY 10 and STATE COMPENSATION INSUTUNCE FUND, u Defendants Shito f tailfoniin 12 13 GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THERETO N 14 IT IS ORDERED that appii `Petition for Reccnaiderat 15 filed herein Jar'lnry A, I960 tho sane hereby ia, at 16 AL ACCIDENT COMMISSION 17 THE STATE OT CALIPCSKIA 18 Fy A. LM75S8CE. 19 20 ELTON C. LAWLESS 21 Dfjkx EDMUND J. THOMAS, JR*. <>*.. 22 , aajnaiaiipS" 23 STUART SALVIAM ' 2A Ac niuis.Gu Page__ nf 5V<9 10 / ROBERT J. CUTKBERTSON January 28, I960 v* PLANT ASBESTOS COMPAQ, ot al Case Mo* OAK 1053 REPORT OF PANEL ONE The Pariol io of the opinion that a roport of an independent sedical onaxincr will bo of assistance to it in the doternination of the isaue presented. The Petition for Reconsideration is therefore ^rai.tad to obtain the opinion of such an exaainer, if the _ parties eo agree. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT CCX&ISSICN 0? THE STATS 0? CALIFORNIA P. A. LA'VTEIJCE Cooaissionera II iv,r~ ii . Vy ' I JOSH Hi &KXKL&r ItSyiflSSS C4&limd\ 1 .rj^aaEsrsoa--cjaui so. oas xgs3 Injures Asbcctoalo ,:i i ji ; i Ai (, r ) EnS'023 Cfc RE7IEISE 031 A?P1XCAI3T3 mmoji yea naccii3XD2^ica ^ao Pobs^ry 3# 1$&) ?ho etqplaf'eo, a osaatainttl on Ktfbeotenia Uom xay X$28, alaira to haws After tsarinas, Plndla^fl and Order to the offost that applioar-t did net suotoin easy injury arising out of cr occurring la the ccusae of hia eegloyesst boa served and filed on Eoocs&ot 15a 1929. Txea Wole doelolcs* Applicant pctitiorui for roocriticre>tlen centcndins tferfc the evldsnoa does not Justify the dsnial* Sha j^pcatoaosg of medical tvidance In this ana clearly _ Aasliaotas that the a&ppiiesfct dec not hasp antesteals* X* la noted that the ssspplict c^iotGs freo tho report of tha $&th0lc3ist co f&iicssu ^srbssrtca te^j dtfcaitton is aodsrttoly advanced*" Shia Is dafiaitaSy nst a finiisa of sahastogis * ^ylloant ol&e ciotcs frea coca) portloaa of the teotlacs^y cf Dr, Crenshaw* Ksvaver, the ecaeluslon ef a* Corwin Riaetm3 fl. a* is to tho offeet that ^pllcant doss act have as&csvoals* Thla la also the ees&luoica of Cafcet Ercrai* R* D. la ills report of govqgfrgr 19a 1959. Ear* Ercwn issa tho ftis^od osscnlner* She Answer* filed by %3ta easleua dofondsata heroin are veil t&Saan eid az/pliesnfc** Pctltica for Ba&tn&ld&rs&lcn should so denied.- 2t Bight further ba otesssvod that tba cplnlcrs of Pr. ai ngh.se? end Dr, Xros shisuld ho good 233m to the s^plioant tho in wearing at his eld Job* ,< Min - jean a. AwanyySg aeferoo STUART T ' ACflV, 1 Page_Z2__ of__ lilA. 12 l' -..... J .,jj<............... mi.,-aaftJ*.i y l |f; 1I: ' !' ; ! : .t .. i i ,jt: ';' jtcasRT x\ ccssssmrsoa n*c<3bcs> as# ISH^O . Fuurr asbestos CCEIPAifir, ml &X CA23 KO. 59 OAK 1033 RXFC3F? 07 ?JU*EL3K3 Bacwi t&a revert dated 52^rh 30, I960 by Dr. Sfcipeaaa, Iacfoftga&rert ZSodioiLl assaiissr, it la th cnclusicn of th ?aa*l that did not sustain i-xjury arizing out of hlo ao^toyosota frea July 19^7 ttcoush Soceabor 195S. Tho ?mwl farther ccaolsadoo that th disability coc^lainod of by ap^Xisxcnt wuo sot ccuscd by any arising c^t of and os^jrawlsss la t&s source of his osploynoata. Xteolci.oa Aftor Ssooeialdsr-atica afccuid aoooriir^iy iasua. XWOOKRIAL ACCI23OT CCJBOMICJ! C7 B STATS 0? CALXSOHHIA siToii c. lawless `Oa?ml^ionars Page___ <2:___of ,_ [ 7 1 BB70RE T3$B XW&maAL ACCIDENT CCJCClSSION OP 7H5 STATS CP CALIPOR 2 CA32 NO, 59 OAK 1C33 3 StCSSRX. I. CTOffi22tT30M ,) 4 Applicant ) 5 va ) DECISION A5TOR IUSCCM3IPERATI0H 6 njurr asszstos company, j, t. ) racmps, rasrsmi Assures company, 7 AEK3TRC1W CC32, TRAVEL3213 XH3t8lAUC3 ) COMPANY, XIIH5339IXAL IMSXMN1TY 3 COMPANY, PACIFIC ECPLOY2R3 insurance company, standard ) 9 ACciDiarr imsurakcs company,and ) STATS CGE?2SSA?XGi! XUSCRASCS FUND Mi9sd fha 2 OSSsa JAN4 1881 Ctattfedcci 10 _ / ItfSft w Cc&etnla Defendant 3 11 _______________________ > 12 aaccaaidgraS loa having beca sted hernia sad the 13 natter bs*a corofully concide Including tho import of 14 osamiaatica by tha Za&y$adat 15 roaord as a t&elo, this as rail ab the eonoludos that fisrtha? IS r?roQ<liK3 ora not disposition of tho clala, 17 G2*d fleshes Ato ^coifllon/After^l^e^iaaratlcn, os follova: t C N IS COS CATSSS ARES&SINB YSEGTCPCR, 19 W 13 ORT331SD that th-v PIadlftss and Order, filed hcr*i 20 Deaeaber 15, 1959 b, sad the goto hereby ia, VifTUyisd Arid adept 21 aa.-fchs-Dacisico After Steacaaidfcratisa. 22 zawaraiAL accident cojoctsaion 23 CP YK3S 5TATS C? CALITCTOiXA 24 7* A. LAWKSSCS 25 26 --VAN - .-^TO_C,^Jgig5L 27 ;on Page oL. " OoKBlasicssra v4 To j, Zeller, Lancaster *i;;.,Fioin J, S, Taylor? Sa n fra nc 1 nco Notice of Findings & Order Industrial Accident Commiaion of the State of California Robert F. Cuthbertaon Enclosed findings and order resulting from the claim of Robert F. va, various local insulation contractors pertaining , t to an Aa*bestoa 13 claim* You will recall earlier in the year we received from the Armstrong Cork Company a detailed listing of employment of this applicant with the request that we substantuate the products used by him during hia tenure'.' of employment and report same to Mr* Richard E* Beaudry, Instance Adjustor* I assume you will want to notify the Cork Company of this findings and order i i I, > ! 'I )' / :I STL-AF:; .A IN Ac`rr:;ss.on Page &_____ot_3 i j FILED AND 3CWPt Otv l;" *,259 ' On all pertloe of record--K .Crowley I BEFORE TUB INDUSTRIAL iCdDS^T COTMIS3ION OF THE 3TAT3 07 CALIFORNIA a" cuim no. Oak 1053 - 3 4 ROBERT P. COTUBSMOM ) 5 Applicant ` ) 6 vo ) 7 PDUff ASBS3702 COM?ANT, J. T. THORPE, WESTERN ASBESTOS COKPAHY, ARtCTRONO 8 CORK, TRAVELERS IH3CRA1JC2 COMPANY, INDUSTRIAL IRDETCUTV COMPANY, 9 PACIPIC EX?LCY3RS INSORAJJCE COMPANY, STANDARD ACCIDKW INSURANCE COMPANY, 10 and STATE C0n?a3ATICil INSURANCE FUND ) ) J ) 7I1T!S AiD ORDER II Dox'endanta ) 12 13 The above entitlod matter having been regularly submitted 14 before John H. Aakelo, Referee, oaid Referee now makes hie decision 15 aa follows] 16 FINDINGS OF FACT 17 1. The applicant was employed by tho various ecployers 13 above named froa July, 1947 through December, 1933# And alleges 19 that ho sustained an injury arising cut of and occurring in the 20 course of hlo sold employments, consisting of aobontoaJ.j. 21 2. Applicant did not sustain any Injury arising cut of 22 or occurring In tho course of hla employments from July, 1947 through 23 December, 1958, 24 3. Hie disability of wnlon applicant complains was not 25 proxtaately ccueed, or caused at all, by any Injury arising out of -- or ooourring la the caupae of his employments, or by his etvloyento. 27 ORDER 23 IT IS NSlKDT ORDERED that applicant take nothing by 29 reason of hie jlaia asserted In this proooedins. 30 JEAtrc OAK 1053 JOHN H. AKKBL3, RETIRES INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION STUAFT F:-'TF*.v\N Ac Page ZZ_ _ _ _ of-- JOHN U. AHK2LR, Rafert>9 Oakland, August 13* 1959 octhbertson -- 59 oak 1053 Injury: Aabestesls REPORT OP REFEREE Th arnployoe, on insulator, born Kay 4, 1928, cldcs to have contracted osbostools as & result of his ocsloyasnt. R>thns has been paid. IS30SS: 1. Injury. 2. Medical. 3. Statute of limitation. 4. Laok of notice and prejudice. 5. Jurisdiction -- maritime. APPLICANT testified in substance ao foilovfa: He obtained the employment records from the union and the employers. In jay of 1947 he started to work for the Plant Aabeotos Coreparty and worked through January of 1946. The period of employment was about seven oonths. Ha worked on ships for this employer, and cork was used for insulation. He worked for J. T. Thorpe fron May to Decembers 154Q, applying asbestos insulation on one Job in Tracey and one at-Hunter's Point, a power :.ouce at PGiB. He cut and fitted asbestos material and used wire and sud in the application. This work went through January of 1949. The places whom he worked were enclosed and thore would be dust there. Others sere on the job. lie then worked for the Western Asbestos Coepany from January, 1949, to Kay of 1949. On that Job them was also some insulation of asbeatoa satorlol for PC&E, and also for the Onion Oil Company. Thon he worked ac&ln for J. T. Thorpe fron Pay 11th through August 10, 1949. This xork Included Fibroboard Products at Antioch. The work wuo all In an enclosed area. It was hot end dusty, and there was dust fron aebeotos arterial. Pron August 11, 1949, through February, 1950* he worked for Plant Af:bfe3too and the work was at Flbrcboard Products at Antioch. The work was the sans and the conditions tho saxs. Prom March 13, 1950, to August 3# 1S50, he worked for the Western Aebestes Company on a FG&S power house at ttoso Landing. This was the same type of asboetos insulation, and it was in enclosed and dusty places# On August 20, 1950, to Septottber 3* 1950, he again worked for Plant Asbestos at Celland Laundry. This Job was very hot and dusty. ' Proa September 13, 1950, to July 17, 1954, he worked for the Armstrong Cork Company. There were about nine months at the PGtS plant in Antioch in 1950 and he worked at Travio Air Force Base soat of the balance of the time. Also he worked in this period at Regal Pale for two nontha where they uaod cork lneulation, and thore were other smaller Jobs during this interval. The PCttE power house job was very hot, end Page 1 r j Cuthberteon - 2 h worked for Plant Asbestos Company which was all anbnsfcos work at various ochoolo, anti he iterfced aontlmially for Plant Asbestos through fiecenfier, 1956, except imen ho was ofr on account of a j log-injury In 1937. The work ran all- asbestos vox-k, neatly in. i boiler i^oona and close quarters. He saw fir. Crcnoha* on July 29* 19f* on reference frea Or. tiurrence, nlo faally doctor. He had seen Or. lawrenoo tuo or three weeks before and he did have pneumonia In February, 1956. He had surgory at Richmond Hoapital on August 3, 1956, mid lie was sdvloed by Or. Crenshaw following the surgery that Mo condition v&s due to hlo work. Ho hod worked through August 10, 1953, and cas off three scathe, and he returned to work at Plant Asbestos on llovember 4, 1956- Before hlo curgory there were no aaska worn on tho Job. He is doing the cam type of Insulation work now but wears a mask whan on the Job* continuously. Ho has slowed down phyoloally and ho hurts ail tho tlae. He did net work on the Burgeraoister Brewery for Arrtatrcns but ho did work at Maps atato Hospital for Armstrong. *E^t was asbostca inculaticn work and living quartore, all underneath the building. It* did not use .:col felt there. lie recollo working at the state lksploycent Building in Sen Francisco for about a week, insulating the storage tank. Ha does not recosher doing the Jcb at Borden* s dairy in Oakland but he could have boen on that Job. He worked in & radio transal&oion station between Jfavls and Winter one day. So did not work on tho Cacp Beale Job. Ra worked at a refinery in Rodeo two weeks or so in tunnels under the highway# insulating. Vtit Travis Air Force Base Job took nearly two years. Biere was some wool felt used on that Job, but mostly asbestos. He believes that WcKeeoby and Kadison were the nanufacturers of the acbootoo pipe covering, and it is known as angassia pipe covering, eighty-five per cent nagacsiua. They use cow Fibreglass# and up to 1953 or 1954 he does not remember if they used ory Johns-ltaxisville products. On heating plpea they generally use aobestos pips covering. He has a twin brother named Jack and he worked with his brother at all times, and they were Inseparable, Ho knew his brother had cursory at the hands of Sr. Crenshaw, and he had fr. Thompson cheek hia after his second operation in 1954. At that time fir. Thcspeon had 1-rays token. Be did -o to fir. Thorp son to see if there was any danger about his having osbestoeio. He went Cwo or three times. He lo not sure whon the second X-rays were taken. . When he had pnoioonla ho changed to fir. Brown. Vhcn he first saw Dr. Broun ho had tightness of tho cheot and poln. llo had X-rays taken at Rlohaond Hospital at that time for pneumonia. He lnforaod fir. Brown that hlo brother had lung trouble but he did not inform Sr. Brown of the previous check-ups he had at the hands of fir. Tlitmpoon. It was after he got out of th hospital from his own surgery that fir. Crenohu* told him he had uabeatoals. ot l J r 1 i i:k Cuthbartaen 3 He Informed the Plant Asbeotoo Company that he wan going to the hospital. s believes that Slue Ctoss paid moot of the aedlcal bills and scoa of #r. Crenshsv's bill. Ha paid about $50 in. hospital bills. 2c drew uasn^loycant disability benefits at $50. a seoJc all tba tise be was off, and he also received $12. a day for hospitalization. Be tocw that his brothor Jaok had a proceeding beforo tho Industrial Accident Cocaisolon. ' Be understands that dlatoaaoeous earth is the sans os asbestos. When to say Sr. Thomson for a chest check-up he had no chest pains. At that tiae he was working for Arastrong Cork. Br. Itioxepsca told hi everything looked all right. In Bay or June, 15*58* he began having chest complaints. Re stopped gashing on the advice of Dr. Crenab&v. Ho was troubled with efcortnaaa of breath laot year. He was off a week after ho returned to work m Hovoctoor, 1958, and chon he was off another week because of his chest. The oight7-fivo per cent magnesium pipe covering that they used Is manufactured by Paboo. Uiey always use Paboo materials. He did not loss any tine before August of 2958 because of bis chest# - He also worked in aoae old buildings for Plant Asbestos. He did aot have pneunoala before Fobruary, 1958. Us did refuse to work on a Job recently beoauue they did not have a blow fan. He Is still under Hr. Crenshaw's oars. Hio present complaints are in offset that; he has slewed down, ho has oobo pain, he cannot sleep as well, and It is hard to work. Bs has been a foreman since 1954 on. J. T. Thorpe waa all block work and that/wor&e in respect to dust. This was eighty-five par cent aagnosiua pipe covering. It was aado by Pabco. He haa covered all the ccpioycrs for which he worked but he does not rencsber oil the odd jobs. 2s worked along with his brother from 1949 through all of 1950. Re does not do here insulation, prior to 1947 ho wao an able-bodied Gossan in the Merchant Marino, and he did not have a history of having a lot of colds. He perhaps would got one or two a year. In his bout with pneumonia he was In Richmond Hospital about three itoeka and stayed bone about six weeks. Bo felt fairly good after that. He cannot pinpoint the tlc when his chcot pain dovelcped. It was either in May or June of 1958. Ho got so bod he caw a dootor in July. Xt can be very dusty when they cut asbestos. They cut it on the Job as they went along, and the pounding and fitting would always cause dust. J Cuthbertson - 5 PAUL NIETO, called by Defendant Industrial Indemnity ''enonny, testified In substance as follow** He la vice president of Plant Aebostoa. Ho baa been with then for 12 years* Ho know* Cuthbertson, and has known Min for the lact sis years. He.Is familiar with the over-all Jiaterials used by tho company. Thoy uee 35? uarnealua pipe levering, fibreglass and wool folt. Thoy aloo use foan glass, cork, end nlr cell covering. !5o does not know the breakdown or content of S5$5 nagr.ealua pipe covering, tut thero 1.9 a certain amount of anboetou material* The asbestos materials would be adheslvos and cements. The last two years they primarily oculd be fibreglass materials. Five or six years ago Cuthbcrtoen worked under hi3 diroot cunernsloa. Ho then had no lung complaints. E* had aoorrl that Jao* Cuthbertson, the applicant's brother, bad lung trouble, and that the applicant was troubled and worried. They do not manufacture the pipe covering but thoy U27 aoct of it frru Taboo. They use 5? aa^neslua powder cement, whloh they aioed ulth water In tbe work. ORSALD CREK3RAW, M.D., testified lu behalf of the applicant in substance ao follows: He in duly licensed to practice aedlclr.t in the State of California. His specialty is diseases of tho choot. Asboctosis oausod tho applicant's disability ia it esuced on inpropur bronchial drainage. A piece of lung taken out at the lobectomy indicated the presence of asbestos fibres. Tho applicant was still under hie care. 31s various employments core tho only places where he could have gotten asbestos In his lungs, end he will need observation for eexo period of tlso. He flrat saw tho applicant July 29, 1556. He never took a ceepleto work history but he nnd a history of recurrent attaoka of pneuBonla previously last year. There war* X-rays token in October 1933* November 195* and !!&rch 1936. JU can not tell If he had all those X-rays but ho ettemptod to get thaa. He docs not reacLibar If Uo reviewed tho reports at Herrick Hospital. The X-rays taken at the Richmond Hospital on August 15, 1556. A bronchoscopy was cede on Avgust 13# 1923. He certainly saw an X-ray report bex'ore the operation. The X-rays ahew cxi infiltration but they did not Seaicnstrato what tho infiltration was. Ha sufcnitted the lung tissue to the patlioio/gist at tho Richmond Hoepltal ar.d received a report os Indicated In the hospital record* A specimen res then sent to tho laboratory of the Stato I^epartaont of 3ealth. Eo never received a written report from the State laboratory but tic received un oral report from Dr. Slngman, a pathologist. Dr. Cronthew was recalled in the afternoon, and testified further In uubotance aa follows: Tho applicant returned to work roughly two months after the eurrory. He generally coca him once a month unions ho is suffering from respiratory Infection. ?Ie tract be properly treated. He gives him nroasura breathing and antibiotics* Antibiotics were prescribed on February 16, 1959 beeausc there was a respiratory Infection and a nore throat. Also treated him February __20.-J.959. At that timo ho folt 'to was getting over the infection. In June of 1999 ha had a 100 degree tenporaturo ar.d further anti- --blotioa were prescribed. This io the third acbootosls caoc that no has iv\d In hi a experience. Othercaceo were that of applicant's brother and a hr. Thorsted. Tholr employment rcoord was olallar to that of Cuthbertson, in fact, Cuthbertaen'o cork history wsa ldentloal. . STUART TATT^'N AdrViiSci ; Page aZ------- of--Z=Z 2b i.......... -j i I i i.'V. ..is S-7 l 'f 11j; I > : !ii, l -t 1 i ]b\ Cuthbwrtaon - ft OAKLAND October 2Z, 1959. RICHARD B. aSADDRY, called by the Defendants Traveler Insurance Company and Standard Acoldsnt, testified In substance as follcwot He in an Independent insurance adjuster. He reviewed the Job records on which the applicant worked botvoon 1950 and 195^ at the Armstrong Cork offloe. He worked with J* 3. Taylor, the plant manager. A tabulation was made in the hose office in re sponse to a letter or August 3, 1959 (Defts. Rx. 5). The Inforaattoc under the column `Materials* vao made oo tho rosult of hla inves tigation of the obtalnablo contracts. The pereer.tago in this col umn "Materials* stated the amount of aatorial used on the Job and not tholr content. The Initials M.PC otoed for nagnoaiua pipe covering; B3 for "fibreglass." Vhero there la a dash In the Materials column, the contract could not be round. He Bade a special study on the Job ct Travis Air Pores Dose. These wore narked aa Indicated by the X*s. This tabulation suppocvdly covers all of applicant's em ployment with Armstrong Cork. VICTOR PASTES was celled by the Defendants Travelers Insurance Company and Standard Accident, and toetiflcd in subatanc no follows: I3e is the president of tho Saccmo Manufacturing Company. They manufacture plpu Insulation, pump packings and the Ilka. Us has had 25 years of experience. He started in 19Jft with tho Plant Rubber & Asbestos Company, and worked with then until April 1, 19^3, when their factory wao bought by Sacono Manufacturing Company. They manufacture wool felt Insulation. They obtain tholr materials from other manufacturers They use crepe wool felt, which Is laminated, and then covered by asbestos paper. This la then covered with muslin and the muslin will overlap about one and one-half inches at one ond of a 36 inch ceotlon. Wool felt la about 30$ rag base, and 50 to 6C wood pulp of the kraft ctock, llont to the pipe there Is a water proof tarjl-inar. The asbestos paper is a six pound asbestos paper, and Is filled within the wool folt paper for a three Inoh thick wall. 13 to 1ft layers of \iool felt aro uoed. This is tho standard wall. They will have smaller and larger walls on the insulation. The asbestos paper lu ftO to 50$ asbestos fibre. Tho balance 10 wood pulp and Kraft steex. There are Tillers and siring to give tho stiffness. In the manufacture of air cell Insulation, they uso a six pound asbestos, which la corrugated, and then four layers are laminated to build up a one Inch wall. Adhesive uoed is slllcato of soda, acactiaes known as wator glass. This la also wrapped with a muslin and put out In 36 Inch lengtho with on inch and a half cuslln overlap. Tin wool felt Insulation is generally used on cold lines. The air coll Insulation la used on hot water lines. The insulation aatorial la cut with knives, table saws or hand saws. The Jolnto aro probably attached with acbcstoa cement. He did not know because he does not install any covarlng. Cnibestos is made of cooslte aabostoo fibre, with bundles of sodium silicate. Aooalto la a long aebssteo fibre that to mined in South Africa. Those fibres are as long as five and six Inches. White asbsstoo or 'bhrysotllo Is mined In greater abundance in Canada. These flbrco _ are about 3/Sths Inches in length. He Is familiar with the 35$ magnooluu pips covering. SiUARi t\\\ Page 2ZZ rr? *T/J) lJ i. . > i f ii1 '\ t: 1 *k ;1 O. i1 1 ;v > .' r Ctttfcbertsca - 6 The biopsy raa major Aurgory, sad was diagnostic. So did not fool that fibrefclaes nad a great effect. Recent cursory indicates that It should be avoided. Sc told the applicant that be had sobootoolc rlpht after the surgery, Aobeotos within the lung impairs tUa function of the lung. Slaotio fibroa cf the lung are affeoted. DAVID SIKOXAS, M.D., called by ths Defendant Trarelorn Ineurcnce and Standard Aocldcnt, toctlfiod in subsfccnce as follower He Is duly llocnsed to practlco aedlolne in the Statu of California. Hlo cpeolalty la pathology. Qc does the pathology at Rlctzcond Hospital. Ee reoeived the specimen Indicated by the hospital re port. Be does not know the cjjact number of aotual specimens, He submitted specimens to the State Department of Health on December 8, 1958 at the repeat of Dr. Crenehaw. He brought thaa up to tho Department of Health himself. Ho elco received the report of a.A. Soavo. a doctor of veterinary -medicine. He was then called to Sacramento, there they had epecial X-ray diffraction apparatus, and the quantity of formed asbestos was even demonstrated in the tissue, so indicated by tho report of the State Department of Health. It follows therefore, that there was asbeates In the lungs but not enough to show la ordinary X-ray teohnlquo. Ho esn not tell from the x*epo -t as to the quantities of materials found. Be called Dr. Crenshaw when he received the report, but ha can not recall if he sent coploe of tho state report to Dr. Cronthav but he usually doeo. If Dr. Crenshaw did not got a written copy of the report the fault was that of the witness. Ha, himself, did not see any abnormality of the bronohll If it Is not in hlo report. Dr. Crenshaw was unhappy with his first pathological report because Dr. Crenshaw _ had c;rootd to find asbestos, and therefore, suggested that It be sent to the State. Plbroala la usually found in aabestcsle eases as is usual In etlicoaia casaa and generally, tho particles can be seen. Root of the noxious agents that afreet the lung will cause flbroolo. ROBERT CDTHE2RTS0N, recalled, and testified In hla own behalf as follows: Ho did not work at the Pacific Coast Portland Cement plant on May 11, 1932, nor on the Walnut Creek School on June 29, 1982, nor at Gasp Beale on M&7 3, 1933* It was the prac tice of tho company to shift tho payroll rocords to another job when there was a loss on a job frea which the payroll -Deport was submitted. Be recalls all tho- Joba In tho tabulation except the three he mentioned. Be is cot a cork man 00 he does not use too tsuoh cork. Be believes that bo juot used oerk for about a week in hla employment with Arm strong. DZSCUSSZOn AND D2CISI0X: On December 3, 1959 tho report of Cabot Brown, M. D., the agreed medical examiner, was served and filed. It would appear that the report of Dr. Brown reoolvee __gpy.opparent medical oonfllct horetofore existing m thio ccso. Dr. Brown ooncludod that tho applicant docs not havo asbootoois. -Theroforo, a denial mat Issue. JHA: af3Ao/i'o JOmi B. AUXELE, Referee i L' Page, . p?3 VAN oL-JZd, 1 --j Acsaet 14* 1959 &? s* 8* Csatsrsatis^ flsjpl? orjration 594 ^ SstcA Szut^ 9*a Traded, OcLif* Bwr $Sr. S^2w 2a e&M yon did at rcdv a aea^r of tla Soa&dxy A Vile*a letter, vo OBf&aeo a Sfcaao-i?ZBi cats CTiStffewH csntotTilag part of Ho iafosaottca rctaoctod la Ho Dcaadfcy A Sidra letter- Jcooydo for t&o year 1999 Aooo bco dc^troysl s> Hat Ho ?gjts11 Ss^crHiat Hid oaljr Hoeo datraato oas&cd cs *7 X. ?- ^tftfccrtoa oiartlBg to .!$! Cocr^ca, sataolXer* t Eqjarts*, listed vita tfcsa csl ofcsro vo feed Ho cssteed* f&ooo t^t lafegaatLra is set tatcrod, Irtor vcj ca^l to loooto tAo ftles. psrfcspa 5^201* flloo dj&ft diMloco thi Ja^R&sfilsa la i&loA oooo yen awsld coplsto Ho Ic/sssatiaa Cc2dr7 A mesa la E&&&&3 ** la 'Sico of Ha firsrt. watcaoo in Ho loot ns<ro csxo, nt Ur- SgcxAvt* a irtts?, pea i&ofcco ecstasy* da z\ year ear&lial. aaossieico. ?7 trel? years, wasKoca cczs comas ra &ateaLreii J. 2* UUc?i JS0j &cacaffltCT IL $. &dc4t9 r* Xaswesoe Bspurtssj* l mix: i I ! ' *^72X13025' * INSUIANCE aDJUSTOGS 4X0 UARKIT ITHStT IAN rftAt.CISCO It, C A L I r Q ft N I A IXMOOi 7.4t7t * * . August l, 195 The Armstrong Cork Company Lancaster, Pennsylvania Attn; R. C. Schiedt, Jr. Insurance Dept. HS; Robert ?. Cuthbertson vs. Armstrong Cork Company Our File: 59-199 Gentlemen: tie have been assigned to do some investigation work on the above case by Mr. Ivan Schwab of Hanna & Brophy's office, who are handling the hearing before the Industrial Accident Commission for the Traveler's and Standard Accident Insurance Companies. This case has been sot for August 13> 1959* t x\^ In order for us to complete our investigation, it is necessary that ve obtain some information from you and also a letter which can be submitted ' to the Industrial Accident Commission in the event ve are unable to pre pare the case la time. The information vc require in the name and number ~>=A-. of each Job Mr. Cuthbertson was employed upon during the period September 13jk 1950 to July 17, 195^. With this Job name and number, ve car* then obtain the necessary information from your local office, Armstrong Contracting and Supply Company, which will enable us to determine what type of materials were used and handled by Mr. Cuthbertson. As you know, Mr, Cuthbertson has filed a claim for asbestoses. We are trying to_determine the amount of materials he handled containing asbestos, and the amount not containing asbestos. The above information as to the name and number of the Job should be sent directly to us as scon as possible. In the meantime, we would appreciate your writing a letter direct to Mr, Ivan Schwab, Attorney, Hanna *e Bropr.y, 15^0 San Pablo Avenue, Oakland, California, stating that there will be some delay in developing the information in this case. Please include in your letter the reasons for this delay, i.e., distance involved and inaccessabillty of the records. s tv r > ' /' T Ki Page-- 5" rj Lj 2 Mr. Schwab can then use this letter at the time of the hearing on August 13, -959j to request an extension of time and another hearing, in the event our investigation is not completed. Thank you for your courteous and prompt reply in thio matter. ' *' - Cordially yours, 3EAUDEY h WILSO.'J REB:ms i i \/ ' ; 57UA:T; r ,.............. " 'AM Page_ _ _ ; 3/d lJ Iv':'1 ' FJlvJh F. ->: * 1v c . So-- jMsjLjL - 9- U --> 'i i' 6,. -? - S A i' i . 7-c^-^ i !r' 9- 3-S i SLS ..AS'- 1 L-2 L -1 - s' 3>, 7. S' A 9- p 3 1: 'i .'i i K . \ r Page___ -- uf 9k t, lJ I. i' -,.j O P Qs c> o 0<3i0 Q_ X 5 X* K f- > V) N 'S. I t <j Vi X * o_-v -x ^^ <s ^<10 9* *n * *s M <*x, Ok l -o o^ n v Ox x **> n *5 ,*-. -Stj>* .x* *,> O * * v <* -o /> tx .> v V IX N Cx a J r\ ^ *\ *X f <T <1 "l :t 0*0 1 , I\* m v rn *n r) <v ** **x ** '* V, v> M ^ <0. * /*' .4 N c ii X '% * i1 J fxx 5 \ 4N **> ? 'J v*s ^> >^ *> *T ? *x "WO > I1 I * hiv.1*.! I * i, ' '| jVi ;!-r. 1 T; : -I ^s:! 3 I IS 1 >'vs<s|} K ' v/ A- 'Vr V\. A ^ * Vi' ^ i $ i `{i. 'C if .v vr .V*- * * i ' Tv* <N 'V< V \* *cC o ''t.'jSX s \ * %' i \ f \ * , i , i r,$ \ .vv 3 ,, * J- v I s *V I 'i * Vj ^ ^ ?, H 4 i'i * ] *>.$ 14 ' . ^ i it . i * V 3 ? '^1 ' f I 4. V:tv. a /* V,1 VN V^. v \ \ \) v V? * v$4\ ,\v s-; > "A J i,V ,, vv * ; *> V.-. ; V iV:: X *'^v v >. . J s i * 1 } .** c^ X;<i ^; * - MVJ v ' lUVi iV Yr] R o1 ^ ^ \; ^ ' V. rV-* 'n;".* y'S"- ' TJ a- _tY <J n^ ** S VD v*i -- ^ 0 2 ^ :' ^ :** ,*> ^ >>>>> j* > *, 4, > <v m^ *> <. t -,S *0 vs ^ ^ - v ^ *> v t. <s v> --5 **. 4 V* > . o. *> l V vi f* ' 0. s :x * U " A <*- \ <z>\ *% ^ Vi * H ^to, V> v ^s. (-. to V > x C-' .S < ^ n v3 > '1 > -a ?> r1* < ; vl f . `s > `I 'X M. ,(i "tl / ;! I V I '1 -jI!.1 sr> / 5 *? #c r\ * t ?? > ^ 3 n Page. 8 8-3 4 S St* as Vi ^ *; v. V fs > II W S') Na sa b* o A "* -' >_ \ r- ' - - Ao > < 1 s- .vil ,l 2T OL t>/d <V| v> V, -.I *1 s *4 7 \ ^ r< V% r c\ C / ^ ^>i } I -- J T %- 'i s T'' I I) .! Za&ufo 5, 19*;* ill- i| I 2y* Zt JSisaa d CsT^&y to Vdtte ;^rsa Ccftlrad, Cdltz1* Sec^Cr* Safcmfca " CsS^cafca y. &&&&& va* Asnot'Seas i&2j Cs^ptCF - o CUsd tka of *m3G3alaa$ dsiailrri iafsc".tica yen r3et*j la oacaosUcs tSw elegia of Ssfcssrl ?. aatfckrrtcoa iSsr too yasra 2S% ~9A 10*2* 2.033d oi &>24 tafiso leasiff tfcca ts> feed {&&aats&i Qi ft&Uttca $ u 6o& frsaoicza cororcl &?creat> AryarSwatc bsro $a &eaoa3t7 era ftsmlweij ss t&fccj *hlo ecatJi* wysSAsa fcaUctkj ift T ssska &s cad of tessa5! fedora '&* bo aassals^ad* 3a t33ff& tfclfl AAty \111 a?* 5C3&P3A17 laeaaogalcaoo yra, rad wa *411 ae&a OTO57 of&rt *0 QEsply yw* idtft i&a iaSbicurtlca so $szz&3i? en pcsi&Io ?y toly yerco, M ' Admission Affiss22ca rs eCTiss Page. m -< !L, G CeSAedt, Sr* Sacarcaeo Espertomt t-4 ,' Ji <i:- ftaadry 4 420 Bosket Stsw* Sea Fraaalos# U* Gdlf* I* 3* T>yl*rt AS&9, to frcndlacja l. JL. Zallev* fiffiS* toccata? l-- J o fsly 20* gaa*A esd aa ncnia eg&sici* Qa&i&ssia &a$ls2tf Qs54*cia Zfco cri ? ea^tfecrtea tocfcnss Csfc fes^ccy S$>*3d-34 &a SrcosfUso &ZLs*6 ffiftft G&$p5tod tfe*4 v* sc&i jta* in teipltctifta, wq^p ggjagd ef tefeaft 9 QstSftertasi &aic4 t&o jreesa lamreg ty Ssamlcgo tttissst'ft rs^cE*attsm pailciaa* ffe*3sfcftt3 cgrjgAag t yeca* UV&* i%& cs4 s^ aaiftrai* SL &stic8 co o Gglteari ftusalrfewa ao&saio lsoii*io tfca applie&tlsa of taedtaa Spw <af j&p coosaiaflo eft &<& togttlfitjqgg & Git* fo&rlO tS3 of? at&U^cu ec4 tfca &jq of taml/rtlag aoaft. ptwfiBofca 3ft B9 BflBSSS5*Si fSSl 6 3gS&S9 9t ftlf&ZS'SBft SCStOStfilO f&S=Ift* && ^ 5*2^ t& OTwa% tttstoa f&fts* ta*gtgrtm ossfeasta 5&&?ftbl VXfjj CSftgSftaa &B38& &(2$SSS@a3 g?Aca OZSizzA *lt2J 3 msgy g*ft Aqg ffi^gggA L & fcSSW JKJQ? &&2S&&* ttfc In ts? Gca Tscift- e&4 O&lsaft oSSsc fc? llfid OSSSfilftSKfcla jyssta3 &&lttg OgbftCte&S tlsl&S* ^OK?i if x&a wqjc&s' sure ftsfcallo SHgcr^taa wsteisQ ftafiitleass cte> fifties coateeft 37 ESs f & Ssgtefr* ffissssa* of tfeo 6m SVcs^lco smn of iazstenes fco^ns&sa ce4 SfcpjSy <2t>s3*y& n* ft ^ol3<r otasft c&G&disay cf Irastaas Oao-pts^ ttoca ftdftseoo is Eto 2&a^ te to SteBC&cea* ?C7 tcnaly jraaffo, jtEsc^^a n qqxmss &dNassa XU 0. toftcftS, Jr Xaftrrcao Os^oytew* & Ss&lt^ fSSg* la&eoete* & & Sates* 3b.<ta $*&&> * * ^ *113* Page < A' 37a lJ i!/I .wbjct Robert F. Cuthbertson i|`!s! , Request for information 1 J'r.1! . '.![. I ['it ;j Sr 1 ( Enclosed are duplicate copies of TravelersInsurance letter dated -July 21at which is 3elf exolanatory It is our understanding that this will be handled by the Armstrong Cork Company13 Insurance Department. If we can ho of any further help3 please let us know. DJK J. G liurphy, Sacramento ?*S. Please forward the original copy to Armstrong r'ork Corrpany for their action. rotw 81501 1.S0 ;I STUART 5.-TTAN Adml-s-cr; Page_-^-- of ^ .1 1i I 3:x lj OAUl DEPARTMENT 1 K JCHW, Cel* Memeer July 21, 1959 UAMCH OfTKU W56 Web** Street OAKLAND 12, CAUF02MA T,h**f It--toW M2CXJ Armstrong Cork Company, 304 Shaw Road, San Francisco, California* 3-R972691 Re: Robert F. Cuthbertscn Armstrong Cork Co* d/a 7-14-54 Gentlemen: Pleaae submit a statement, in quadruplicate, indicating all inclusive dates of Mr. Cuuhberteon's employment; his salary (by the hourly wage and gross for the years 1953 and 1954 J whether he was hired as a regular or temporary employee; hia job title and a brief resume of his duties; whether his duties brought bin into contact with asbestos, and is so, to what degree; whether or not he was exposed to other materials which night have a deleterious effect upon the lungs over a period of time, and if so, the nature of the substance and the degree of exposure; and whether or not Mr* Cuthbertscn over made any complaint with respect to exposure to deleterious substances or alleged ill ne3a as a result of alloged exposure* Please forward the original and tv;o copies direct to our attorneys, Hanna and Brophy, 1540 San Pablo Avenue, Oakland, Calif*, with the third carbon copy to this office* Your prompt and complete cooperation with our counsel is earnestly solicited, as this matter is set for a hearing before the Industrial Accident ^cxcnlasioa on August 13, 1959* Very truly yours. IK H* Abreu Adjuster Page---JL2-- oL-v^42. HOME OFFICE' 700 MAIN STIUT, HAtTFOtO IS. CONNECTICUT etac* cgAgssyr 1 A. JCSOU, Qd * July 21, 1959 caAMCt oma TtM W*w*r W* Amatrong Coric Ccmpcsy, 304 Show Rood, Son Traneiooe, California. 5-3972*91 Rot Rofe-srt y, Cuthbertsoa AncotrcQS Corts Co d/a 7-14-54 Oszrtlseaca: Please gnfrnrlt a ctstcmoat, la quadruplicate, indicating all iacluaiTo dates <af 3Za* Carthbcrfroca13 csployocntj his alary (by the hourly vago c&4 gross for tbs 7W3 1353 sad 1954; nhother ho m hired cm a regular or tcnporrizy *ployes| hia Jc-b title cad a brief restsM of hie dutieo; whether his dutie brsag^t hla iafce ecatact with asbestos, cad is so, to idiat degree; whether or apt ho t*ns Cgaoci to other oatorlala vhlch eight hc.ro a deleterious Cfffcet the la&gs oror a period of tine, end If so, the nature of the gaboteuce col the degree of cipocare; and whether or not Kr* Ortfcbcrtcoa 99or cads esy ooCTgJftlgt with respect to orpccnrre to doloterio'os rabctanocs or allagsd 111 3530 ta a result of alleged closure* Please ferjud the original cad two copies direct to our attorneys, ed 1540 3a Pablo Arcnwe, Oakland, Calif*, vith the third cartea oort to tLio office* Tow prompt sad atcplste cooperation vith cor eowrneol Is earnestly solicited, as this a&fctar la cot for a hearing before the Inductrial decIdcat *caxieia ea daguyt 13, 1959* Tory truly years. 9* 2* Ahroa Adjuster ' Page--^____ of-^. *4 J> * 7 S\ _ f^?**-^**!-*^) *t~ '--- -j&- JL----________ __ _ .V _______________________ 3 AiSfc^jr^^s . .;_.................... ^ ^ -w-TL -^-' 7rr~~Z'- xTfr'; ^ ------------------ ^TZT' ? ^ -^3V--- ^ i.rr: --....--------- ^^.L*-- ------A*^ -- -- firy-^Li ^ -. -<`IU -- * . . -- -i*7 ** w Vj . *-- -- --611^-i ~4 f / -- * +m*' - `r -* ^.... ^.-c-- ^ ------- ...... _---- ^*-*-------- t-'V*: aAl. ^-a/..------ .d^a ^^U^23L.t. .yV^-w^T* . ----------- ------------ - ^= 4 ..dLrtX&vr ^ - - :jJ ...................--------------------- c*^--^--Jv-*-^-----/^-rvL. % 1--................. --ujyr.^ K ....... ;.----------- _r ................................. ^ ... ----------------- *6. ^3 --y. -- `v-<- /ViO 01 101 M Tt**i Sltmdard Accident Iniyunmce Co3>iiny HOY W SMITH MtHOIK CASUALTY flflt MARINE flOttHY SURETY Northern California Branch Office 840 WEST SAN BRUNO AVENUE San Bruno. Calif. JULY 22, 1959 Armstrong Cork Company Lancaster, Pennsylvania Attn: ft* C* Schieot, Jr* Insurance Dept* Re: 9^-C 960794 Armstrong Cork Company Robert F. Cutmbertsqn Oate of Disability: 8-1-53 Policy* AZ 6S8800 . ... 1-1-51 Gentlemen: You will recall that on June 15, 1959 we asked your help regardtno EMPLOYMENT RECORD OF ROY THORSTEO AND WHICH WS DULY RECEIVED AND FCR WHICH WE THANK YOU* NOV VC MUST CALL ON YOU AGAIN FOR THE EMPLOYMENT RECORD OF THE AOOVS CAPTIONED CLAIMANT WHO IS NOV PRESENTING A CLASH FOR ASBESTOSIS. The employment record we have received indicates Mr* Cuthoertson WORKED FOR YOUR COMPANY FROM SEPTEMBER 13> 195^ THROUGH JULY 17, 1954 INCLUSIVELY* WE ARE ENCLOSING ENOUGH FORMS FOR YOU TO COMPLETE FOR THIS ENTIRE 5 TEAR PERIOO AND ASK THAT YOU RETURN TO US AS SOON AS POSSIBLE INACKUCH HEARING BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION IS SET FOR AUGUST 13, 1559* WE WISH TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR COURTESY AflO COOPERATION FOR THIS AND PAST REQUESTS ON THESE CLAIMS* VED/ms sncls* cc: V.l.P. Shrivcr Agency cg: Hanna A Qropny, attorneys Vera Dowling Claim Representative 1 : : ' * i V... % I Pago _____Ot-^22 l J A**N L. MANNA OONALO a. *ov wAkTC* mkomcm IVAN A. ICNWAi 0l"T N e ICAM jCnn A MAC 0OM4UO * MC A L f t MMAT C IOWAAO ; u KC Ci TH9MAI &ONAW0 V. U KOldK W 90 l* siei or Hanna C Sao^my 1*40 fxi,* Av(AU< QAtflANO ||. CAM'OAMU rtvmiAi miii VitmImp 1^9 Fit CD j l^Z'S-riS? j as /'' - A ^u, 10O Ivin fB(NA 0**^1 lieuiit* its* Peaew* J1 c<` r *CA*MVtO U CaitP m jin 0*ct 1000 * l*4fT AM veal iA. e*ur Dp, Ccbofc flrwra .' U50 Gutter street ' ' fen Prenciece, Calif, Saar Doctor Xt Robert F Cuthberteon . riant Aabeatoa Co,, t al ' ' G:-JL :Z~3 " hara stde aH appointment for you to exaalne tba abora nmed ao^ltcaaft on Hoveaber 19, 1959, at 3iOO P,h, >bart ?, Cuth>erteoft\rlle<S a clstn with the Industrial Accident dHrniecion,ydlleging that he sustained disability and required nediaal tcrfatrcnt for aksbcatoaia resulting frcn his wor* in inatalllnjr iaeulatloa a^teriala which contained nebestoa, during the years X9U.7-1958# The elrin was assigned for hearing and deolaioD to |feree JohnyW, Apftelov Industrial Accident Coecr.iaalon, 577 liith Street, Q^lar.d/S. The applicant ia repreaantad by SaaltHvrasriah^aduoh It Cl,eno7, financial flentar Building, Oakland, frcoi 19^t to 1958/ the apn^ean Croany, which waa inaured during thUT^peri Indemity Conpany* Patrick h r.alcney i* t lnauranc* carrier. d for riant Aabeatoa ' of tine by Industrial attorney for that Proa September 6, 1950, to July IWl 195U* the applicant worked for Amatrong Cork Coe^cny, Standard Aoeldent Insurance Company vaa the insurance earriar for yfnaatrong Cork Cor.nim7 until January 1, 1952, and Travelers Insurance Ccapany vaa the insurer*# Carrier from that date until the teralnetion of the employment, w appear aa attorneys for both insurance carriers. Proa 19V7 until September, 19>0, the applicent worked for riant Aabeatoa Cowuany, J, V* Ttiorpe A Company, and western Aebeatoc Company, riant Aabeatoa Company and J, ?, Thorpe h Company ware twyPBi iji isi.w mi. awn ijutsu'CAiJ^ P'lUJU ' ! 1 .J jfV imv*'-****.a*44-> T&& two ll/12/9 hei !obPt *4 Cuthbertecn vs* Plant Aebeetoo, et *1 Insured by Pacific Employers Ineuranoe Conpany, Mull*n 1 J'ilippi ere the at tom*ye for that Insurance carrier, Western /.ebeetos Ccopanywee insured by State Compensation Ineurenca Pond* Jaa V, Burehell 1 the attorney for that ineuranoe carrier* Enclosed please find the medical file* You will rote that the defendants submitted reports from Or. K* Corwin Hlnshew which tnolude report* received by Dr* ntnahew fro Dr* L Henry Garland end Dr* Decry* A* Wataon* The applicant submitted report* of Pr* Gerald L. Crenehav, md Dr* Crenehaw also testified at a hearing on October 22, 1959* . radical conflict that exista, FJefereo tomeys in the eace to agree upon i doctor t end eubait a comprehensive report, with : all parties should be given n opportunity queationo they deoire covered to* the doctor you will probably receive further inqulrie* Ke attorneys named ibo^e. Referee Ankele porsteMn your report a general discussion dleoeeeNof nsbeetoaia, with particular reference td~th* type and else of fibre# that cause dana<T, the extent and degree'of exposure acquired, the tine after the Inhalation of particles within vhtpfixaymptocu become manifest to the individual, btje nature at the^ayap^oc* which flret develop and the nature of the disability ra*ultiri^,\wid the manner In which the dleeaee of abestovlL_iliffar*yttwa silicosis, . The evidence eetahli*bee\hefc Lrynti work this applicant u**d magnesia pipe covering, wool felt/pipe/ covering* Alrcall pipe ` covering, Unlbeetoa insulation, and fibregliiia inoulation* Magnesia pipe covering containa from 10 to 12> asbestos fibre, the rest' be In;* baslo n*cne*iuo carbonate* Wool felt pipe covering is manufactured with on inoide ter liner next^tcr-xne pipe, n*xt a series of layers of wool felt paper ehe*y{ then an outer vrap of aebeatoe paper, end finally a muslin cover* The wool felt paper le composed of approximately 30^ wood/pulp fibre, 60.. Kraft paper pulp, and 10* lining nd waterproofing rsterisls uch a* waxes. The aebeatoe panor outer vrap i* caa.->oad of 50.. to 60,. aebeetc* fibre, end .10 to fc.0* wood pulp and Kraft paper pulp* r? i Sa Aireell pipe covering le made by corrugating asbestos paper and then laminating the oo~nn:ated *hteta. tender separate oover, ve are tending you a section of wool felt pipe covering / *. h ?<L V QQ01ZU i[* uauuj^ie^ iiwifiw.mi|i,^eee^eiMRurp"u sm* iw r^ w-j?. tor* w- aasa Page three - li/12/59 . . Pel noberfc F Cuthbertaon T* Plant Asbestos# at si and a section of Airmail pipe eovsrlng so that you en sea for yourself what these two products were Ilka in the condition in which they were whan received by tha applicant Tor installation. The only information dlacloaad b7 the manufacturer** of Unlbeetoe Insultation la that it ia approximately 70* Aaoalte aebeatos* in expert witness has testified that inaalta asbestos Is nined in touch Africa# and has a much longer fibre then tha asbestos used in tha other aateriele# which coast x*m C.xr*dc* . '/-''-C Tha fibre* in tha C median asbestos era 3/& inahea or ie* la length# ' I also enclose a tabulation showing all Jobs on which tha eppliemt wdricelifor Armstrong Cork Conpany# and tha material used on those/jobs (32C naans nagnesla pipe covering end PO a*ana fibreglttsh/ Tha applicant denied that he was employed 00 two of these Jcbpf aa follows^ >2-Paelfie Portland Cement Co* '29/52- Buena^flsta^$chool. ..... * . In\hc nedlodl file# yoxi will find a report of rt% A# H* Thompson# doted rentenber 8# 19J`7)f giving x-ra7 readings cn films taken October 10/1053# rroveatoc* 13# 192i, and March 17# 1956. (Va will andeavoq to got all je-ray/f&no# including these# end the apaelr.ant submitted to tat to you as promptly ae possible.) Hobart P. a twin brother (not aa identical twin) who aid-*he a of Vorfc# and Dr. Gerald Crenshaw performed a biopsy twin brother in 1953* For that reason# the epplieen ' '7 films taken from.. tlJM to tins. You will clso find in tha file two Reports fro* the Department of Publie Health# Stats of Californio. One report la b7 0. a. foare# p.V.li.# d*ted Deoember and the eeeoad le by William Thielen# dated Deoe^uar 31* 1958* These coter staples of lung tissue auboittod/by Dr# David Slrvnan, the pathologlr.t at Ricl-nond V.ospttal# whoTM Dr. Oerald Crwsijiv per- fojo*ed a lobectomy on August 13# 19?8* The Hiehacmd Hospital records have been reeeirsd in etMenea# end the medical file include# e pbotestatlo copy. I regret the blurred condition of tha copy of the hospital reooris# but t believe that the pathological renort of Dr. Ginwian ia sufficiently elar that you can. read it without difficulty. fffV U f JJIJIIIII Kt. IJ aifc !- iftme a**^-e- .r'V \y ouoicrj vr wmBeo1, uuijiu pew $ .. ^ Pag* four 11/12/59 fie l hobert >' Cuthberteen v# Plant Aabeatoa, at *1 Kara ere the speolfle question* to which I would iUo to hart an answer* 1* In hU report of October 12, 1959, Dr, ff Cotvin Klnabotr etataat . "Doctor Vatson'e finding* enflm the patient** statement ,r> *bat b* ha* Inhaled aabaatoa flbnrn. Tha inhalation tand v.. * tha demolition or asbestos fibers doer. not b7 itccir con~ ' . etltute evidence of disabling or necessarily significant oceupatlonol pulmonary dlseeaa, It vould bo' predictable, v . .. . that any para^n long enraged ir. tb* handling of asbestos ' ' . ' natarlalaAoiOX colloot aabestos fibers In hia lunge which V '- would bj'detected if a auffleient amount of lung tiaaua . . . were examined, la most be emphasised that the precenca of theea fibers b^ers no relation to the degree of injury. if/any, and that other methods of examination curt ba relied . . . . . ujxm to determine whether significant pulaonary diiaaca la . yiA . : preWit* The function of lung blepi7 la eases auch a* thtr " ''' ahouxd be to determine thVnature of aerloua Injury and dta " ftblllty_wfcen jtfeh disability hca first been demonstrated, Diorsv eerwd'nc useful punpoao whatever In a aituatlon *oeh at this whew there la no/clinleal, physiological or radio* . . " ; logical eridance of dlajrellnfj^puartonary disease," ' - Do you agree or diafc<rr*c,*ith atotteienta? IT you agree la , --- part and dleagro* In pstt, v^Cavou place* indicat* tha area# of ' agreement and disagreement,/^ Toth# axtoni ttf*At you diaagr**, will f. you plaaae state the reaarn* for y^ur disagreement, ; ... .. , 2, Dr, Slngnan haa referred to an fxeerpt from Talriull, Industrial Toxicology, Second Edition 1957, which eontalna the . following quotation* / -------- - ` "The flbrogenlo aotlon differ* frco/that of atlloa la that the effect* are produced only by long asbestos . - , fibers* while the very ehort asboatoo fibers appear to have little or ns offset. The lon^ fiber* apparently . block the finer bronchiole* and produce flbrotie change* -t.` ',< * * result of irritation," , s * \ What are the naxlnua and minima length* of fiber* that do product harmful effootsf In hla report of Deoaaber 31, 1950* William Thtelen state* that the needle-like ary*tals in tha aaspla aub* ; 5 ; fool :o twssx w vwss easzB&QESCS^; i 'r . - , .. Page firs - 11/12/59 K*t Hebert F Cuthbertscm Y# Plant Asbestos, Bt 1 . . aittfd to him ranged in slsa frora Utt than 10 microns to crey 100 mierons in length end fro on?* to five microns in width* 3. . Employment by AJttatrong Cork Company, which l# tho only employer with whoa I am eonoemsd, terminated Jul7 1U* I95k$ *nd tt* applicant did not experience any aymptaa# eufficient to ppot bin to consult Dr, Crenshaw until August* 1956* CancidarinG tb tlno element and *11 available information aa to the cuontity of fibers present sad tbs condition of the lung tU*t m <Hsiow4 at the time of or*e~tlon* are you stle -to ojerreas an o-ptnicm ae to when ths fibers that vers found wars Inhaled? 4* Za there, la the literature on tbs eubjeat, any msordsd instsnes of esjtfsthala among workers handling materials containing . fbesto* in the perobntagas contained tr. tha materials handled b7 Kr* CuthbadKson, aa distinguished from factory workers cngagM In ths manufacturing of afbestoa products or miners engaged in tha mining of asbestos? yoa desire yf use\tha ssrrvioes of * roeatgsoolotlrt ,..j> or a pathologist* yotvare authorised to do so* tf you'uilZ' forward alljeopia* of your report, end your bill, to this office, I will rance for filing of the report with the Industrial Accidenttbs service of oopies,and ths payment os: yocr M] ` ZAflER r '' EOOS* ` ' A' i.-o*o* Referee John IT* A&kela o*o* Smith, Parrish, Paduck & denoy o*o* Patrick H. Maloney o*o* Hullen ft mippi ' o*o femes V* Burchell State Fund lit J umuiPJiu* Ml ai II Si III wm 000V >. OF Flfttf LAW OFFICES OF 4 jt6ownn.ir*u ji, c*>. mKHmIoMukMMlia SMITH. PARRISH, PADUCK & CLANCY i;UX u*0 ]S|IM sup w. vaitiir w .i \OUMMTci C?htt UtL0l* 40f-1TH BfftflT OAftkANO If. CALICO**** November 11, 1959 1 ...... 4 ;r<5 OliiSS. :I3L1R Mr*. John H. Ankele, Referee Industrial Accident Commission 5TT - 14th Street Oakland, California Nov 12 1359 | Of.';-? Industrial Indemnity Co. 268 Grand Avenue Oakland, California Hanna & Brophy Attorneys at Law 1540 San Pablo Avenue Oakland, California Mullen & Filippi Attorneys at Law 315 Montgomery Street San Franciaco, Calif. State Compensation Insurance Fund 450 McAllister Street San Francisco, California Re: ROBERT CUTHBERTSON s Dear Mr. Ankele: The parties have agreed Dr. Cabot Brown be an impartial medical examiner in the above case. We have ordered a transcript of Dr. Crenshaw's testimony and would request the transcript be immediately pre pared so the doctor may have it when he renders his . opinion. Very truly yours'. r JES:rb JOSEPH t. SMITH s. / / cooa * 'j-. . f "-^,^1 as.-:a;; BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION OP THE STATE OP CALIFORNIA ---0Q0--- - ROBERT P. CUTHBERTSON, Applicant, No. 59 OAK 1053 V8. MINUTES 0? HEARING PLANT ASBESTOS COMPANY, J. T. THORPE, WESTERN ASBESTOS COMPANY, ARMSTRONG CORK, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, '' PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY,/ .STANDARD ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendants. S (CONTINUED) trcisio" \ ' PLACE 4 TIME: Oakland October 22, 1959 9 00 a.m. REPEREE: REPORTER: ANKELE SMITH APPEARANCES: Applicant: Present SMITH, PARRISH, PADUCK t By JOSEPH E. SMITH, Esq Deft. Travelers and Standard HANNA 4 BROPHY By IVAN A. SCHWAB, Esq. Deft. Industrial Indemnity: PATRICK R. MALONEY, Esq Deft. State Pund: JAMES V. BURCHELL, Esq. Deft. Pacific Employers: MULLEN 4 FILIPPI By JOHN MOORE, Esq. WITNESSES: Richard E. Beaudry (Deft. Travelers and Standard Accident) Victor Sagues (Deft. Travelers and Standard Accident)(App; Paul Nieto (Deft. Industrial Indemnity) ' Gerald L. Crenshaw, M.D. (App) David Singman, M.D. (Deft. Travelers and Standard Accident) Robert P. Cuthbertson (App) ADDITIONAL ISSUE: Litigation costs ' IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendant Union Mutual Life Insurance Company be and they are hereby dismissed as not being a proper carty defendant. * APPLICANT'S 1 2 DEPENDANTS* 4 5 . ' 6 7 8 9 Letter, Western Asbestos, to State Pund, 9-24-59 Report, Dr. Crenshaw, 5-25-59, and bill, $790.00 Letter, 9-10-59, KEASBEY 4 MATTISON CO. to Beaudry 4 Wllsor. List of jobs where apolicant worked Letter, 8-14-59, Schiedt to Taylor Letter, 8-3-59, Beaudry to Schiedt Report, W.C.Thlelen, 12-31-58 O.A.Soave, DVM, 12-10-58 Report, Dr. Hlnshaw, 10-12-59, 9-22-59 Report, Dr. Thompson, 9-8-59 Alcor S. Browne, PhD, 9-14-59 Hospital records /W./M . ^ OCK)> DISPOSITION: 135 PP 10-22-59 The parties will agree upon an agreed medical examiner by next Wednesday, and thereafter they shall have 4p days to serve and file a report of such agreed medical examiner; the case then to stand submitted without further proceeding & TKTES'E'EISBS' ASISESlTOgS CO. ----------------------------------- :----------------------------------TtiUiNig i o __ _____________________________________________________ CllflO OAKLAND TOONTON . NO. IACRAMINTO MltHS OAN V O . SANTA At 9amoral Offleat *79 Towmaamd tlraat KLaadlha |.)f| tarn Praaalato 3, California Sh, 1959 State Compensation Insurance Fuad k50 McAllister Street San Frunelsco, California Attention) Mr. Cullca SUBJECT) Robert F. Cuthbcrtson Geatlcacn) la reply to your telephone reediest, we have contacted the Superintendent for when hr. Cuthbertson worked duriny the 5-1/2 aonthe he m with us. As far as we can ascertain, Mr. Cuthbertson worked ta the oil refineries at Rlchaond doing pipe covering and boiler jobs. This type of work requires the use of aostly 652 Magnesia Pipe Covering and Blocks. Ve trust this is the information desired. Very truly yours, VESTERV ASSSTQS CO. KEStar H. E. Siaoas / / 0L 7 \W / 0001 BSBsnsoBncsi OERALO U. CRENSHAW. M. D. 441 TlNfV<MtM OMUMO *. k|MOVVt 1*404 4 May 25, 1959 n-rjrartSHaggggygS ^ Joseph E.Smith, Attorney of Low Smith, Porrish, Poduck ond Clancy financial Center Building 405 - l4fh Street Oakland 12 Californio Dear Mr. Smiths Re: Robert P. Cuthbertson Mr. Cuthbertson consulted me In July of 1958 because of persistent severe pcin in the right chest. He hod a slight proudctive cough ond dyspnea on exertion and while ot rest. The patient gave a history of hoving worked in an asbestos plont for mony yeort. A partial lobectomy wos performed at Richmond Hospital on August 13, 1958. On examination of the lung at surgery there were gritty fibrous nodules palpable throughout the entire lung. The right middle lobe wos resected os well as a nodule from the diophragm. Portial pleurectomy was performed also. The specimens of lung tissue were sent to the Health Deportment for study of the asbestos eonfeaf and the report was positive for asbestos. Very truly youn, Ql U CL^xJLu-J Geroid l. Crenshaw, M.D. GlC:ig Enclosure \ -'0 u f>. 0001 I ji i --him OEffALO L. CRENSHAW. M. 0. OAHUNO I.eAUVeaNlA 9ilNOV*t ||ei| Moy25, 195? To: Robert Cufbbertson 2438 Gorvln Avenue Richmond, Californio 7 -29-58 Consultation Complete blood count ond sed rote Urinalysis Coecidtoidln ond hlstoplosmln skin tests ($5.00 ea.) 7 -31-58 Office coll 8 -11-58 8-13-58 Office call Bronchoscopy Right lobectomy 8 -22-58 Post-op visit Complete blood count ond sed rate 8 -25-58 8 -27-58 8 -28-58 intermittent positive pressure breathing I.P.P.B. l.P.P.B. 9 -2-58 9 -4-58 9 -5-58 9 -8-58 9- 12-58 9 -15- 9 -20-58 9 -22-58 9 -24-58 9 -26-58 9 -29-58 I.P.P.B. I.P.P.B. I.P.P.B. I.P.P.B. I.P.P.B. I.P.P.8. I.P.P.B. I.P.P.B. Office coll I.P.P.B. I.P.P.B. I.P.P.B. PA and lateral chest x-ray 10- 1-58 10- 3-58 10-13-58 10-27-58 10-30-58 I.P.P.B. I.P.P.B. Office coll Office coll Office cell 25.00 8.00 2.00 10.00 5.00 5.00 75.00 400.00 8.CO 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 5.00 1.50 1.50 1.50 14.00 1.50 1.50 5.00 5.00 5.00 WSEEP" pool SSSSKH OCflALO L, CACN0HAW, M. O, **f a*air OAAbANr* *. C*UPO"M'A ailN49VBf MMV Moy 25, 1959 To: Robert Cufhborfjon (Continued) 11-28-59 Office colt PA end lateral chest x-ray 12-12-58 Office call 1 -10-59 Office cell 2 -11-59 I.P.P.B. lomp and vecelee 2 -9 -59 Office call PA and lateral chest x-ray 2-13-59 I.P.P.B. Lamp and vaccine 2-16 -59 I.P.P.B. Lamp and vaccine Strep and ceroclllln 2-18 -59 Lamp and 'vaccine Strep and ceroclllln 2-20 -59 I.P.P.B, Lamp and wcelrte Office call 2-2* -59 I.P.P.8. Lamp ond vaccine 2-26 -59 I.P.P.B, Lomp and vaccine 2-28 -59 I.P.P.B. Lanp and vcdne 3- 4 -59 I.P.P.B. Lamp and vaccine 5.06 14.50 5.00 5.00 1.50 3.00 5.00 M.00 1.50 3.00 1.50 3.00 6.50 3.00 6.50 1.50 3.00 5.00 1.50 3.00 1.50 3.00 1.50 3.00 1.50 3.00 rzzxz.\ metmnP9Bi* 0001' aa --*1 OCffALO L. CffCNBHAW, M. D. 44T twtNtT'MiNTH OAMUNn 9 e*LiroNi* tfhlWAM OitMou* l.*49 May 25, 1959 To: Robert Cufhberfson (Continued) 5-4.59 I.f.#.=B. Lamp and vaccina Office call 3- 9 -59 l.P.P.B. Lamp and vaccina 3-11 -59 Lamp and vaccina Strep and eerociilfn 3-13 -59 Lamp end vaccine Strep and ceroclilln 3-16 -59 l.P.P.B. Lamp and vaccine Strep and ceroclilln 3-21 -59 CFTce call l.P.P.B. 5 -9 -59 Office call l.P.P.B. PA and lateral chest X-ray 5-11 -59 Office call l.P.P.B. 5-12- 59 l.P.P.B. 5-15-59 l.P.P.B. 5-18 -59 5-20-59 Office call L.P.P.B. l.P.P.B. Total: ^ 1,50 3.00 5.00 1.50 3.00 3.00 6.50 3.00 6.50 1.50 3.CO 6.50 5.00 1.50 5.00 1.50 14.00 5.00 1.50 1.50 1.50 5.00 1.50 1.50 S 7$0.66 wwwj'wriprp (W>(* " i .1 . . KEASBEY A MATTISON COMPANY Manufacturer* of Asbeitoi, Mainenia and Anphalt Product* AMtltft, MNN CVA N I A 2< ^ September 10, 1{;59 Beaudry it nil sen Insurance Adjustors U2C tarket Street San Francisco 11, California Attn: Hr. Richard Z. Beaudry Re: H-agnesia Pipe Coverings Tour File: 59-199 Gentlemen: With reference to your letter of August 25, ve are unable to send you any literature on magnesia pipe coverings since ve discontinued manufacturing this ccrr.edity approximately one y^ar ago. The typical ?52 magnesia nipe covering contains about 122 fiber and 882 basic m-rnesimr carbonate. Certain percentages of the fiber might be Amoaite and Chrysotile. Such blends of fiber could vary from time to time, but on an average, it represents 122. Tcu have asked us to give our cements on the reusability of asbestos dust cooing off such material when installing the same. We, os manufacturers, do not arply or in.3t-:ll pipe coverings. This work is usually done by the contractors or applicators. It would be cur assumption that the amount of oust wculd in all rrcbsbility be insignificant, because in a grod rary in stances insulation is covered vith carvas Jackets prior to shipment ir.tc the fi^ld. Very truly yours, \ I,.. (* .>1 ; ' D. J'-.-Mn-r oACsli*s"irs*'<tTl .Jl.':tl<oot::c > r \J v oooi vj  .. . Fibreboard Pnpcr Product* Corporation m. O. BOX 4111 OAKLAND 21. CALIFORNIA October l, 1959 Mullen end Fillipt Attorney* at lev 315 Montgomery Street San f'raaclaco A, California Attention: Mr. John V. Moore In re: Robert Cuthbertaon 7^ C 61582 Dear Mr. Moore: r*. Plant Aabeato* ani Pacific Employers Inaurance Company IAC #59 GAX 1053 You requested through Mr. J. C. Voiles, General Manager Insulation Division, the constituent* of the material known la the Insulations trade a* 851> Magxsia. This material when analyxed in accordance vlth Federal Specification HH-I-551*- Paragraph A.3.2 results in the following constituents: 1. Hygroscopic Moisture 2. Asbestos Fiber 3. RgOj A. Lias ss CaO 5. Magnesia calculated as: a. kMg CO3 (Mg (0H)g) 5Hg0 b. 3Kg CO3 <Mg (0H)2> 3H2O 6. Loss on Ignltico 7. Carbon Dlorlde 1.2 10,8 .71 o.!2 95.5 89.5 ^5.8 -30.0 Your* eery truly, FY3R53CAKD ?A?ffi PRODUCTS CORPORATION / WT:ph ec: Mr. J. C. Voiles 2. V. Torbohn Manager Insulation* Manufacture Eaeryrille, California i*aao4a earumt * ,.n.io..o . x.en cj.y..* . *ewi p Ml .SO''N* '^UU *404-efMNT . VAINT4 . lOOa eOV1Na >M#k.*T'0*4 ..Hi>maui>wijjruys 11 riiihii OOOlCiO wniuwjujt r* p.wgfw;1 LAHCAtrt" <NNIUV4NI* August U, 1959 Mr. J. S. Taylor Armstrong Contracting sad Supply Corporation 304 Shaw Road South Ssa Francisco, Calif* Deer Mr. Taylon la ease you did not receive a copy of the Beaudry & Wilson latter, ve enclose a Tberao-Fax and wrksheets containing part of the information requested in the Beaudry & Vilsoa letter. - Records for the year 1950 have been destroyed ao that the Payroll Deparbseat listed only thoee contracts worked on by R. P. Cuthbertsoa starting in 1951. Arthur Boardson, Controller's Department, then listed vith whan and where ve had the contract. Where the information is not entered, Arthur was unable to locate the particular files. Thought perhaps your files night disclose this inforaation in which esse you could complete the inforaation Beaudry & Wilson is looking for. In Tiev of the first sentence In the last paragraph, page one, of Kr. Beaudry's letter, will you please oontaot hiu at your earliest oonreaieaoe. Very truly yours, 1R4STR3NG CORS COXPABI wffiwirjw ) 4 The Amtron Cork Cesq^ap laneejter, Pannsplvanla Attai X. C. Schledt, Jr, Insurance Dpt* v- 01 lebrt 7, Cutbbertaoa vs, |refined Oort Ossipany -r* our niMt 59-199 Oentl--sal " ~ .* V* have been ii1{b*4 to do um iavastigatioo'^art os tb#\above csae Vf / . Itr. Iron Scbvab of lama k Bropbp'a office, vtoo in sawaiin^ the bearing . , \ ' before the Industrial Acaidmt CcmImIcq for the travelsr'a and Standard '. Accident Insurance Caspaalar; ffiiKa4*e\baa been set for August 13, 1959., ) In orltr for os to oaaplita our investigation, It la oeceesarp that ee obtain tone information free) you and alto a latter vhieh can be submitted' to the Industrial Accident Camiasioo/in tb* event * art unable to prt* para the cat/ la tlsa. BSa^lnforoetioa va rtqulrt it tha oaaa aad ousbar ., of tach job Mr, Cutbbertaoa eer"d*ploped upon during tha period Septenber 1950 to Julp\l7, 195** With thla job aaaa aad amber, va can than obtain . tha aeceeaarp'information'froo poor local office, Armstrong Contracting aod ftipply Com?any,sVfeieb-eliil anabla us to detaralaa that type of metarials k. v ^aara uaad.aad haadltd bp Mr. Cuthbcrtsoo* _ . - . ................ . v-V.-'V? Aa pou kaov, Mr. Outhbarttoa baa fllad a elaia for asbastoaaa. Va art trying to determine tha afloat of ateriels ba handled containing asbestos, and tha aacuat not aoataiaiaf aabaatoa. . . ... tha above information aa to tha east aad auabar of tha job should ba sent direatlp to ua aa toon aa possible. Za tha meantime, va veuld appreciate ; pour writing a latter direct to Mr. Ivan Schwab, Attoraapi Banna A Brophy, 15*0 Saa Pablo Avenue, Oakland, California, stating that there vill ba some daisy in developing the Information ia this oast. Plsate Include in pour ' latter tha reasons for this daisy, l.a., distance involved and laaccaaaabilltp of tha records*' . ' . . .. . i\, t \ v; p^ymjBj..u'in 1`iiu11^ i! in 11 1 jaj 1 i'm/i .0005 1 yen 4;i 1 K.y s y^.my* * ' ' !-!-' >J ' .. ', Mr. tofevab oaa tboa um thia Irttar at th# tiaa of tho haarlac oq Aujuat 13, 1959, to ratuaat aa axtonalo*; of tiaa and aaothar haarlng, la tba rroat our lsYoatlgatloo la oot eoaplatad. tbaak you for your oourtaooa and prcapt raply la tMa aattar. ' - ' Cordially yoora, -- . , mnua 4 'suva * Hobart X. Xaaudry . ;vr-W * i *.. '* ' , I ` wuyy- MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC IIEAE-^ p v RECEIVED . IUC :> iY.^Z %immor adult health Tt From: dareau of Adult Health Attention! Sr. Christine Xinerl Date: Dacaaber 31 i 1958 Air and Industrial Hygiene Laboratory Subject: Laboratory Sasplc S-736 (lung time) Tbit easrple, ns received, consisted of four piece* of undiffer entiated tisaue preserved la dilute formalin. Since quantitation v*a sot requested no e&sple vcieht vae raeordod. Snail pieces approximately 1 ca square vere raeorad at raadoa froa each of the piecaa of tissue and forvarded to the Time laboratory for histopathologlcal examination* A copy of the report of thlo examination la attached. The balance of the tasple vae retained In this laboratory for Identification of aabeetoe. The taople macerated la a Waring blendor And filtered through Vbatma JTo. 41 filter paper, tha filtrate being dlaeardad, Tha naterial resAlsltur on tha paper vaa dried In a vacuum oven at 50C, The dried naterial vaa then ashed according to the nethod used by Sing and Hagelschaidt. To avoid contamination eshing aa done entirely In platinum vare. A aaall portion of the aah vaa taken for aieroscopic examination, the balance vaa retained for X-ray diffraction analyala. Xlcroacople exaaination of the lung aah ahoved the presence of conelderable nuabera of needle like eryetale ranging in ixe froa leee than 10 alerona to over 100 aicrone In length and froa 1 to 5 alcrona in vldth (aeo attached photoaicrographe). Particle* thla shape are atypical of quart* but quite consistent vlth certain of the aabeetoe group of minerals. While Petrographic nearuraaenta os crystals this also are not too precise, certain observations vert obtained as follows! 1. Extinction - oblique 2. Extinction angle - 12- 16 3. Sign - (-) U. Serefrlagenee - .015 (eetlaatei only due to aaall crystal site) ;N. A 00<)15~ 2AH 2-736 -2- D*o*bar 31, 1958 Thaaa raluaa ara la food a^raaoaat vith tfcoaa ;lraa for Tr**llta la Slaaaata of Optical Xlnaraloity. Part II, Vlachai and Ylaebal* Xr*jf diffract loo aoalyala vaa and* nalay ^>ovdar raoara t r*hr 1 rinr and'Ironic alpha radiation. Xxaalsatloa of tha diffraction pattern abovad tha praaaace ofj 1. Quart* 2. Hornblende 3. Actlaollta k. Traaollte 5* Aaphobile Vlth tha exception of ^nart* th* are all mineral* of tha aabaatoa group. Vllllaa Thlalaa, Aaalataat P. H. Cbealat if. i f-J '1 MEMORANDUM TTATE Of CAUWUNIA DEPARTMENT OP PUBUC HEALTH' ` To: Through! From: 7m. Theilen Industrial ^gin Laboratory Edwin H. Lennette, ll.S. / 0. A. Soave, D.V.lt. / Virus Laboratory Du* December 10, 1953 Subject: Hunan lung, bronchus (8-66, S-736) from Industrial Hygiene'-Lab. i\;\ In reference to tissues submitted for histopathologioal examination, the only patholo' seen was in tba lung. Ears there was a good deal of passive ooageotion, small fool of oarbon granules but not enough to be significant The major abnormality was the presence of granulomatous areas with lymphooytee, epithelioid cells and fibroblasts. As granulomatous lesions may form due to a&sy causes, it is not possible to incriminate any one, l.e., tubercu losis, coccidioidomycosis, and oertain irritants or toxins. The ether tissues, bronchi and bronchiole, appeared normal* OAStjs 0. A. Soave, D.7.1L Asst. Public Health Veterinarian 000^.`> A,;..-,. J VU* |l* FROM TO SUBJECT \ f i- H. CORWIN HINSHAW. M.Q. HORTON C. MIN1MAW. Jn.. M.O. iM WTTtr (TOtrr . MM FMNCIKO . CALIFORNIA 12 October 1969 H. Corwin Hinahaw, M*D* Hanna and Brophy 1540 San Pablo Avenue Oakland 12, California Mr* Robert F Cuthbertaou vs* Armstrong Cork Company, et, al* CONSULTATIONS on FILMS AND TISSUES EXAMINED BT L. H.CARLAND, M.D., Radiology Consultant and GEORGE WATSON, HD., Pathology Consultant I have received the following letter from Doctor L* H. Garland, "Regarding Cuthbertson, Mr* Robert, the following are consultation reports on the submitted films of the chest; 10,10*53 (Herrick Hospital), The heart vessel shadow ia normal in alze and position* The bronchovaacular markings are of the fairly heavy type, apparently consistent with the patient's build* The diaphragm is normal in position and outline* There la no x-ray evidence diagnostic of occupational pulmonary disease* 11*13*54 (Herrick Hospital), Ho significant change* -* 3,17*56 (Herrick Hospital), No significant change, . 9*10*59 (Tour Office). There are some irregular scarlike opacities in the right lower lung field, presumably secondary to the reported lung biopsy* In the stereoscope there are some prominent vessels In the right upper lung field* You hive kindly informed us that fluoroaeoplcally the diaphragm shows normal excursion. Conclusion; No *Ytdence c occupational pulmonary disease (silicosis or sobestosls). Thinking you for submitting these films for consultation, lam" Tours sincerely, t/t L* H* Garland, K*B 9 pip a From To Subject **'**.-- ; naMMiamirn. M'^7- 12 Ootobar 1859 H* Corwin Hinahaw, M*D* Hanna and Brophy Mr* Robert F, Cuthbertfoo Doctor Garland** opinion adds aubirtintiiUy to the evidence auromarlxed In toy previous roport dated September 22, 1959 that Mr* Cuthbortson doea not have x-ray eridenoe of aabeatoaia and therefore la not auffering t-mm any disabling occupational dlaorder of the lungs* Report of Doctor George A* Wataon, Pathology Cooeuliant CLINICAL SUMMARY Thli patient haa worked for many years, he states, in the asbeatoe Industry including time spent for Armstrong-Cork and Western Asbestos* He haa a twin brother similarly exposed who has been Judged disabled due to lung pathology. There was an episode of bilateral scuta pneumonia for which the patient was hoepitallied from February 21, 1958 to the early part of March 1958* Ho haa some residual pathology apparently an incompletely resolved pneumonia and on August 13, 1958 had a partial lobectomy. The surgeon. Doctor Crenshaw, gave the diagnosis of asbestosis but the pathologist made no mention of such condition* MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION Two of the three available slides show portions of a thick.membranous tissue apparently with a serosal lining* This is composed of dense, relatively acellular collagen with a rare cluster of lymphocytes but no other features of interest* This is taken to be pleura, although the origin Is not certainly known* The third slide consists of two segments of lung parenchyma together having an area of approximately 0*6 cm.2. It includes a portion of thickened ploura which Is composed of coarse, collagenous strands rather wary with plump light staining, uniform* Intervening fibroblasts* The psrenchyma displays consistent features throughout* The alveolar walls are thickened and the lumim largely obliterated* Lining cells are prominent with plump oval nuclei but not actually hypertrophied, the change being due simply to modified tension from collapse* The thickened septa are occupied by the plump lining cells *' on each base with a few fibroblasts and collagenous strands intervening* . The lumlna are filled with mononuclear cells having oval, finely granular nuclei and abundant, cytoplasm which commonly contains light brown, granular pigment* There is very little carbon pigment present or anisotrophio matsrial* Scattered throughout are a number of brown* hyalin, rod-shaped bodies generally occurring in dusters* They are characteristically tapered and commonly nodular at the wider extremity. There are approximately 243 clusters of asbestos bodies per square centimeter of tissue* section* DIAGNOSIS: 1* ASBESTOS BODY DEPOSITION, MODERATELY ADVANCED, LUNG t* ATELECTASIS, LUNG NOTE The asbestos bodies are quite numerous but do not appear to have excited much tissue reaction* Most of the alteration seen in these sections is attributed to atelectasis, although the basis for the latter is not evident In this ooenc'. Page 2 Prom To Subject 12 Octobor^MI H* Corwia Hinehaw, UD. Hanna tad Brophy Mr* Robert 7* Cuthbsrtsoa ' w '' . Pathology Report (cottinned) limited aampls* ' GAW/be ' George A. Wataon, H*D. Pathologist Doctor Watson's finding* confirm the patient's atatement that he has inhaled asbestos fibers* The inhalation and the deposition of aabectoa fibers does not by Itself constitute eridence of disabling or neoesstrlly ignificant occupational pulmonary disease* It would be predictable* that any person long engaged In the handling of asbestos materials would collect asbestos fibers in his lungs which would be detected If a suffldmt amount of lung tissue were examined* It must be emphasized that the presence of these fibers bears no relation to the degree of Injury, If any, and that otber methods of examination must be relied upon to determine whether significant pulmontry disease la present* The function of lung biopsy in esses such as this should be to determine the nature of serious injury and disability when such disability has first been demonstrated* Biopsy served no useful purpose whatever In a situation such as where there Is no clinical, physiological or radiological eridence of disabling pulmonary disease* . HCH;Jh weewsw'wes'wwa'a una,*..* 0001 ( Iypwy;1wmu uuits.'iasww-ji m J3 H. CORWIN HINIMAW, M.O. HORTON C. KINSHAW. JH..M.D. o turn* tratir MM r*NC'*Ce . C*l.iro*MtA tgn*iM<M-t)im .FROM TO September H. Corwin Hlnahaw, H.D. ffimn t Brophy 1540 Saa Pablo Avenue Oakland 12, California' 22 1959 SUBJECT Hr. Robert F, Cuthbertson ra. Armstrong Cork Co., et tl SPECIAL HEDICAL EXAMINATION AND REPORT Purpose of tbe Report -- To determine the nature of Mr. Cuthbertson* s chest complaints with special reference to the problem of asbeatosls and the source or sources from which such condition max have arisen* Occupational and Clinical History . The patient states that for more than 12 years (since about July 1947) be has worked with materials containing asbestos, fiberglass and other insulating materials. He states that be has been employed by several different contractors and 3tatea that a detailed record of his employment Is on file, the details of which he cannot recall at this time. He states that be has worked under a wide variety of conditions but that he has frequently been exposed to asbestos dust and dust from other insulating materials in closed spaces where ventilation was defective. He says that he did not wear a mask , at any time and had never been instructed to do so until November 195S when he returned to work after having been told that be had asbestoa deposited In his lungs. He hat had x-ray examinations of the chest carried out occasionally and a review of - the record would indicate that the films were made in October 1953, Novomber 1954, ' * March 1956 and a number of films between February 1958 and August 1958. The patient is not informed as to what these films may have demonstrated and the films are not currently available for review hut will be acquired for study In this office, if possible* The patient's chief complaint is and has been pain in the chest. He cannot recall when this pain first became a source of concern to him but a review of medical records available indicate that he had some chest pain in February 1958 and the patient thlnka that he may have sought medical advice for a similar complaint at some Indefinite previous time. His acute illness of February 1958 required about two weeks of hospital care and Doctor L. W. Brown, his personal physldm, ordered x-ray examinations and other studies. The x-rays apparently showed some abnormality which led to further Investigation and eventually Doctor Brown recommended that he seek advice from a cheat surgeon and be was referred to Doctor Gerald Crenshaw of Oakland* Doctor Crenshaw carried out an exploratory operation on August 13, 1958 and removed a -fa it Ifa . 000 Pago,2' From To Bubjeot , September 2?-- UW9 H. Corwin H. j[/#, M.D, Hanna and Brophy Mr. Robert F, Cuthbortson Report of SpooUl Modloal Examination -- rN ** 1 - ` Occupational and Clinical History (CONTINUED) apocUnoa of lung tissue sad has reported to the claimant'* attorney that "tho report waa positive f*r asbestos." The patient does not explain bis symptoms very well, not remembering when his difficulties commenced or how they have progressed but tho following is a summary of his complaints at present. General Complaint* . He complains of fatigue and says that he has difficulty sleeping at night but apparently has not lost any weight or had other systemic complaints. Respiratory Complaints His pain is described as followij Location - anterior chest from the level of the clavicles on each side to the lower rib margins. The pain is bilateral but more severe on the left side than on the right side. The pain is entirely anterior and does not extend posteriorly. Character of pain - a tightness and a hurting sensation la described. Time of day - He says the pain may be noted at any time of day and Is present much of the time. The pain Is made worse by general fatigue but apparently is not influenced by motion of the shoulder girdle muscles nor is It worsened by deep breathing. Tho pain Is made better by rest and he thinks that a deep breath may give his some degree of transient relief. The only time that he can recall when he was completely or relatively free of pain was during a two weeks vacation at Lake Aimlaor la the Northern Sierra . Mountains. He said that he had no explanation as to why the pain disappeared under these conditions but he was probably more relaxed and spent a good deal of time fishing and he had less trouble sleeping. He has no cough but does expectorate some greenish material In the morning, the origin of which la unclear to him. He probably has had no asthmatic symptoms, wheezing or other abnormal respiratory sounds. He says that he is more short of breath than formerl; and doubts that be could play basketball now as he did approximately two years ago. Cardiac Symptoms No palpitation or irregularity of heart action observed. No swelling of the ankles or other symptoms to suggest cardiac decompensation. Gastrointestinal Complaints Appetite is normal, no difficulty swdtowing, no indigestion, no abdominal pain, no constipation or diarrhea. Genitourinary Complaints - No difficulty urinating, no obstruction to the flow of urine, no abnormal appearance to the urine or other symptoms suggestive of possible disease in these organs. Head, Eyes, Ears, Nose, Throat, Sinuses No complaints except for tho sputum production as mentioned above. Skeletal, Muscular, Central Nervous Systems ' No complaints except ho does have difficulty sleeping at night and he believes that he Ja much more nervous than be was a year or two ago. Personal Habits He does not smoke, having quit smoking sbout one year ago and probably nover was Page 8 From 7*o Subject Suptumbor 27~'1S9 H. Corwin Hiu.i*iw, M.D, ' Hunru it Brophy Mr, Robert F Cuthbertson Report of Special Medical Examination 2> Personal Habits (CONTINUED) a heavy smoker although he may have approachod as much as 20 cigarettes dally. He has never consumed alcoholic beverages regularly or to excess. Ho oats his meals at regular hours and generally leads a well-ordered life- Personal and Family History He is married and his wife Is In good health, he has three children, a son ten and one-half years of age, a aon age five and one-half and a daughter three and one-half years of sge, all of whom are in excellent health. Hia father died of a cancer of the throat at about 48 years of age. His mother is living and In good health, he has two sisters who are living sod well and one twin brother (not Identical) who is believed to have aabestotli* PAST MEDICAL History Tonsils were removed at the age of 19 years and he has had no other operations except for the lung biopsy mentioned in August 1958, He has had no other serious illnesses except those mentioned above. He injured one foot with fracture of some bones while working on the job in 1957, He says that he still has some residual pain In this region* Present Medications - Hone* Physical Examination General Appearanoe The patient is a stocky, husky-looking fellow, who would appear to be in the best of general health* He is heavily tanned and his musculature is well-developed and his general appearance would be consistent with bis reported age of 31 years* His general attitude has not been cooperative or he is a poor historian because details of his working history were impossible to secure and his physical complaints were very poorly described and often inconsistently described* He seems to be restless and irritated and it is observed that his fingernails are chewed off very closely. Be admits to this nervous habit* Height 6 feet 8 Inches, Weight 180 pounds, usual weight not known* Blood Pressure Normal, 130/80* , Pulse Normal, 68* Temperature Normal, 98.0P* Eyes Oral Cavity Lymph Nodes Thyroid Breasts Skin Pupils are regular and equal, reflexes to light and accommodation are normal, external ocular movements are normal* Teeth are in fairly good condition, no evidence of diseased tonsils and no irritation of the pharynx is noted. The tongue appears normal, the ears appear normal. Cervical and axillary nodes are not enlarged or diseased* Normal* Normal, Normal except for tattooes sod for the tear of a right lateral thoracotomy incision* / OOOl! f 1 / -------------------- Pago 4 Prom *T gubjeot September ''" jfc59 if, Corwin *..iw, M.D, Hunna and Brophy Mr, Robert F, Culhbcrtaon Report of Special Medical Examination Phyalcal Examination (CONTINUED) Cheat WaU ` The shape la normal, respiratory excursion is good and there U no local tenderness. Lungs Percussloo note is normal throughout, breath sounds are normal and equal. There are oo rales detected, no wheezes or other abnormal sounds detected with the stethoscope. Heart Size Is Indeterminate, rhythm regular, no murmurs or other abnormal sound* were detected. The neck veins were not distended. Abdomen Ho unusual tenderness, no enlarged liver, no palpable spleen, no palpable kidneys, no other organa felt and nO abnormal masses palpated. Genitalia Normal, Extremities All joints appear to be normal and to function normally, no abnormality of vessels, no edema, no clubbing, no unusual callus on the palms of his hands, no tobacco stains observed. Tests of Pulmonary Function Chest Expansion Normal, $ cm, Vital Capacity 3,2 liters, 3 second vital capacity 3,0 liters, Maximal Breathing Capacity 88 liters per minute, 1 was not convinced that his vital capacity or his maximal breathing capacity were truly maximal efforts but in any event theae are within the lower limits of normal. His breathing pattern is normal with no Indication of air trapping, no obstruction to outflow of air and there was no evident shortness of breath on the usual activity. X-ray Examination of the Chest Stereoscopic and lateral films on September 10, 1959 Indicate that the bony structures of the thorax are normal. The heart and mediastinal structures are normal in size, shape and position. Both hemidiaphragms are normally arched and are at a normal level. Both hilar shadows are within normal limits, Oo the left side the vascular markings are prominent but no more prominent thao often seen In a man of this constitution. There is no evidence of any inflammatory disease, no fibrosis or other evidence of disease in the left lung. On the right side the vascular shadows are normal, the upper lung fields reveal no abnormality and in the lower lung field there la a coarse stringy opacity at the level of the fifth rib anteriorly which appears to bo the result of his thoracic surgery. There is no indication of inflammatory disoaee and oo shadow which I could identify as representing dust deposition. Previous films, obtained from Herrick Memorial Hospital in Berkeley, California and boaring the dates of October 10, 1953, November 13, 1954 and March 17, 1956 havo been obtained and compared with current films. These films are aU similar to current films and they also fall to reveal any convincing evldonce of pnoumocontosta, in my opinion, Tho only difference betwoen the previous films and the current onos Is the area of scarring at the base of the right lung, produced by the surgical procedure. .1 (ooov' < UUWM'WWPJ* JJtM* SIDNEY J\ SHIPMAN, M.D, ROBERT W. CURKE, M.D. ELIZABETH H. GALBRAITH, M.D, 490 Post Street San Francisco 2 March 30, i960 Industrial Accident Commission 455 Qolden Oats Avenue* Room 2202 San Francisco, California From: Sidney J, Shipman, K.D, Concerning; Robert P. Cuthbertson, No. 333208 2438 Garvin Avenue Richmond, California Gentlemen: The following is my report on Hr. Cuthbertson who reported for examination on March lo, i960, at your request: General History; Age 31* Born May 4, 1928 in Albany, California. Married and has 3 children. Home address: 2438 Garvin Avenue, Richmond, California, The Problem: The diagnosis of asbestoals has been made in this case, based upon history of exposure and a pulmonary biopsy. Does asbestosia really exist in a clinical sense and, if so, what Is / the degree of disability? Chief Comolaint: The patient says that prior to operation he had pain in the left chest but this was eo long ago that he is uncertain as to its exact nature, whether it was sharp or dull or whether it was aggravated by breathing. Since the operation, his pain is substernal and radiates to both sides Family History: The father died of cancer of the larynx at age 48 Mother 18 living and well, as are two sisters. Patient has a twin brother who is said to have asbestosia. Marital History: Wife hving and well, as are three children, ages roughly 11, 6 and 4, Past History: Operations: Tonsillectomy at age 19, with good results. Biopsy of lung tissue and subtotal lobectomy in August, 1958. Accidents: Poot injured in 1957 with fair recovery. Adult diseases: See Present Illness. Chllohooo oiseases: Usual, with good recovery. Habits: Has never used alcohol to excess. He smoked in the past up to a package a day but has not smoked for over a year. See Page 2. SERVICE ON: EK Smith & Parrish, 501 Financial Center Bldg., Oak, State Comp. Ins. Fund, Personal Service ,, . Mullen 4 Pillppi, 315 Montgomery St,, S.F, Ind, Indem, Co., S.F. Hanna 4 Brophy, Oak. 000 REi Robert P. Cuthbertson Page 2, March 30, I960 Past Hlatory Habits (confd): No nycturia. Appetite fair, Dlgoation good. Bowels regular, Does not sleep well because of nervousness. Occupational History; Patient says he has worked with asbestos and insulating materials since 1947 Tor various con tractors, both Inaida and out. He has never worn a mask prior to November, 1958, when he was told he had asbestosia. Since that time he has worn a . mask. Patient is somewhat indefinite about his employment and the composition of the materials used. See "Discussion" for further information. Present Illness: Mr. Cuthbertson says that he has had seme chest pain chiefly on the left side, the exact nature of which he Is unable to recall, for several years. It may have begun in 1957 or even prior to that time, but it became severe enough in February, 1958 to cause him to consult his physician. The doctor ordered some x-rays and detected something abnormal in the films which he pointed out to the patient and for which he recommended a consultation . with Dr. Gerald Crenshaw of Oakland. Dr. Crenshaw did a thoracotomy on August 13, 1958 and removed a specimen of lung tissue and some of the pleura for examination. The patient believes that these * specimens showed the presence of asbestos bodies. Following operation, Cuthbertson had a normal convalescense but his pain was not relieved. It was substernal and spread into both sides of the chest. Rather than being made worse by deep breathing it was somewhat improved. He has had . . colds following operation and raises a small amount of sputum, but this has never been marked. At present he is working as before. .- Physical Examination: A well developed and nourished man appearing perfectly well. He looks somewhat younger than his stated age of 31 years. He is pleasant and cooperative, although he states he doesn't think much of doctors. Temperature 98.6. Pulse 74. Respirations 16. Weight 183 pounds. Height 69 inches. Eyes: - Pupils equal and regular, reacting normally to light and in accommodation. The extra ocular movements are normal. Ears - The canals are clean. Tympanic membranes are normal. Nose - No gross obstructions, HouSh - Teeth in fair condition. Tongue clean. Pharynx injected. Glandular System - Thyroid palpable but not enlarged. No adenopathy noted. See_Page 3. 0001^ <1 REj Robert P, Cuthbertoon ?age 3. March 30, i960 Vascular System - Radial pulses equal and synchronous, or fair volume but diminished tension. Voosel walls Heart not thickened. Blood pressure 105/65. - PMI not seen or Celt. No palpable thrill Xb* flflunrlB are of fair quality, ftxythm Tegular. A2 is equal to P2. There are no adventitious sounds hoard, Chest iicpanaion good throughout. There is a well healed thoracotomy scar over the lower right chest extending forward to the anterior axillary line; not tender. Right lung - note good. Breathing vocal resonance apparently normal. No rales. Abdomen Left lung - same as right. no masses. No tender areas made out. No palpable viscera. Genitalia Normal adult male. Extremities No clubbing. No cyanosis. No vericosltles. Reflexes Knee Jerks equal and active. No pathology made out. Vital Capacity 1 second, 2000 cc. Total, 4000 ce. Pluoroscopy Both leaves of the diaphra^n move well, although there is obliteration of the right costophrenic angle. The heart and great vessels are within nonnal limits. The root shadows are somewhat X-ray fllm3 accentuated. The parenchymal zones seem clear. IO/IO/53 - Heart and great vessels within normal limits. Root shadows normal. Costophrenic angles clear. Parenchymal zones are clear, 11/13/64 - No change. 3/17/60 No essential change. 9/10/59 - Taken by Dr. H. Corwin Hinshaw - now reveals linear densities in the right base with some intervening density characteristic of pleural reaction. 11/19/59 - Taken by Dr, Cabot Brown - essentially unchanged. 3/18/60 - Slight pleural thickening and linear iensicies in the right lower chest, chiefly anterior. comparable to those seen in films of 9/10/59 and 11/19/59. Laboratory, work - 3/18/60, Urinalysis - Clear, amber. Specific Gravity 1,026, Acid reaction. Albumin & sugar negative. Pew hyaline casts. Few squamous epi thelial cells. Pus cells, 0-2 per h.d.f. R.B. cells, None seen. 3/18/60, Complete Blood Count - Hemoglobin 88%, 14.8 n, Erythrocytes 5,010,000. Color index .88. Slight achromln. Leukocytes 9,800. Neutrophils 67#, of which 64% were mature; 3% stab cells. Lymphocytes 28, No monocytes. 3 Eosinophils; 2 basophils, ^y60,1 Koltn.er " Negative. 3/18/60, VURL - Negative. See Page 4. oooi rr> REt Robert P. Cuthbertoon Page 4 March 30, i960 Discussion: I have examined the voluminous file In this case. Including the report of the hearing before the Industrial Acoident Commission of 11/25/59; the report of the Referee, dated 8/13/59.* the hospital- iTfrtion record from the Richmond Hospital Association, Cuthbertoon #1053; the employment record from 1947 to 1958, showing employment by several concerns as listed; Dr. Hinshaw'3 reportaddressed to Hanna is Brophy, dated 9/22/59; Dr. Garland's report dated 10/12/59; Laboratory analysis of lung tissue dated 12/31/58, 3igned by W. C. Thlelen; the transcript of testimony before Mr, Ankele of 10/22/59; Dr. Brown's report of 11/19/59, addressed to Mr. Schwab; Mr, Ankele*s opinion filed 12/15/59; Joseph . Smith's Petition for Reconsideration dated 1/4/60; Hanna & Brophy's answer to the Petition, filed 1/11/60; John W. Moore's answer as well as the answer of Patrick R. Maloney; together with a large amount of miscellaneous correspondence and material. The results of my personal examination today reveal no evidence of abnormality excep a thoracotomy scar on the right side of the chest and the thickened pleura at the base of the right lung. My examination indicates that there is no disability at this time. What makes this case difficult is that Dr, Crenshaw obtained a specimen of lung and the specimen showed the presence of asbestos bodies. Does this mean that the patient has asbestosis? It certainly does not mean that he is sick or disabled and in a clinical sense it does not mean that the disease, asbestosis, exists. The diagnosis of the disease, asbestosis, depends upon: (1) A history of exposure to asbestos dust (2) The radiological appearance consistent with asbestosis and, usually, (3) A syEptcmology consistent with the diagnosis together with, (4) Evidence of Impaired pulmonary function In most cases The amount of exposure necessary to produce the disease is hard to determine and varies somewhat from person to person as we find in silicosis. Moreover, the size of the dangerous particles varies more th?r. in silicosis. In this case 2, 3, and 4 are not consistent with the diagnosis of any type of pneumokoniosis. Thus, essential criteria for making the diagnosis of the disease in this case are lacking, in spite of the finding of asbestos todies In the lung tissue which Dr. Crenshaw removed. In general, I agree with Dr. Hlnshaw's report and with the discussion of Dr. Brown dated November 19. Sincerely yours, SJS:ntn Ends, ec's (2) Ends, statements (3) 8/ Sidney J, Shipman, M.D. Sidney J. Shipman, M.D. OOOJT" Ul J.T!4 w.v \ .r . ?_ ., . INDUSTRIAL ACCIUKHT COMMISSION ------------------------------------------------------------- Date TO: MEDICAL BUREAU San Franolaco v' _ fE82SOT Case {lame: ROBERT P. Cir^mrnTSOy Cue Not OAKIO53 Applicant's complaints relate to the following parts of the body: __________________ tosoa*_________________________________ Vou are rcquea'ton to: '' Review the file"and give opinion without examination. Examine the applicant in the Medical Bureau. ' 75C Refer to X?IE specializing in IMS Pec will be paid by t s Additional X-rays, laboratory teats, and other supplemental procedures may be done if necessary. c J]__ Copies of report requested. ____ Defendants will pay transportation expense. ____ Defendants will pay living expense. )C ALL AVAILABLE X-rays are attached. ___ All X-rays believed necessary are attached. ____Hold_______ days for X-rays from A REPORT IS REQUESTED, GIVING OPINION UPON THE FOLLOtflNSt 1. XX Are the medical findings consistent with the original V incident or injury/ claimed by applicant? aSBESTOSIS \ 5. X If disability exists as result of the injury, is It: w a. Temporary total. b. Temporary partial (if so, state extent of ability to work). < N c. Permanent and stationary for rating purposes. N. 3. X If permanent and stationary and ready for rating, describe: a. Permanent disability factors resulting from the injury. <3 b. Factors to which you believo the injury was an aggravating or contributing cause, c. Controverslalfactors, if any, which you believe pre-existed and are unrelated to, and not aggravated by the injury. 4 L, If P.D. factor or factors are so related between injury and pre-existing condition they cannot be separately stated, please state in percentage what portion is chargeable to the injury. d 5. X Is any further treatment reasonably necessary to cure or rolieve the effects of the injury? If so, will you please give typo of further treatment needed. (NOTE: Please do not include under } or U# physical conditions in no way ralotod to or aggravated by tho injury and not in controversy.) 6. FURTHER QUESTION AND REMARXS: w.- Dumb*?* Referee TjmwijH'yyjW'Wi m. f. [nr~ veMUHUKTT UOOl"*4 isat. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION Data TOt MEDICAL BUREAU San Franciaeo TER fiT'Vn Case Name: ROBERT F. CUTKRERTSON Case Not OAK 1053 Applicant'* complaints relate to the following parts of the body: LUNOS Vou^a're requested to;' ' ~ r` ~ ~ ~Rovlew the f lTe~ and give opinion without examination* ___ Examino the applicant in the Medical Bureau. , XX Refer to IME specializing in ~tr IME Foe will be paid byCOMMISSION y Additional X-rays, laboratory testa, and other supplemental procedures may be done if necessary. . * 6 Copies of report requested* ___ Defondants will pay transportation expense. --_ Defendants will pay living expense* X ALL AVAILABLE X-rays are attached. ! __ All X-raya believed necessary are attached* Hold days for X-rays from * * ttCO A REPORT IS REQUESTED, GIVING OPINION UPON THE FOLLOWING: 1* XX Are the medical findings consistent with the original . incident or injury/ claimed by applicant? ' `' ASBESTOSIS ' 2. X If disability exists as result of the injury, is it: a. Temporary total. b. Temporary partialMif so, state extent of ability to vorlc)* c Permanent and stationary for rating purposes. 3. X If permanent and stationary and ready for rating, describe: a. Permanent disability factors resulting from the injury............ . . . b. Factors to which you believe the injury was an aggravating or contributing cause* c. Controversialfactors, if any, which you believe pre-existed and are unrelated to, and not aggravated by the Injury. It. If P.D. factor or factors are so related between injury and pre-existing condition they cannot be separately stated, please state in percentage what portion is chargeable to the injury. 5* X Is any further treatment reasonably necessary to cure or relieve the effects of the injury? If so, will you please give type of further treatment noeded. (NOTE: Please do not include under 3 or 4* physical conditions in no way related to or aggravated by the injury and not in controversy.) 6. FURTHER QUESTION AND REMARKS: . r,- v \ -T;--Dttnber Ni-LL *> i- - -i.S M. Jtefera^-,; ***;' 9 STATE Of CALIFORNIA 0 OHM 0JOUM*U**t. HfWMIMO !* O' Ufo* WAV OMfOtetVtai' antx. ar* BtViliM Of MiBUiflMk aCCIMffl oivikoh or kitoa ** DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS mnuuAiim< e jmsstok smtr. mu ruNtreco 3 March 8# I960 >DNti> imr to. iwouotaiAk aefiiMirrCOMHitld Dr. Sidney Shipman U.90 Post Street San Francisco, California RE: R.F. Cuthbortson 2h3S Garvin Avenue Richmond, California APPT: March 1$, I960 Friday- 2:45 p.a. Dear Doctor: Vou have been legally apnointed as an Independent Medical Examiner to examine the applicant (or records) named above, in accordance with the Referee's Mena of Instructions attached. If you have had professional contact with the case, do not make the examination. * Ihe examiner should not discuss the case with any one not a member of the Commission's staff. Please express as definite an ooim'on as possible. Such terns as -ossibly' or "may be" are of little" value in Com mission procedure. In cases requiring orthopedic measurements, the Commission* s approved method of measurement should be used. Please render both report and bill in triplicate and address to this office. Do not mail Commission folder as our messenger will call when you telephone us that it is ready."ZXbrook 2-8302 277). In examinations made outside San Francisco and-Los Angeles the folder should be returned by registered mail. Return the report iJOT UTS.i THnN OKS WLSK from date of exam ination as the settlement oi` the case will probably depend on your report. The Commission's approved fee for review of the medical file, examination and report is 35.00. A higher fee will usually be approved in the event of unusual work or difficulty CrtUTIOH. _ Do not hospitalize the patient or undertake extensive diagnostic procedures such as myelography or cystoscopy un less these have been authorized. If in doubt, call this office. Ordinary x-ray and laboratory examination is remissible. Trejtment yi11 never .c authorized. rad file films JIB:jet M3-17 amend. Very truly vours, A-'fWti&r . uj\ L. BAkRITT , r.cdi :al Director , orw^T ) State Compensation Insurance Fund 1*50 HeAllister Street San Francisco, California Attentions Hr. Cullen SUBJECT* Robert F Cuthbertson Gentle*u In compliance with your request, we wish to advise that Hr* Cuthbertson was eapicyed by us during the following periods* Fro* 1/ h/k9 5AA9 Hourly rate - 12.16 3/13/50 - 8/3/50 12.35 His work consisted of applying insulation to pipes, boilers, ete. If we can be of any further assistance to you, please do rot hesitate to call on us. Very truly yours, MEbTfcRN ASBESTOS CO. ttStsr H. E. Slaons R^clVSo $1959 SS2SS3 fcHPI-OYXENT HUrORH 1947 July through December Plant A.'ibestoa Co 19**8 January, riant Asbestos Co. 19*8 May through December, 1*48, .T t. Tnorpe 19*9, 1st of January, January 12, l$4y, J. T. Hiorpa 1949# January 14 throhgh May 4, 1549, Western Asbestos Co. 1949< Kay 11 through Aug. 1C, 1945, J. T. Thorpe 1949, Aug. 11 through Dec. 1945/ Plant Asbestos Co 1950, Jan, 1 tiirough Feb. 16, 1950, Plant Asbestos Co 1950, March 13 through Aug 3/ lr*50, Western Asbestos Co 195C, Aug. 2C to Sept.3# 1950, Plant Asbeston Co 1950, Sr;... 13 through December, 1950/ Armstrong Cork W5I. January through December, 19*1, Armstrong Cork l?5i, January through December, lr*52/ Armstrong Cork 1953/ January through December, Armstror.; Cork 1954, January through J .ly IV, 155c, Armstrong Cork 1954, J*ly 16 through December, 15*4, Plant Asbestos 1955/ January through December, Plant Asbestos 1956/ January though December, Plant Asbestos 1957/ January to May, plant Asbestos 1957, May through August. 1557/ leg injury 1957/ Se;t. through Oeuenuer, pl,i Auoestos 1950. Jan. Vo reb. ly, plant Asbestos _ 195b, Kr.*r. '' ihro-J; A . :i, p,ent Asbcnts.. hov. - through l-lt, r.ant A J .toe Re: Robert f. Cuthrertson vs. Plant Asbestos, et al. I.A.C. N< . OAK 1053 Of irr r -*a > '4MI to.^ laifit , ITAYI Of CAtnpOMrtA DCTAXTWIHT O? ajCUOTfAL UIATIONS VDU5T1UAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION' BJ'Tncrr c; iijvTnw. jfL-rw^a l iivriiiifl ir ('CJirju iscuoru ' rILED if. -iUL2 S i960 Oaklond^Offf-^ \ **** --wnteiw -....: Qts-'tad Gffles ' ROBERT COTKb'gRTSON - ^ \ <y CASS NO f <50 OAK^&IS ' .'; 2jl3&-gagy.lc--vie. *. tmxitri joioa ' i Richmond fiftH rnwp^ *l PLANT ASB2ST03 CO. \j- \\` \ XBMoenrity No.____ 1 . . : ~ |"`^(^Y' fVAar] fltro iwmirmnui \. ffmPTyv1 Ho ffaT4 fftnn< INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY _C0. - . .. ., . innri fiMUiaaiuct _flrand--Aita. \ iaUUM UHSTi ' Oakland,. California i. Robert P Cuthbertet KMMMMfU lays e_192ii3illv* thxx vhilt ocl. itim5m/s_w2vf3-------Sl . insulator ___ itmiiti at Hal i Oakland. an. fiwflM rua nm wifr iuihii , CiSfsr&ia, by Plant Asbestos Kill tflliuiu -1m ruicained injury truing oat of and la (1m count of (1m -uyiuyiuent. a foOovc. fell MV NUltf tU KURtt mailing i left ankle In.lury mte vt*r mvt m iiiihiiii ihhvch icmri 2. Industrial Indemnity Co. _vu (Kt employer'! ksmou earner ea date of injury. on imuin mhit , v iifuiu *u mi hmii. itm mini Hk/.iumi iiumui niaMMfi 4. fAmp^TLMllog YfeB m(m 1. Earning* at one of Injury f--Ka^ -, t. Vu medical treatment needed?. ilkrr Mil MJIIU (!* MMU ora un ` *---- innnii I- nitiuil - *iiwi*Mif Q------------- j_ _ Tlx bwii of pay -- . .. iHiMinu itniMmMM)uii.mniMiMcini< VKo (ursuKcd nnln> . _ i imm m < 7. Tbia application k filed to determioe liability fon ' ' : . a. Temporary J'mfaHiy b. Permanent di*abi!jty_X?_ e. Medical waonw(..jl_ d. Metfical carta. . Litigation expena*. mtt m m> hii ,;r?- ,OAkLJa&. omurr MtHHir innn imiutvai mil VHEKEFOKB, U U ftqueiteJ tint time **J (Use It filed /or Peering end lint n tvtti be made jrm/ijg neh relief m **j hr feofrr under the Woeimtn'i Comftnution L*wt of CtlifornU, >. ' . Dated at _ 7/26/60____________ California,-_____ Qakhlld Hearing (tquetud at- Oakland Number of viiataaeaEatimated tint of iwl ' ^ botir ty (2 ^ {/ Strrtd on: * ` . FOR. OFFICE USE ONLY EE' EEAa ER ^ ERA ;. ^ ,,> n...'lC4-K> (l Me <L^(LL~L MwfiH Smith, Payrlah, Paring fe. ClAm-y imxiiri invttc* 5fll.JlnanclaL.Cantar-ld^. imuin t*tRN m nimai umi EXHIBIT F-no 000^^e' 'O HTl nH>l *m b< W VT 9W (U4 dUW m.nM* IMIV ft*M** r% rmt mi m WM. Imu i 14 l*. i__ -- 4n i M JIMfU r* aM < ONtlflA. *t m1'* m nu *<n in*mmuMim t>ni*ifiTtiruUt0V.e1t*n1 ^#w<m i iMUUiu mm, r inmn mi mw, *t* * . ^ i'w; . .' ! I> -I'.' ' ' ... * \ * , .. ! . '' ; . - ". . BEFORE THE INDUSTRIE. ACCIDENT COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ROBERT F.' CUTHBERTSON, I'. ". Applicant w. * . iI* ' PLANT ASBESTOS COMPANY and .1 \ INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, 1 !* - Defendant* No. 60 OAK 3913 MINUTES OF HEARING C ORIGINAL ) PRE TRIAL STIPULATED DECISION | K?M8IT tf iKJIfifJUl fiUflCti , 6^tfKWMiaan FILED , SEP U1360 L MS Place and Time: Oakland September 23# 19<>0 10:30 a.in. Referee: ... ANiffiLE Reporter: ..... SMITH ' .. . - Appearance*: Applicant Present SMITH, PARRISH, PADUCK & CLANCY By JOSEPH E. SMITH, Esq. . ' . Defendants: PATRICK R. MALONEY, Esq. APPLICANT'S 1 Bill, Dr. Etsenberg, $4-0.00 and report, 9-7-60 DEPENDANTS' 1 Medical file . .i > . ' FIND ENOS OP PACT: ; _ . - 1. Robert P. Cuthbertson, born May 4, 1928, while employed as an Insulator on May 23# 1957# at Oakland# California, by Plant Asbestos Co., sustained an injury arising out of and occurring in the course of his employment, consisting of an Injury to his left ankle. ' 2. At said time said employer's compensation Insurance carrier was Industrial Indemnity Company.. 3. All medical treatment to date necessary! to cure and relieve the applicant from the effects of his injury has been furnished by defendant carrier. A. .At said time said employee's earnings were maximum. 5. Temporary disability indemnity haa been paid in the sum of $405,71 through August 4, 1957# constituting all temporary disability Indemnity due, 6. Said injury caused a permanent disability of 8. 7. Applicant incurred costa of the reasonable value 40.00 for the examination and report nC Harold J. Eisenberg,- M.D. 8. Applicant's attorney rendered services of the reasonable value of ilOQ.OO. -, . < m asca ra s \ fete 91 000003 CUTHBERTSON - 2 AWARD ' AWARD Is hereby made in favor of Robert F. Cuthbertson against Industrial Indemnity Company in the sum of $1120.00, payable forthwith, less an attorney fee of $100.00, payable to Smith, Parrish, Paduck & Clancy, together with interest on delayed payments a3 provided by law. . FURTHER AWARD is hereby made in favor of Robert P. Cuthbertson against Industrial Indemnity Company for litigation costs in the sum of $40.00, payable to Harold J. Eisenberg, H.D. oooom orHQ*c0ie ' Industflal-Accirfent Conmi:sion RECEIVED JOIICFH DC1CN, M. fl . SKP 1 2 I9fi0 jHAROLD J. CISCNaCRO, i 1ioii< C. ** rr| Oaik>Nt , Oturgnu __OM.Ianr1 Of/ice , Sept 7! I960 uI i <u 1 Joaeph E. Smith Attorney at Law 405 14th St Oakland, California off. 8-17-60 Exam and Report 40.00 on Robert F. Cuthbertaon oooor 'bs/nOAIDIOi , : ' JOSEPH OLSCN, M. 0. HAROLD J. StSCNBCftO, M. 0. oa t. i4tn mir QUWM 1| OUI'OINU Rlllt* 4*OOt i S September 7, I960 ........ v { : : . Joaeph E. Smith, Attorney at Law - 405 14th Street Oakland, 12, Califorxia !r , Re; Robert F. Cuthbertaon 8 Dear Sir: . 5 Oi On August 17, 1960, Robert Cuthbertaon waa examined in this office for injuries received on May 23, c 1957, while patient waa employed by Plant Asbestos Co. He stated that be waa working on a ladder about 10 feet from the ground when this ladder slipped out from under him and he fell from one roof to another, landing on his left foot and injuring his left lower extremity. He did not sustain a head injury of any kind and had no difficulty with his back. . He was seen at the office of Dr. Rudnick, where x-rays of the left ankle were made and it-was not felt that there was a fracture. Dr. Rudnick's findings were that of a questionable chip off the lateral cuboid area. A diagnosis of severe sprain of the left ankle ; . was made. . - . . .. The patient was transferred to the care of his family physician. Dr. A.R, Thompson of Berkeley and treatment consisted of elevation, rest and compresses. He was treated first with an elastic bandage and then later with a cast. He was also given physiotherapy at Herrick Hospital and also another place in Richmond, over & period of about two months. In August, because he was not doing well, he was sent to Dr. Melvin Hurley in Richmond, who is an Orthopedic Surgeon and he was examined by him. Dr, Hurley made a . diagnosis ofSudeck's atrophy of the left foot, secondary to his sprain injury. He was treated with priscoline, a vaso . ooooof; jjiumujuwfBP . > Joseph E, Smith Robert Cuthbertson September Y, I960 Page 2 dilator, local injection of hit ankle and the use of an arch support. He returned to work about three moothi from the time of his injury. He stated that he was able to do most of the duties of his usual work. He stated that he occasionally sees Dr. Hurley, but that ho active treatment had been given for sometime and he has continued to use the arch support. His complaints at the time of examination were those of continued pain in the ankle, particularly towards ** the latter part of the day's work when he had been on ladders or walking extensively. He also noted that there was . some stiffness in the morning when he would awaken and it took a little while for him to limber up his foot. If be was sitting for any period of time and then started to get up, he found that his ankle was stiff and took several steps' before it began to limber up. He no longer required analgetics. His past medical history was negative. His past surgical history included the resection of surgery to the right lung for asbestosis. He would still get some chest pain associated with this disease. He had never had any serious injuries and had never had any difficulty with Ms ankle before. Aside from Ms lobedomy, the only surgery he had had has bean a tonsillectomy. Physical examination revealed a husky wMte male who was not in distress. The pupils were round and equal. The nose was clear. The mouth and pharynx were not In jected. The heart rate and rhythm were within normal limits. The lungs were clear to auscultation and percussion. There was an old thorocotomy scar present. There was no tender ness in the abdomen and no evidence of masses or spasm in the abdomen. Examination of the lower extremities shoed nothing abnormal on visual inspection. Circumferential measurements were: Left calf 14-3/4 Right " 15-1/2 (measured 5-1/2" below the knee join?' The thighs measured 7-1/2" above the knee joints were equal, bilaterally. On palpation of the left ankle there was mild tenderness in the space between the 1st and 2nd -- ^ IWKI 0000 0*:* Hit-MiiiisiHfiiui.iaiiijHi.um--.ijnwiiJUmyi.M i *". "" >' Joseph E, Smith Robert Cuthberttou September 7, I960 Pig* 3 .Swaxusug* /_ , metatarsals at about the mid-shaft level and there was * ip similar mild tendemeSii all along the posterior tlblal / tendons from behind the medial malleolus upward for an interval of about 3 inches* ' Joint measurements were equal, bilaterally, as _ far as any measurable motion'was concerned. There was a very slight restriction of plantar flexion of the left ankle that wa* apparent visually, but could not be measured* *' There was on forced dorsi-flexion, complaint of pain of a mild degree extending up the tibialis posticus tendons from the tip of the medial malleolus. . .. The skin was of good color without evidence of any residual circulatory disturbance* There was slightly in creased pigmentation of the skin over the region behind the medial malleolus on the left as compared to the right. . ' - ` The patient stated that while he felt that he could carry out bis usual job,' be felt insecure when he was on scaffolds or high places, because he did not feel that he could quite trust his left ankle 100%. Also, If he had to work on ladders for several consecutive days, he had too much pain to continue, but he had been fortunate insofar as he woTka with his brother who will rotate some ofthis work with him in order to help him carry out Ms work. . COMMENT: This patient sustained a severe .. sprain type of injury In the accident described. Apparently there was a question also at the time of the accident as to * whether or not there may have been an emulsion from the cuboid bone. No further reference to such a fracture was made in the medical records which I have reviewed. At any rate, the patient had considerable post injury difficulty because of the onset of Sudex neurovascular distrophy in volving the injured foot and received satisfactory treatment for this condition. ` At the present time he has residual disability consisting of atrophy of the left lower extremity ('see ' circumferential measurements)'; Increased sensitivity of iip juji-- nwwi ooouos mu' nwuqww /ojeph v.Smita 'Rob+si Cuthbertjan \ Saptumb*.-, Page 4, 19*0 '! I the oot tissue in the *oot and ankle r*gfr"* whicu factorJ are sufficient to Justify his subjoctlvs complaints of in security on scaffold or high places; occasional, stillness ^ of the foot and ankle in the morning and pain toward the end of the days work, when fluch work involves extensive use of his foot and _nkle. These are the factors of his present dis ability for which he can now be rated. ' i Sinew/ely yours, A _' Rttp^1960 OaUa"i5fc^ ifwujMuuiiejvi TP l|su,m awn wumw ' J 000000 Industrial Accident CowTHWon received MELVIN T. HURLEY, M. D. IO IAQAOWAr RICHMOND t, C*ltFONtA : SEP- l 19SO OaklandOf[iceJ iCTKt /"/I / / September 16, I960 /^v Industrial Indemnity Company 268 Grand Avenue Oakland* California Gentlemen; . RE: Claim No. 57-51-2039 Robert Cuthbertson vs. Plant Asbestos Company Date of Loss: May 23, 1957 - Attention; Ssr.dd J. Maloney, ClaliVit Supcgvyimg Following your letter of authorization of August 19, I960, Mr, Cuthbertson reported to my office as directed on the 8th of September, 1960. At that time an interval history was obtained from the patient and a careful physical examination in relation to the complaints in reference to the left ankle was carried out. He was then referred to the X-ray Department of the Richmond Hospital where films of the left ankle were obtained. From the information obtained from these sources, my opinion herewith is offered. Mr. Cuthbertson states that he is still working for the Plant Asbestos Company as an insulator. He had been working out of the San Francisco Office on various plant installations in the Bay Area. Most recently, he has been in Antioch. He states that in reference to his left foot, "It's still there. It .. doesn't swell any more, but occasionally it pains over this area," and he indicates the medial malleolar region on the left. "It feels stiff all of the ** time." "Especially after working on a ladder." The patient states that a " great deal of his work is dene on a ladder and he feels that by the end of a normal work day his ankle is more stiff than usual. However, he states that it does not swell and it is only on a very rare occasion that he has any feelings of pain or discomfort in the ankle. The patient has not had intercurrent illnesses since my last report to you in May, 1959. The examination at this time reveals a well developed and nourished white American male who did not appear to be in any discomfort. The general physical examination is essentially negative except for the findings in relation to the thorax which has been covered In prior reports. The findings in relation to the lower extremities are as follows: Lj jl^l ooooi:? | Jj.SS U U 1UM U-I1J IJ ![,JLl-1 -M, II Industrial Indemnity Company -2- September 16, I960 RE: Claim No. 57-51-2039 Robert Cuthbertaon va. Plant A abeatoa Company Date of Loss: May 23, 1957 The patient is noted to walk without detectable limp or list and on inspection of the left ankle, no visible swelling or asymmetry is noted. ' The patient demonstrates ability to balance on the ball of each foot, to aquat to his heels and to arise without difficulty or without restricted motions in the left ankle. In the recumbent position the measurements of active motions /> -reveal that there la 5 degrees of dorsiflexion present bilaterally. There is 70 degrees bilaterally of plantar flexion, 45 degrees bilaterally of inversion and 20 degrees bilaterally of eversion* No local tenderness and no ,, restrictions of motion are found. The knees are symmetrical at 14 1/2 inches. The left calf reveals 1/4 inch discrepancy at 14 1/2 inches over 14 3/4 inches ///^ In circumference. The ankles are symmetrical at 8 1/2 inches. The mid-tar9al region is symmetrical at 9 1/2 Inches. The reflexes at the knee and ankle are brisk and active bilaterally. The dorsalis pedal and posterior tibial pulses are present and of good quality. There is no sensory deficit to pinprick examination. The skin of the foot is warm and dry. There are no abnormal weight-bearing marks on any of the digits or plantar aspect of the foot. The patient was referred to the X-ray Department of the Richmond Hospital for films of the left ankle. These have been reviewed by me and I am in agreement with Dr, G. R. Hencky, Radiologist, when he states; "Left Ankle: There are at least four small bone densities adjacent to the tip of the medial malleolus of the ankle and also adjacent to the medial aspect of the talus. The largest of these measures 5 mm. in diameter, and the smallest is punctate. These shadows are apprently more numerous and somewhat better defined than the small bony bodies present on a prior study of April 1959. I feel that they represent evidence of old chip injuries secondary to an avulsion fractures. There are certainly no major fractures apparent about the ankle. The mortise Is symmetrical and is not widened. There are no arthritic changes demonstrated," (Signed) G. R. Hencky, M.D. Discussion: It is apparent from the clinical examination that there is no restricted mttion, local tendernoss or mal function of the left ankle. However, tho patient has generalized subjective complaints in reference to the anklo after use. This Is understandable 1 think particularly whon one reviews the x-rays and notes that In tho past year thorn has been an increase In the calcific densities within the ligamentous structures of the medial malleolar region. As such, I feel thore is evidence of increased OOOOil USD Jl.kRLIIlli Industrial Indemnity Company ; -3- September 16, i960 ` RE: Claim No. 57-51-2039 . Robert Cuthbertson vs. ! Plant A ti sto# Company { Date of Lota May 25, 19S7 fibroaia in the medial malleolar region despite tho fact that I cannot, by palpation or clinical means identify such a condition. However, the x-rays have been reviewed by me and I am in agreement with Dr. Hencky that there is evidence of increased activity of calcific nature. Accordingly, one must consider the presence of excessive fibrosis in the ligamentous areas as being evidence o residual ligamentous damage. Certainly, the ankle is stable, but with use such as the patient states he does on a ladder it is conceivable that the ankle may ache by the end of a work shift. Accordingly, I would ^ - feel that the.patient does have minimal residual permanent disability. I would classify his subjective complaints as being minimal in that they constitute an annoyance but do not cause any particular handicap in the per- V/* formance of his work on a ladder. Objectively, there is 1/4 inch discrepancy in the circumference of the calf muscle which may be in keeping with the x-ray evidence of the lateral malleolar region. Aside from this, no other factors of ratable disability are found. 1 would not consider the patient to be in need of active medical treatment now or in the foreseeable future. His condition, I feel, is stationary and ratable and because of this person's particular personality I feel that rating this case on the basis of the factors discussed in the body of this report would be In order at this time and to the advantage of all parties concerned. Thank you for the privilege of seeing Mr. Cuthbertaon again in con sultation. Should you have questions regarding my findings or opinion, I would be happy to discuss them with you. Sincerely yours. MTHjACP Industrial Accident Co.iir!l RECEIVED StP^' I I960 Oakland Office 00001i.i impn a u iiwp i wjiji } V MELVIN T HURLEY, M, D. i o moowf HCMWONO , eAlirOAMlA (H0 # CJ# jun /. m Mv 30, 1959 Industrial Indemnity Company 268 Grand Avenue Oakland, California Attention: J. W, Wilson Gentlemen: RB Claim Ms, 57-51-2C3? Robert Cuthbertson On March 16, 1959, 1 received an authorization from you for re-examination and report on the above captioned patient, Mr. Cuth bertson came to my office on the 9th of April, 1959, and was examined and then pursued normal usage of the foot and returned for examination most recently on the 26th of May, 1959* . On the basis of the findings of these two examinations, the history obtained from the patient, and a review of x-rays of the left foot and ankle taken at my direction on the 9th of April, 1959, the following 0{xu.on is offered. Mr, Cuthbertson stated that be continued to work at the Plant ' Asbestos Company as an Insulator, This plant is located In Emeryville. Although the patient is employed by the company at that address, he states that he is frequently "on the road" working at various installations; and, as such, never is at one place more than a day or two. He states that he is obliged to do considerable climbing On a ladder, and as a result, "It still bothers me a hell of a lot," "Three-quarters of my work is on a ladder, and it bothers me in the morning when I get up -- it feels stiff," "It*s stiff here," and he Indi cates the medial malleolar region, "I can't walk without the arch support that you gave me." Since my reports to you, this patient has had rather extensive, drastic surgery and was off work, tor an additional three months. He stated RjyJl JJ1| 000013 *IUN 4 1959 Industrial Indemnity Company . . '-2- May 30, 1959 R2 Claim No. 57-51-2039 R obert Cuthbertson that he returned to work this time in November, 1958, and ha* been working steadily since that time. There are no other intercurrent illnesses or lories acknowledged by the jatient. The examination at this time reveals a well developed and nourished ' white Amedcan male, 31 years of age, who walks without detectable limp or ' - list. The general physical examination is entirely negative except for findings in relation to the left foot. On examination there is noted to be no alteration in the norm?.l heel to toe rhythm cf ambulation. There is no visible swelling. There is no alteration in the dorsal venous pattern. The range of motion found on the 9th of April revealed that the patient had dorsiflexion to a right angle. He plantar flexed to 160 degrees, giving an active range of -70 degrees of plantar flexion. Inversion was restricted 5 degrees on the left, at that time, being 30 over 35 degrees; but eversion was equal bilaterally at 20 over 20 degrees. Circumferential measurements at the knee level revealed that the left knee was 1/2 inch smaller beig 14 3/4 over 15 1/4 inches. In the calf'region, 1/4 inch atrophy was found being 14 3/4 over 15. At the ankle, there was no discrepancy, - circumferential measurements beig 8 1/2 inches bilaterally. In the roidtaraal region, no asymmetry was found, measurements being 9 1/2 inches. The reflexes at the knee and ankle were brisk and active, and the pulses at the dorsal level and the posterior tlbial level were brisk and active. At that time, the patient was advised to continue using the foot actively, since it was felt that with his prolonged hospitalization for his thoracic surgery and Just a few months of active usage it was expected that his foot would flare up somewhat. ' Accordingly, he returned after using the foot for a period of six . weeks and was re-examined by me on the 2Ath of May, 1959. At this time it Is found that there hat been considerable improvement in the function of his foot. However, the patient still has subjective symptoms and does not adroit ' to relief of his disability. On examination at this time the active range of motion in dorsiflexion was found to be improved so that now dorsiflexion is permitted bilaterally to 5 degrees beyond the right angle. Plantar flexion still is equal oooo:u Industrial Indemnity Company -3RE: May 30, 1959 Claim No. 57-51-2039 Robert Cuthbertsoa bilatorally at 70 degree# of active motion to 160 degree*. Inversion is improved to that it it now equal bilaterally at 45 degreet. Everaion ia equal bilaterally to 25 degreea. The knee# are aymmetrical at 14 1/2 inchea bilaterally, and the calvea reveal only 1/4 inch atrophy on the left at 14 3/4 over 15 inchea. The anklet remain equal at 8 1/2 inchea, and the mid-foot ia equal at 9 1/2 Inchea, Again there ia no alteration in the senaory distribution or the peripheral pulaea or motor strength of the foot. The x-raya taken on the 9tb of April reveal that there ia normal mineralization of the foot at this time. There are small separate bony fragment* seen at the tip and inner aspect of the medial malleolar region presumably from "old injury representing minor chip fractures whih hive not united. There is no deformity through the foot or ankle to indicate other bony injury. I see no arthritic change. The soft tissues are unremarkable. ' When these films were compared with the films made in Decem ber, 1957, it is noted that at this time the small bcny fragments seen at the ' tip of the medial malleolus are now quite visualized; whereas in December there was only some roughening noted at the inferior margin of the medial malleolus. There was no other evidence of abnormality found at that time. Discussion: It Is apparent at the present time that Mr. Cuihbertson has some residual inconvenience in his left ankle as a result of the injury sustained on the 23rd of May, 1957, However, it is felt that this discomfort is only "slight," from an objective standpoint, since his function is excellent and there 1s no - tenderness in the foot to palpation. The patient has subjective complaints, and although he states it bothers him while working on a ladder, it does not prevent him from doing this. Again, I feel that Mr. Guthbertson has im proved since he has been using bis foot during the period from April to May while tmderobservatioa and 1 would anticipate that farther strength and im provement In the foot would continue. It is quite possible that the 1/4 Inch atrophy which is now the only objective finding of disability may disappear with continued use in the next three months. I would anticipate, however, that subjective complaints would continue since this patient is quite concerned 000015 { .JUN ti 1959 Industrial Indemnity Company . -4REt May 30, 1959 Claim No. 57-51-2039 Robert Cuthbertaon and* unusually apprehensive over his physical well being. I trust this report will bring your records up to date. Mean while active use of the foot is indicated and I see no need for consideration of active medical treatment at this time. .1 would advise against a disability rating at this time for the reasons outlined in the body of this report. TMH:ACP ooocir. WWIIIWMU li^iriiiuwwip.I ;ij;iwi>.ws,aiFW!psyiii MELVIN T HURLEY. M O * ii<o>Dwr ttnOHo . ctureaNK !(< *'0 IK October 25, 1958 Industrial Indemnity Company 268 Grand Avenue Oakland, California Attention: K. Lucille Mackey Gentlemen: RE: Robert Cuthbertson Claim No. 57-51-02039 You will recall on the 12th of June, I forwarded a letter in which I stated that Mr. Cuthbertson had not been seen by me. Please be advised that Mr. Cuthbertson appeared at my office on the 16th of October, 1958, stating that be was still concerned over his foot. He stated that since last seen by me he had been having considerable difficulty with his lungs and had been confined to the'Richmond Hosptal where Or. G. Crenshaw had resected a lung, fie states that he had complications from working as an asbestos worker and had developed a lesion in his lung. He states that he has not returned to work as yet, but is still concerned with the stiffness in his foot. He states, "It feels like it gets overly tired." "I get plenty of . exercise because X walk a lot," . . The examinatxa at this time again reveals no objective evidence of residual difficulty in the foot. The patient may have some symptoms of a feeling of tightness, but the motions, certainly, by clinical examination are intact. Again, I feel that Mr. Cuthbertson is considerably concerned over his physical well-being and that any minor deviations from the normal are misinterpreted as major catastrophes. He has been relatively inactive, due to his recent thoracic surgery, and it is understandable that his foot may not be as strong as it was originally. He may feel that he has done con siderable activity in walking, but I am sure his activities would not approach that which are required in normal work, I feel that no active medical treat ment Is indicated for the subjective complaints of the right foot at this time. Sincerely yours. MTHPAC Melvin T. Hurley, M.D. ( 000017 6 MELVIN T. HURLEY. M D e Me<n<t ' ICHMONQ , CALirOMMU, < IK Industrial Indemnity Company 268 Grand Avenue Oakland, California June 12. 1958 My Dear Miss Mackey: Attention: K, Lucille Mackey Claims Adjuster RE: Robert F. Cutbbertsoa CUlm No. 57-51-02039 Thank you for your letter of May 26, 1958, In which you requested Information regarding Mr. Cuthbertson* Please be advised that Mr, Cuthbertson has not been examined by me since my Ust report on the 6th of February, 1958. Through the "professional grapevine, " so to speak, Mr. Cuthbertson was confined to the Richmond Hospital In February, 1958, actually February 24th at which time he . alleged pneumonU. Subseqently, on the 22nd of May, 1956, the patient had a rectal fissure and talked to me about It. At that time he was In quite an emotional turmoil and was "going to jump off the ' Bay Bridge" because of his discomfort. His symptoms were purely neurotic; there were no symptoms or suggestions made In reference to his foot and the patient was not encouraged to elaborate upon his foot. He Is, at the present time, under the care of Dr. L. E. Brown of Richmond for his rectal fissure. date I trust this will bring your records up to Sincerely yours, , ^ /7 MTHtACP Melvin T. Hurley, M.D, 000 m jiwpmiHia.il 111, inmiji 1 MELVIN T HURLEY, wt. O. I 4 O |*9AOWAr * lMONO , CAUfOANIA (< I'OHA tj Industrial Indemnity Company 268 Grand Avenue Oakland, California February 6, J95B Gentlemens BE: Claim No. 57-51-02039 Robert F. Cuthbertaon Mr. Cuihbertion wii In to see me. He has been considerably worried over the recent feeling of tightness In his ankle with the Inclement weather. Ke now Is afraid that the ankle will never be all right and that he will have difficulty In the future earning a living because of the disability In his ankle. I have again spent considerable time with the patient, reassuring him that there Is not that degree of permanent disability In his ankle that would re quire any consideration of loss of earning power or Inability to use the ankle In the future. I would expect symptoms of tightness at this time with the Inclement weather that we have had. As you know, this patient has had medication (Prlscollne) In the past and has had excellent results with It. This medication was stopped In November, and It Is possible that with the recent Inclement weather his symptoms have become Increased. Accordingly, this evening I have again given him a 10 day supply of Prlscollne and have asked him to try this for that period of time and see me. Again, we are not overlooking any serious disability In this foot. He has had symptom* of a reflex dystrophy and the most recent x-rays on the 14th of December show that there Is no fracture and the bone densities have again returned to normal;*whereas when seen In June there was considerable osteoporosis of disuse. I will keep you advised of Mr. Cuthbertaon's progress when seen In two weeks. Meanwhile, he Is physically able to continue with his usual occupation. Sincerely yours, MTH:ACP Melvin T. Hurley, M. D, 000 i rftfcvr INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY DOCTOR'S SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT Melvin T. Burley, M. D. " ' 160 Drondvey ' Deeenber 30/ 1957 Richmond 2, California .................. 1KDUSTWALIKDEMKITY CONQANY 266 OromS Avanva - ' Oolm Ns. 57-51-02039 Oofcland, California ' 1. Pw.pUy>Plant Aebeatoe Co.. 1100 &th 8t. Emeryville. California 2. Cuthbertaon. Robert_______________________________________ __________ _________ __________ _ 3. Nofvra of lnjury?_Lcft fOQt. '__________ ___ ________ 5/P7/S7 ___________________ 4. Pratant condition (eompora wiih lost Patient la ambulatory without evidence of swelling or reflex dystrophy. Ho wont dancing New Year'* Eve and complain* now of asms tand5rr.q tvr i'uq full. tnolaleraupii&langaal joint of the left foot, Alto, he itatet that the foot gate a little stiff on cold mornings. NB: Considerable reassurance Is needed for this patient, and he will beseen again in one month's time. Ho actWolrValmenttsTndlcaiea and no losVOftlntty Is anticipated, ___________ S. Traeimani: Tyfv?. none Further lngih? If phyticol tharopy it baing givan, indicote hype end limat par weak. Tima* par vmI. 6. If in hotptlol How much lonjar? ' 7. Ool# f loti arniniwation _ lM/SS Prrxole Room?. .Word?, . Prfrole Nvrta?, 8. Ourotion of further ditobiUiy___patUntdoes not have disability at the present time. 7. Dofa oW# IO return io /k has been at work_____________________________________________ iv. Data oetuolly relumed to work. 11. h full raeovary a.pactad?Jr X-rays taken on the I4th of December, 1957, reveal that the tarsal bones now are of normal density as compared with films of August, ftsTwhen 3e-oaaTfl^ro,r>fofrf^ Penonol Signolura of DoOf Addren. I&Q Broadway. Richmond. IntlrvcIioAtt ' (1) Submil watkly doting o<u># ioga of o lariout <oe; monihly iharaotlar. (2) Ccmplafa in iriplicole. California roan tsaa at oaa oooo;:o 1 11 MELVIN T. HUBLEY, M. D. ' i o ikoaowo * ICMMOMO t, eAbiroOMIA ICuM l-OJIi . <*' tlMJtl* ,,<*? . September 28, 1957 Industrial Indemnity Company 268 Grand Avenue Oakland. California Attention: ' Lucille Mackey My Dear Mist Mackey: RE: Claim No. 57-51-02039 Robert Cuthbertsoa Following my report of August 24, 1957, Mr. Cuthbertson has been by me on several occasions, most recently today. He has been started on Prltcollne for the circulatory problem In his foot and has been provided with a Trlmfoot arch support. With this, he has made very good progress, and at the present time states that his foot Is not nearly as troublesome as It was previously. In the next few weeks, we will gradually decrease his dosage of Prlscollne so that we can have him completely off the drug In two weeks. At the end of that time we will again evaluate his condition and will corres pond with you regarding his progress. .- occupation. Meanwhile, he remains physically able to pursue his usual Sincerely yours, MTHjACP Melvin T. Hurley, M/D. oooo:.:s I MeiVtN T. HULEY, M. O. o aoaowa* ICHHOHO . CAltronMIA Khh -o ll K August 24, 1957 Industrial Indemnity Company 2S grand Avenue Oakland, California Gentlemen: RE: Claim No. 57-51-02039 . Robert Cutbbertson ATTENTION: LUCILLE MACKEY, Claims Adjuster On the 19th of August, 1957, Mr. Cutbbertson was seen and examined by me at your request. From the patient's history, my findings on physical examination, and a review of x-rays taken at my direction at the Richmond . Hospital plus a review of the medical file famished by your office, the following opinion Is offered. Mr. Cuthbertson states that he Is employed as an Insulator by the Plant Asbestos Company of Emeryville, California. On the 23rd of May, 1957, the patient states, he fell a distance of some 10 feet when a ladder gave way, causing him to land on his left ankle In an oblique manner. As a result, he severely twisted the left foot. It became markedly swollen and painful and the patient was unable to bear weight on It. He was seen by Dr. Rudnlck of San Leandro and a diagnosis of a severe sprain of the left ankle was made. Subsequent thereto. Dr. A. R. Thompson of Berkeley saw - ' the patient and has prescribed treatment. The patient states that although he ' has had excellent treatment to date, he It still having pain In the left ankle. He Is quite concerned over the persistence of his pain and states that he feels that "there must be a fracture In the foot." X-rays In the past have been reportedly negative for fracture. - v' ' At the time of my examination, the patient stated tha* -.e foot hurts, and he Indicates the lateral aspect of the tarsal region and Inferior to the lateral malleolar region. Examination: The patient is a well developed and nourished white American male, standing b'l" tall and \ ' mm Industrial Indemnity Company -Z August 24, 195? REt Claim No. 57-51-02039 . Robert Cuthbertaon h i .'u w ' i u UwiIa,!*^ jmu uiiiwii.auun jey iFsw*. ^ ^ *^ weighing 180 pound*. He la In aome dlatreaa and la noted to walk with a alight left foot Itmp. The examination of the left foot reveala the foot to be lomewhit blanched when compared with the right and In feeling the foot there la noted to be conalderable coolneaa when compared with the right foot. The akin of the left foot la molat, but not exceaalvely ao. The poaterlor tlblat pulae la leaa atrong on the left than on the right, a a la the doraalla pedal pulae. There la 1 Inch atrophy of the left calf, meaaurementa being 15 over 14; and there la 1/2 Inch atrophy of the left ankle, being 10 1/4 over 9 3/4 Inchea. There la absorbing ecchymoal* over the entire lateral and doraal aapecta of the left foot. There la reetrlctloa of 10 degree* of plantar flexion and 5 degree* of doralflexlon, but Inversion and everalon are unreatrlcted on the left. I have had x-ray* of both feet taken, and It la noted that there la a dlffuae de-oalftcatlon of all of the bonea of the left foot.' The joint apace between the third cuneiform and the third metataraal bone on the teft 1* par ticularly Ill-defined. There la no localized area of bony deatructlon noted, but there are theae change* noted above; particularly de-oaaIfIcatlon. Dlacuaalon: I feel that at the preaent time Mr, Cuthbertaon la exhibiting algna of an early reflex dyatrophy or Sudeck'a atrophy of the left foot. The clinical finding* and x-ray appearance are typically thoae of an early Sudeck'a or reflex dyatrophy. When aeen on the 19th of Auguat, I atarted the patient on Prlacollne for peripheral vaaodllltatlon of the vaacular supply. He haa been aeen by me on two occaalona, the 20th and - the 24th. The foot la Improving In color and warmth; and, alnce the patient ., haa been provided with a light Trim-foot arch aupport to minimize the excursion of bonea on weight-bearing, he state* he la much Improved. I will continue Mr. Cuthbertaon on Prtscollne for an additional two to four weeks, and then will re-x-ray the foot. Meanwhile, he remains physically able to puraue hla usual occupation, and I feel that even though the diagnosis of an early Sudeck's atrophy la apparent permanent disability will not be realized. Continued symptomatic treatment for an additional month la Indicated, however. _, Thank you for the privilege of teeing Mr. Cuthbertaon In consultation and for treatment. Sincerely your* MTHsACP Q2 Melvin T. Hurley, M. 0000 > ' ") ' A. ft. THOMPSON, M. O. It VHf AU*MO* Hay 51, 1987 Industrial Indemnity Ins. Co. 268 Grand At Oakland 10,'Calif. Attention Ur. tfiaeoorver Ret Plant Aebevtos Co. ' Robt. Cuthhertson Injured 5-23-57 Ur. Cuthbertson was seen et this office again this morning. He la still oomplaining of severe pain in the left ankle end lower leg. He tends to keep the knee sharply flexed end the foot extended and internally rotated. Yellowish discoloration extends nearly to his knee and to the base of his toes. The area about his left external malleolus la markedly blank and blue. The ankle isstill too swollen and sore to perult any weight bearing, or to bind ,ith adhesive tope. The xreys were reviewed, and I agree that no fracture or dislocations are risible. In order to faoilitate the reduction of swelling and soreness, end hasten aotive motion, daily physical therapy at Herriok Ueaorlal Hospital n ordered! hhirl- pcol bath and light aaesege. Progress will be reoheoked after a few daya. * The present condition of his anklewould lndioate at least two more weeks of disability. /I A.k.Thoaps on,U.D. 0000:1:1 t -- WUAS n 1 rOH COMPANY UfE Ma. C3* . _ _' DOCTORS? FIKST REPORT OP WOR^NJURY INDU ^UAL INDEMNITY C jMPANY , . m'dRAbo avotui OAKLAND 19 . Tapl*fe t-SI 7 . (Sfaulr faMr M MHiimlM Ml * **** *** I* &* ' omsioa or uso* statistics ama ssssajck. . o. sox m*. sax txaacsco i. r*il*i* U *1* >**Ml Mlk iW* Dlrfafa* fa mU4*>m*m. IUMI C*4*. Ih4m *4*14411.) Aw II l f******* hMf ran company use SubraaaHan M*<H<tl T.l.l . i. MH.OYER...i;p.iAJii..Aabe..toa..T;np*.n)......................... . 2. Address ...lasu.latlon.................................... ' Rahart...?.y .thfc jr S * an........................................................................... ............... 5. Address ..... .?.f5.fl..Sp.r..TAn...ATfl>j..S.4.chflnd;>x'............ ...............Phone NoflA-.lr.6J.4.7... 6. Occupol!on...J&ftU.l.a.ti.an..7fflnkflr.............................. >^T...................Age..IS.rTT....... Sex....U.......... 7. Dole Injured .ftr.flfl.T.6.7...........................Hour.8.s.lfljl..M Dale last worked.6r.Z.3.r.5.7........................ 8. Injured al *e'..Ba)rf Air Shopping...C.an.tor..`........................County...AlAT.ada....................... 9. Dale of your first examination, fl.".2.3.r.QTouril i5.0At Who engaged your eervleest.laj^............. 10. Name other doctors who treated employee lor Ihis Inlury .Ifton..H^..&udajeck..ll.D>..Jfl.921..J5 14tA it. U& 11. ACCIDENT OR DIPOSUREi Did employee notify employer of this lnIurv?...X3.B..Xmo!ovW . of cause of Injury or Illness: lippd * he ** oooiag 4<nm off step roof* allowing hla to fall about 10 feet onto the second roof* twisting his left ankle aa he struok 2 i 12 timber* 12. NATURE AND EXTENT OF INJURY OR DISEASE (Tnch*4 oil obfocti** ft*du>*i, fMbfoctlvo dfcagftOMi. U oeev^ouoool dutew not* Poto *J iH Pccapo<lonol hlittry. OAd crpoeurw* I Tender discolored awelling a bout the left external malleolus end over the side of the foot* Minor abrasion of the skin* Peering an elastio bandage and on ourtehes* 13. X-rays; By whom taken?.- iamM**wi...-..^..&faAl.dn.4.9.ki)(.t.t...A.?l....*... Findings: Sfcportedly negatiT*. i~.Q.4k.... 4- Treatment Elevation* r**t and Compresses* 3. Kind of case If .*O.ffi.OA............. U hospitalized, date............. . Estimated stay..............----..I Name and oddress of hoepltal............................................................................................................................... 6. Further treatment I^r^^r.TT!!..2...we.ekAr...5..tlraj}.S....................... ........................................ .. ................ 7. Esilmated period ol dleablllly for: Reaular work..fl...'KankjS................Modified work........ ............. .................... 8. Desalbe any permanent disability or dlelfcyurement expected (*.** ____ _ 9. It death onsuod, give date 0. REMARKS (H*t* Mr f*M**lla* l*|u>M* * ........... **4 far ****tal |IIW *r )Oj*--< fa*u. nw faflUMI M*n*aeo*4 Given s "shot" of Tetanus at Dr* Pednecks1 Office* Si Eap* Cod #3* $ 36 Slgi prn pain* sme..AARtTho?>D.fJ......................... Dearwe..U..U..}} *, **!** } _______ ____ - ate of report....fir.?.J.r.5.7.....Addros .9.1.7...The.. AlA/rto.da*...B.rkfll{0:..Z..-.......Phono No,Xa.r.dxXa51. Uh rrverre lii/e {/ more ipoce required ' oooors 1 for COMPANY 018 n^. DOCTOBiS FIRST REPORT OF WO'VJ%INJURY INDL i fklAL INpEMNITY its(AsHyauhnwstAosNmsCc-ttSesoCorOtuzr . C^ApaNY , , t.% ren#r*tnnoHeeourmlmupmo>i wmMrortctl#<Wsjr>Uibukk f. o<.UsMes m. tu*nuurMo7e4c4o1IlJ roa coo'wrr vss --la mm ,&-- ^.aoiQvzsL.................._______________________________ .. ............................ .................... .......: .2- Address .......................... .............................................................................. ...... ............... -- 4. EMPLOYE r.'i"J?^...Rober.t.P.1.Cuthbe^t.$on........................ ,,,, L Address 24J8 Garvin Avenue, Richmond, Calii. sk,,,,. n BE.4-5847 6. Occupation........... AP.S.Y.U.t.Qj:...... ............................. -............................Age -.2S............Sex-M 7. Date Injured..........5/33/5.7.__ _Jiour8.;X5...8..,M Date last worked.............................................. 8. Injured at taw..............W0Xlc._....~.._..-- ___ --....... -................... County-Alameda------...___ 9. Date of your first examlnation.5/23/.$JIouj$a.4 5 ?..M VVho engaged your eervtaes?....t.?J?.7T.. 11. AC-CIDE*?? OS EXPOSURE: Did sssplayw nsC.*y employ* U fhis jnjury?....ASsmployeei< statement of cause of injury ar Illness: While working on a ladder about ten feet off of the ground, the ladder slipped out from under him and he fel 1 from one roof onto another roof landing on his left foot on a board. Deft ankle is swollen and painful. He was not 12. NATURE AND EXTENT OF INJURY OB DISEASE rvwWd. .a auburn. iwfW<A a* .mn m oocv^oo^s &>-u w 4 < .-->! hnw>T. wj x anina t ion of the left ankle shows moderate swelling over the lateral malleolus and extend ing onto the foot. Severe tenderness is present to pressure. Skin has a slight ax abrasion over the dorsal portion of the foot just below the ankle. . . Impression: Severe eprain of the left ankle. .. 11 X-rovs: 8v whom takan? Leon R. Rudnick.M. D. "" ' * *' ` ` Finding#: Three views of the left ankle; no fracture seen, two views i the left foot. There is a questionable chip on the lateral view off the cuboid or possibly tenciform bone. 11 Ttwiment Acc bandage, crutches to the patient. 1 j ) IS* Kind of cos# ...9.f.f.A.?.?......--...--If hcapitaUwd, data....................... Eallmatad stay........... . ..... Name and address of hospital...................... .... ............................................................................................................................ 16. Further treatment .............................................................. ........................................................................ 17. Estimated period of disability toe Regular work_.2...WCK5..............Modified work.............................................. 18. Desarlbe any permanent disability or disfigurement expected --, -Unnf ....................... ...... ...... | 19. If death onsuod. give dale 10. REMARKS (H.w mr pr^iUun^ wm r enwii, *m4 fc <r<M 4bsIiIm )at*xatorr *., yrtiOWU Tills patient lives in Richmond and states he is unable to return to our office. He is to seek medical care in Richmond for the rest of his treatment. \ . . , \(iaAi tn.g we....Le.Qn.it,..Rxuinick.,._Mfc..D*Degree..,......... 1 tfJXXtxSZa, ''>'-*'-1 IuikimI EL.1-6S17 of report...6/l/^7......... Addreee ?%,? Li92J.,..l.i1 tli.S t..Silll.LjCflJ(dCQ....__ .`..Phone N<x.--...y............ l-'*e rntri* W<le 1/ wort ^e<-e re<jHi>if 0 0(M * > issues not row known to be proper tod accessary develop later, reserve the right to raise such additional jaroes in accordance with the provitioru of law and the rule* of the Csramision. ; . %- `Vv. . . t. Employment ' .. .j ' `fa: ''A . Earning* at the rime of injury . Vr* Nature end meat of disability V: VtV Liability for medical treatment Injury ariaing out of and occurring in the course of employment . Statute of limitation* |."v .xrQ Occupation of claimant - . . ,` v Q Insurance coverage (Employer baa been notified to appear and defend) . 444-1-- . - . .. .. * >ry, . 'tV: Medical reporta bare been served a* iittedia coveritt,5 letter, ; \ t V 1 ; -> Hi1.. ;4.;: "* Disability indemnity ha* been paid a* follow** >l-! ' ' * TTemmivpioMrarrTy*! *` < ' Beginnings ' 1 and iaeluding 8A/57 Permanent: Beginnings S_sU and ftgiWmf . Total j fa0571 * - . <g |_JK)Q0_ , week . Total T*". @ f ~~~ * week We believe that the presentation of our evidence will require a minimnm *4--&18 hour Estimated mimher nf whwim, if avaiUhl* .! _ _ _ A,.' , . . " *. .i 1 - . . .. '/ .'O; ' ? V * t% r V;: * .. i 1 * zbqjsshl. immnnT cemzrr. . . : - "t : '. . " fW PMKICIC R. awmp(HWa4a / -^50 aucog smm. sajt mscisco.i CAUniMi '' A....."rr**-*,-r ^-ur. s : . Komi A COPY of tUi Annr shall be atmd on tU advww paflisa, or dr attWMf*, cod a aotsdoia ef nh rviet d (h* fwtfaa Mfrsd out be mad* bcnoo> . : - - /i ' .. ;-:-.;rr ."4 * .. *; . . Putkl servedi * , ,* . r. , ** vV ^ ` * V` . Saith, Parrish, Paduck 4 CLaney {;. ; : 501 Financial Centar Building .l'' > :{ . . Oakland, California ` i'.\V j; - . ' - . ' v.-.,. ' ' , . . . ..vL'-t ' )c ,Vt 1 ' ........................ ** )| \*T. !* ;V V.. ;;T ;Mfi ' mw'; -V.n.v '..-.1*:;. l)\x r-v.u:-. :U`:'v.v*Vvt *5' AMENDED COPT Vv ;. . ruuu.AJowiuj w^fu-Afn..ana i; INDUSTRIAL INDOINITT C'CftPANT'.":^ -vv- ....*- -, -J'w.V . v. v v; tv-' *% ':,_____ _____________________________________________-J iv:-:** -- ' * . f ;y-:. \ .- p:-' -- -/* -.v.'- .'- ' You tr# tertbf notified ebat la application for csmpe&eatiofe (a eopp'cf -which u attached hereto) hae beta filed with ' , tba Indiuerto Accident Commiaeiba of ch* Seat* cl CnUfonuaT.Yon art farther notified (bat tad applieataao hae beta act for hearing at . t *'.''..' \\ " ;'? .. ; y ' . . 1 - .-A^?000 STATE Bi'JILDING ^"'.X jackso^'street ,:-y" v-:;. y \ ' September 2Jrd'r* i960 ^`"OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA v.lOOO. A.Xy ` V ` V* $ 'y-PRE-imL.COItfERENCS * ''* i' - tad dut U, ttid ooe aad pbe ti* Iaduttrul Aeeideat Cotxtoutaca of.tb* Scat* of Cabfonta iQ pnoaed co bear cad ' ' dupoaa 0/ th* uid ippL'eatioo to tb maantr pretcribod Utr. v - . ' . - Norai Tt* finla / epactad ( aabsic all imw la eaacnwrr W rfaddaa tU l^a; tMxi, >8 M * tailiol npafa, ptfnih, ui alto waadil praaT teaaa W taafliMa iM laadr ht aaboiaiaa at da ktaria* - -r '**. A.-.. '' 'I'v/vijr 0' "< H. " INDUYT1UAL ACCZDEKT COUbGSSlON , v'.ti'. . -`vf . .. . ' '"v1-:i':.' ! :?......,M .1 ; . .v; >. -? y "v^ ' -Oi. , . - V< *" ' ^: a_ > Of- .`Vs ?} /. "-;--^ ? ' . . . 1. ' < .' Yba uodAijhed ecrtlfiea c&at ai an eopToyee of ib< tadartrul Acridest ComauuioQ *1 atrted tba forc^ocaf nxka or .- " , (be partie* titrtinafter mention<d, at (be tirsa act oppoasce tbeir raaptetire cornea, bp depoacinj a copp of aaid ooeva irtacbol .. to 1 copy ofohe >ppVatiotp tberela ovotlocrd, in a aealrd cnrtlepe in (be United Sutet mail oa aid dap, a* OaiKad, - ; California, dltb tbe poitagt (bertM full7 prtpaid, and. adlreued nr tba raid partial it tbair Ian koovm placet 0i . \ f1; or ctddenca^n follova,Wit: . ` y ., , \ .* j , ' , . * . .: : x -. . / * i >"!*--* , ' .. r/. ^ " X,' HAMEJ OP fAITtti jnyro rvv -'v: .'^.OATIOf JttTKX . > ' iobertJfa.'Cutjibdrtaort,''243S Canrla Avenue .'.'Richmond- California-' -' V* .. smith,Parrish,Paduck &. Clancr,501 Financial- Center Sid;;. .Oakland.California - Plant Aebcstofl Company, 1351 Ocean Avenue,Emeryville, California ;-.:w ' r :: *:v, . -k-A.- ! 'V; _>om *a^m,jfr>.vt 1 / yk' ;'' t Ojoor^ ** '1**M ` n: y< INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY Oakland Offietf 968 Guxs Avxxtnt, Oakland 10, CujraSrtA TVyiww TSmfUkmr J.JIOJ " .' September 20, i960 tmluttrijl Accidtnt Coffimtsslon RECEIVED SEP2 I I960 '' * OakfancJ Office Industrial Accident Ccmisslon 1111 Jackson Street Oakland,'California . .V SUBJECT: . * ` v'' Robert CUtbbertson rs plant Asbestos Cccpany Our Pile Ro. 57-51-02039 I.A.C. Ho. 60 OAK 3913 ""' '' Gentlemen: Enclosed for filing as Defendant's Exhibit next in order, please find report of Dr. Melvin T. Hurley, dated Septaaber 16, i960. Copy of this report is being senred on Applicants Attorney this date. Sincerely, e Enel. cc: Saith, Parrish, P&duck & Clancy, Attorneys at lav 405 - 14th Street, Oakland 12, California I iI *---- o# fim* - nwi a. cuitY, a mk . icwtt t msl nave* mmi.tn #11w*1i1n* U( . *1T CAW OFFICES OF . SMITH, PARRISH, PADUCK 8c CLANCY Financial c*ntb builoin* aob.iat* Oakland i*. California September 8,1960. Industrial Accident Commission flegUMjbcmxtxxpo: llll Jackson Oakland, California Re: Robert Cuthbertson vs. Plant Asbestos Co. & Ind.- Indea. case # OAK 3913 Gentlemen: of Dr. Sisenberg Enclosed herewith find Medioal Report/whieh ve request be introduced as applicant's exhibit next in order. . . Also enolosed ia bill vhloh ve request be allowed as litigation expenses. Very truly yours, act Industrial Indemnity Co.' 268 Grand Are.,Oakland SMITH, PARRISH, PADUCK & CLANCY I f pO*w'~ I 'N k. ^ INDUSTRIAL indemnity company Snn Fmtteiteo Division: 350 SaXiomk Stiejct, San Fjmnciico 4, Cautouu ' Tttrpk--* YVtr*I 8-3000 August 19, i960 \P' AUG22M i-r*..-trial Acctceni wmmisstoa industrial Accident Camisaloa 1111 Jackson Street . . Oakland, California Re: Robert ?. Cutbbertson vs* Plant Asbestos Company Claim Ho. 57-51-02039 I.A.C. Ho. 60 OUC 3913 Gentlemen: : ; * - ' * Enclosed please find Ansver In the above entitled matter together vith our complete medical file as follovs: Leon R. Rudnick, K.D. A.R. Ihoopson, M.D. Melvin T. Hurley, M.D. 6^/57. 5/23/57, 5/31/57. . e/24/57,9/20/57,1V30/57, 2/6/56, 6/12/56, 10/25/56, 5/30/59. . Copies of the Ansver and our caaplete medical file have been forwarded to the applicant's attorney. Very truly Patrick R. Maloney Claims Attorney FRM:mae Enel* ce: Smith, Parrish, Paduck & Clancy 501 Financial Center Building Oakland, California , . 'tfKffrrh l I n;. jimHi 1^11.J|m,'-iU|i..m.l!'.MJ.JL1J Ul1 hi pyyi.nf '' yp'i-iw '' :..'v-."m^f ,***' ' i T-? v .' 0 1 BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION OF THE STATE OP CALIFORNIA 2 CASE NO. 59 OAK 1053 3 ROBERT F. CUTHBERTSON ) 4 Applicant ) 5 va ) DECISION 6 PLANT ASBESTOS COMPANY, J, T, AFTER RECONSIDERATION) THORPE, WESTERN ASBESTOS COMPANY, ARMSTRONG CORK, TRAVELERS INSURANCE ") COMPANY, INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY 3 COMPANY, PACIPIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY, STANDARD ) 9 ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, and ) STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND 10 Defendants 11 __________________ ) 12 Reconsideration having teen granted herein and the matter having been carefully considered, including the report of 14 examination by the Independent Medical Examiner, aa well as the 15 record aa a whole, this Commission now concludes that further 18 proceedings are not essential for the disposition of the claim, 17 and makes its Decision After Reconsideration, as follows: 18 OOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFOR, 19 IT IS ORDERED that the Findings and Order, filed herein 20 December 15, 1959 be, and the same hereby is, affirmed and adopted 21 as the Decision After Reconsideration. 22 23 . INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 24 (3 25 28 27 29 Commissioners 29 30 J ij, . . '".'wti cock::;-; / "r' FT '.'. '` * <+~- -y ROBERT P. CUTK3ERTS0H ' iV* vs. PLANT ASBESTOS COMPANY, et al December 29* I960 CASE NO. 59 D*X 1053 REPORT OP PANEL ONE Baaed upon the report dated March 30* i960 by Dr. Shipman, Independent Medical Examiner, It ia the conclusion of the Panel that applicant did not sustain injury arising out of hla employments from July 1947 through December `1958. The Panel further concludes that the disability complained of by applicant vas not caused by any injury arising out of and occurring In the course of hla employments. Decision After Reconsideration should accordingly issue. 1 V* INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION 1A OP THE STATE OP CALIFORNIA dT. Comalssioners COO' iW wp1 j1 yp'* -y w- .* . ' ' .V ":' *.'. . .-ROBERT P. CUTHEERTSON vb, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, 6t al. Claud M, Dunn, Referee' : ` ' . .December 13, I960 ~ -.' claim No. OAK 1053 . ` ' REPORT OF REFEREE ON DECISION AFTER RECOtrsIPERATTON ' Referee Anlcele, who heard practically this entire matter, issued a' denial award, the claim being one of asbestoais. The matter was exhaustively handled medically. Subsequent to the submission cT the STimo/t'rve parties agreeing upon an independent medical examiner, H. Corwin Hinohaw, M.D,, served in this oapacity. The Panel, wishing furthor exploration of the problem, itself authorized an examination by Sidney Shipman, M.D.' It was for the cross-exarination of this doctor that the matter was assigned to this Referee. The three doctors, Kinshaw, Shipman and Brown, are in unanimity in their pinion that ths applicant does have asbestos particles in his lungs, but they are non-disabling, do not require treatment, and that the degree of bserv&tion required as a result thereof is not any core TT ' .* ** . r v.* ,, . j *. 4 M i j*. * ^..-';Vi. '*.:> .t ' * '*, . ' s\v-. ,' - ' -,^V;' 'Yc. f1--.. `A"*,: '.- : ' ' V': :.`Y:V;f;- N;V ; " * '/'. -. . *. *'. '' - "''/ ' ' j'- - -* ...' : *" ' ............ ' '.'' ' :* * ;:'.{' CWHBERTSON--59 0AK,,1053 v*':>'.UV '* ? ^Injury;'- . AsbeatosU , CLAUD' M.' dwin*; Referee ' . San-Francisco,` 7-6-60' ` . \ ' *' .-O "" -j. ' -;V . . . , ; .V* " ?' !*'l '.vi- * '' V ,; *:'' i` \'-i '* . u/ . . REPORT OF.REF2R2S' 1 .> * , ON HEARXNO AFTER RE-HBARIH0` GRANTED* ' ', SIDNEY SHIPMAN, M.D., qualifications stipulated, testified , that pursuant to the appointment by the Panel, he had seen the . 'applicant and that there had' been nade. available to hin the - ' ' ' pathological report,', laboratory analysis *of lung tissue and . ' the.reports of Drs. ^Watson., and Hin3haw* ' . . . ' ' ' -'Testified that there'wa3 no demonstrable evidence of a3besto- ' si's,/ .There was no disability at-that*tine, but the man bid ' , have" asbestos particles in-the lungs, as well as a fibrosis. ' As the years go' by the.man'may develop synptonq but he does not , have them now. He does have..an. occupational foundation there- fdr.` ; ; ;/ 'r Complaints of chest'pain',' Vague in location, were compatible . * u, ...with asbe3tosis, and periodic x-rays, due to the presence in , ':the lungs of the asbestos bodies, were indicated the bane as' ' 1` -'for everyone' else working1 in a-'similar-line of wage earning . V . capacity, as the applicant but no greater,- Testified that it ' ' was his opinion that as yet the man did not have any lung di.3- case," He probably would not have. There was, however, tcfl- ' nite evidence'of the-existence in the nan's lungs' of asbestos bodies adequate in size to produce the disease. Testified that'* ' he nade this statement'even though the synptons were not en- ' ^.-.tihely consistent with the diagnosis <of asbestosio; He differ-,^. / entiated between silico3i's*and asbestosio in that silicosis set'.' . C - upa.fibrotio reaction which asbestoses did not. ` ; . J-'Testified that the' Applicant ought to' have x-rays' every six- months.for several years and .then the bane every ycar'the came- ' , .-'as every other employee similarly employed.- Teatified.lt was , v tnje/that there were ;bodies present in the lungs and there was ' . : 36me'tt.53ue reaction l)ut that these conditions were insufficient " ? to cause, disability*' 4. -.* - ; V;. ; * ' ' >*; v, . *'( ' * ' '-V ` ,'* .Testified after' croas-examination of all 'the various counsel present that he wa^.btill. of --the 'same opinion as set forth in `.his report* ' ` .DISPOSITIONS^-.. 4 .V .. T ' (See .Miautea;of-Heading,).. ' . . ' V^ `:v - ':V'- ' % *; ` . t\ . ' :/'V ,, ;"U; `/v ' --' . ' Vf ,fc . *: ' > ;> . ;*' -. 0. .* ' - * ; UNN,- Refereeii'i '* ` ; - --fr* .--.77- MTiiiinrteWliftk' BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ROBERT F, CUTHBERTSON, Applicant vu PLANT ASBESTOS COMPANY, J. T. THORPE, WESTERN ASBESTOS COMPANY, ARMSTRONG CORK, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY, STANDARD ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendants No. 59 OAK IO53 MINUTES OF HEARING (reconsideration ivr,,sfJ!u 2* .'lU.'.VJi k`. JuL )5D0 lD Place iad Tiroes San Francisco, 7-6-60, 9:00 a.m. Referee: Reporter: DUNN PARKER ' Appearance*: Applicant present; represented by Smith, Parrish, Psduck & Clancy, Attorneys (Joseph E. Smith appearing) Defendant carriers Travelers Insurance Company and Standard Accident Insurance Company represented by Hanna Sc Brophy, Attorneys (Ivan Schwab appearing) Defendant carrier Pacific Employers Insurance Company rep ' resented by Mullen & Fllippi, Attorneys (John Moore aepear- . ing) . Defendant carrier Industrial Indemnity Company represented ' by Patrick R. Maloney, Attorney Defendant carrier State Compensation Insurance Pund repre: sented by James Vonk, Attorney WITNESS: v Sidney J, Shipman, W.D. DISPOSITION: Twenty days to the parties for further fLlinga, this re ' latlng particularly to a Compromise and Release; the time to be extended on the request of any Interested person; otherwise submitted. 7-6-60 26pp ftmm tt <** -*> rrx x. \ tAMii 3 V, Before the Industrial Accident Commission ' of the State;of California. .. . t .: , - iX . v.... ts.` . - vi- . .."A Go* iVo^SLMi-iall ROBERT F..- CUTRBERTSON,--t Notice of Time Applicant. vj. RIANT ASBESTOS COMPANY; J. T. THORPE, '* WESTERN ASBESTOS COMPANY, ARMSTRONG ' CORK, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, . * .. PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY, ` - STANDARD ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY,'. ' INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, . ' ^ ' . ' - . Defendant^ NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES tend Place of Further Hearing luV!..*J 4? i,. , j r (LfcD -WAV 1 6 :xo />UL* V. You are hereby notified tbit further hearing' will be held in the aboTe-endtled action at X - 7* X- room 2302 " :h : \;/r.'h55 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE ' . /SA" FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA . ; ; ; ' X /XjULY 6, I960 -- 9:00 A* M* # ,) .. x - > '_ ; : ' 'Dated *tj _ ; <.cross examine dr.:. 'Shipman 'l'oN RECONSIDERATION GRANTED. ' ' V ' * San Francisco, Calif, *'' . tby 16. i960 . - . ?v ;' ' i, v' . - X\ * A`* . - * X- rX = v- - .. .\ . : ^Industrial-accxDent.Commission; i' c *9* : #. .. * \ - vi . ^>' NOTEt CONTINUANCES. AND FURTHER HEARINGS ARE NOT PAVOREXL " : ' X" - SERVICE UPON: 7 ... Robert F. Cuthbertson,"2h38 Garvin Ave., Richmond, Calif .X Y Y $* Smith is Parrish,-501 Financial Cantor Bid);,, Oakland, Calif-. < * - Plant Asbestos, 1300 6Lth St.> Emeryville, Calif, -X y -*' J. T. Thorps, 1351 Ocean Ave., Emeryville, Calif. ' ** j,- Veatarn Aebsetos, 675 Townsend St., San Francisco, calif.X " Y' Armstrong Cork, 30h Shaw Road, san Francisco, Calif. ;; : Traveler's Insurance Co*, 315 Montgomery St., San Francisco, Calif.' *. Pacific Employers Insurance Co., 2hL Pine St., san Francieco, Calif, Statei Compensation Insurance Fund, Personal Service t Industrial Indemnity Co., 350 Sansome St., San Franoiaco # Calif, - ' v. Hanna-& Erophy, 100 3ueh 3tv, San Franciaco, Calif. .. ' K *; PN. MO (icr.'bli AH . '*#/*l ' `..At: ' u'/j'f-- . . K .. ->x pp001v ip - f ROBERT F. CUTHBERTSON v May 3, I960 PLANT ASBESTOS CCMPA?:? J. T* THORPE, et al Case No. OAK 1053 REPORT OF PA^fEL ONE Pursuant .to request dated April 21, 19.60, by applicant, the case should be returned to the calendar Tor cross examination of Dr. Shipman, the independent medical examiner. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COTCCSSIO" OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA i 000012 ntu\ r i --------r Before the Industrial Accident Commission of the State of California ROBERT ?. CUTHBERTSON, \ OueNo Applicant ' vj. PLANT ASBESTOS COMPANY, J. T, THORPS, WESTERN ASBESTOS COMPANY, ARMSTRONG | CORK, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, 1 INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, PACIFICAEMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY, STANDARD ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant a NOTICE OF INTENTION TO IT APPEARING THAT the report of the Independent Medical Examiner, Sidney J. Shipman, M.D., dated March 30* I960, served hereifith, has been received and filed in evidence. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN chat the above-entitled case will stand submitted for decision upon the record as made, including said report. 10 day* after service hereof unless Good Cause to the contrary is shown in writing within said time . ; . INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION . OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA PILED AND SERVED: 4k Smith, Parrish, etal, 501 rinanci State Compensation Insurance Fund, Personal Service Mullen and Fillppi, 315 Itontgomery St.* S.F. Hanna and Brophy, 1540 Sane<?ablo Ave., Oakland Industrial Indemnity Co.^SpO Satysome Street, S.P erERA INS____ .INSA. LN. CL _SU1F_ t.CT. Mil r SIDNCY J SHIPMAN. M 0 nOBCBT W CLAPXC.M 0 CUZASCrH H OALBBAITH. M. 4 44*0 POX* ****** m r ci*eo I Marofa 30, 1960 Industrial Accident Commission US5 Golden Gate Avenue, Room 2202 San Francisco^ California Promt Sidney J. Shipman, V* D* Concerning: Robert F. Cuthbertaon, Ro* 333208 2h38 Oarvin Avenue Richmond, California Gentlemen: The following is 107 report on Hr. Cuthbertson *0 reported for examination on March l8, I960, at your request: General History? Age 31 Bora May i+ 1928 in Albany, California* Married and has 3 children. Home address: 21+38 Garvin Avenue, Richmond, California* The Problem: The diagnosis of asbestosia has been made In this case, based upon history of exposure and a pulmonary biopsy. Does asbestosis really exist in a clinical sense snd, if so, what is the degree of disability? Chief Complaint: The patient says that prior to operation he had pain in the left chest but this was so long ago that he is uncertain as to its exact nature, whether it was sharp or dull or whether it was aggravated by breathing* Since the operation, his pain Is substernal and radiates to both sides* Family History: The father died of cancer of the larynx at age l+8j Mother is living and well, as are two sisters* Patient has a tain brother ti o is said to have asbestoais* Marital History: Wife living and well, as are three children, ages roughly 11, 6 nd 1+* Past History: b Sae Page S ** 5 Ind, Indem. Co., s P. Operations? Tonsillectomy at age 19, < th good results* Biopsy of lung tissue snd subtotal lobectomy in August, 1958* Accldonts? Foot injured in 1957 th fiir recovery* Adult diseasesr See Present Illness* OKlldhood dla eases Usual, dth good recovery* Habits: Has never used alcohol to excees* Ha smoked in the pnst up to a package a day but haa not smoked for over a year* SERVICE ON: Sll^^enter Bldg., Oak. Smith & Parrish, $01"^ State Comp. Ins. Mullen & PUlppl, Pun4j`tpke*^Vsefec>rnnxaarll ySSseetr.rvvici.ceJeS^, pOOi-*/ Htmna & Bronhv. OM:.. *** 4+ nr.,- RBi Robert F. Cuv,,JS'ton Pagt 3* March 30, 1960 Chest Abdomen genital1 Extremities Reflexee Vital Capacity Fluoroscopy X-ray films '' ........ Laboratory Stork See Page 4.^ Radial pulaei equal and synchronous, of fall* olume but diminished tension. Vessel vails . not thiokened. Blood pressure 105/65* PMI not seen or felt* No palpable thrill. The sounds are of fair quality. Rhythm regular# A2 Is equal to P2* There are no adventitious sounds heard* Expansion good throughout^ There le e wall healed thoracotomy soar over tho lower ri.7ht chest extending* forward to the anterior axillary line; not tender. Right lung - note good. Breathing yooal resonance apparently normal. Ko rales# Left lung - same as right. No masses'. No tender areas made out. Ho palpable viscera. Normal adult male. No olubbing. No cyanosis. No rerleoeities. Knee Jerks equal and active. No pathology made out. 1 second, 2000 eo# Total, 4-000 oo. Both leaves of the diaphragm move well, although there Is obliteration of the right coatophrenio angle. The heart and great vessels are within normal limits. The root shadows are somewhat accentuated. The parenchymal zones seem clear. lo/lP/53 - Heart and great vessels within normal limits# Root shadows normal. Coatophrenio angles clear. Parenchymal sonoe are clear. 11^13/54. - No change; V17/5& - No essential change. 1/16/59 - Taken by Dr. H. Corwin Hinshaw - now reveals linear densities in the right base wi th some intervening density characteristic of pleural reaotlon. 11/19/59 - Taken by Dr. Cabot Brown - essentially unchanged# 3/18/60 - Slight pleural thickening and linear densities in tho right lower chest, chiefly anterior, comparable to those seen in films of 9/10/59 and 11/19/59. - 3/18/60. Prlnalysls - Clear, amber. Speclflo Gravity 1.02b. Acid reaction. Albumin & sugar negative. Few hyaline easts. Few squamous epi thelial colls. Pus cells, 0-2 per h.d.f. R.B. oells, None seen. AA . , _ 3A8/60, Complete Blood Count - Hemoglobin S8, I4.0 ga Erythrocytes 5 Ol'^OtfC, Color index .88* Blight aohromin. Leukocytes 9,800. Neutrophils 6?># of *ich 64 were mature; 3% stab oells. Lymphocytes 28. No monocytes. 3 Eosinophils; Z basophils* 3/18/60, Kolner - Negative# 3/16/60, VDRL - Negative. / / _ gZt Robert 7# Cuthbertson Pag* 2* a March 30, I960 pest Hletory Habits (contM) t Ho nycturia. Appetite fair. Digestion good. Bowela regular. Doee not aleep well beoauae of nervousness. Occupational History: Patient eaya he haa workod with aabeatoa and Inaulating materials aince 19^7 for various con tractors, both Inside and ouU He tu never ves a mask prior to November, 195Qi*heo he waa told he had aabeatoaia. Since that time he haa worn a . maak. Patient ia somewhat indefinite about his employment and the composition of the materials uaod. See "Discussion* for further information. Present Illness: Fhysioal E_x_a_m_in_a_ti_o_n: Mr. Cuthbertson says that he has/^>ome chest pain, chiefly on the left side, the exact nature of ibich he is unable to reoall, for several years. It may have begun in 1957 or even prior to that time, hut it became severe enough in February, 1956 to cause him to consult his physician. The doctor ordered some x-rays and detected something abnormal in the films *iieh he pointed out to the patient and for which he recommended a consultation with Dr. Gerald Crenshaw of Oakland. Dr. Crenshaw did a thoracotomy on August 13* 1953 and removed a specimen of lung tissue and some of the pleura for examination. The patient believes that these speeimens showed the presence of asbestos bodies. Following operation, Cuthbertson had a normal convalescense but his pain waa not relieved. It was substemal and spread into both sides of the chest. Rather than being made worse by deep breathing it was somewhat Improved. He has had colds following operation and raises a small amount of sputum, but this has never been marked. At present he is working ss before. A well developed and nourished man appearing ' perfectly well. He looks somewhat younger than his stated age of 31 years. He is pleasant and cooperative, although he states he doesn't think much of doctors. Temperature 96.6. Pulse 74. Respirations 16. Weight 183 pounds. Height 69 inches. ' Eyes - Pupils equal and regular, reacting normally to light and in accommodation. The extra ocular movements sire normal. gars - The canals are clean. Tympanic aembranss art normel. Nose - No gross obstructions. Mouth - Teeth in fair condition. Tongue clean. Pharynx injected, Clandular System - Thyroid palpable but not enlarged. No adenopathy noted, ' Pee Page 3. / 1 ffw RE; Robert 7# Cuthbertson Pag* 4, Haroh 30, 1960 Dlacuaalont I bar* examined th* Tolualnoua fll* In this oaie, including th* report of the hearing before the Industrial Acoident Commission of 11/25/59; the report of the Referee, dated 8/13/59; the hospital isation reeord from the Riohmond Hospital Association, Cuthbertson #1053; the employment record from 1947 to 1958, shoeing employment by several concerns as listed; Dr. Hinshaw's report addressed to Hanna k Brophy, dated 9/22/59; Dr. Garland's report dated 10/12/59; Laboratory analysis of lung tissue dated 12/31/58. signed by W. C. Thlelen; the transcript of testimony before Mr. Ankele of 10/22/594 Trr. 'Brown1* report or 11/19/39, addressed to Mr. Schwab; Mr. Ankele's opinion filed 12A5/59; Joseph E. Smith's Petition for Reconsideration dated 1/4/60; Hanna k Brophy's answer to the Petition, filed l/ll/60; John W. Mooro'a answer as well as the A answer of Patrick R. Maloney; together with a large amount of miscellaneous correspondence and material. The results of 07 personal examination today reveal no evidence of abnormality except a thoracotomy scar on the right side of the chest and the thickened pleura at the base of the right lung# My examination indicates that there is no disability at thls_time# TThat makes this case difficult is that Dr. Crenshaw- obtained a specimen of lung and the specimen showed the presence of asbestos bodies. Doos this mean that the patient has asbestosis? It certainly does not mean that he la sick or disabled and in a clinical sense it does not mean that tho disease, asbestosis, exists# The diagnosis of the disease, asbestosis, depends upon: (1) A history of exposure to asbestos dust (2} The radiological appearance consistent wL th asbestosis and, usually, .. ... (3) A symptomology consistent with the diagnosis v,-. . together with,................... .. .......... . (4) Evidence of Impaired pulmonary function in most oases The amount of exposure neoesssry to produce the disease is hard to determine and varies somewhat from person to person as we find in silicosis# Moreover, the else of the dangerous particles varies more than in silicosis# In this ease 2, 3 and 4- are not consistent with the diagnosis of any type of pneunokonioa Is, Thus, essential criteria for making the diagnosis of the disease In this case are lacking, in spite of the finding of asbestos bodies In the lung tissue which Dr. Crenshaw removed# In general, 1 agree with Dr# Hlnshaw's report and th the dlseusslon of Dr# Brown dated ?.roveaber 19# independent SJ3 tan AJEDJCAl Enel*# oe's (2) Ends# statements (3) . Sidney J# Shipman, M# D eoir;i7 Suite 1049 Patient Doctoe Requeet . ^ Phone POuglj* 2-7777 LUCIES D. HERTERT M. A. CMnl tetwioey Bloenilytt 490 Pot Street San FrenelKO 3 Date March 18, I960 Robert Cuthbertsoa Shipman Waiiermasn ' Kolmer Negative VDRL Negative / cot WWWWS9WW*^PPpr*W!WBIWBWPSilf*IWWSB9 Yl : J; 1 , Suite 1049 ' Phone DOuglai 3-7777 4 tOCTTN T>. Httrm M. Clinical Laboratory RloanalyM 490 Pott Street San Franclaco 3 Dale March 18, 1860 Patient Doctor Robert Cuthberteon Shipman COUPLETS BLOOD COUNT 88 . Bijt^iecTt---- 5.^10.000 Color iaOex^ . 88 Attwa - i -Slight____ Ani*rrBei<_. Nflna II II NaelaaU* R*4 CalU, .!!. Ramarta-- 9, 800 67 afwh'^64 K nn motor* % 3___% tn >ub eatta 0__ % wtf* metamyelocyte* fi--* tn ayeloevtaa 28 % 0 -% 3% Baaophlla 2 L. su GQO'ilJ rmmmrnmmLALLA.iK.iuj*irivuvAs*Kii4.iiw,vi'H'r.v.. wta IM FA-norr Decree LUCfXK D. KKRTXRT. M. A. Clinical Laoatoat waie.e*nv oiiai** d aot Tcrr an f*amciso t * somu< *-rm 6m March 18, 1960 Robert Culbertson Shipman 8 i p* P* r* URINALYSIS TyMpATingy _Clear _ .. r* Few hyaline Cotar_________ Amoer EpitialUL Arid Negative ,, M ir 1 1 7 i o 4 e * m None eea fWil. Amorpine* " . If lUnuriat ( V i < ` '') v- i / Aj - f 1fafiU rewii . euacr. n. ja i. tcwn e. UUl HOUCK wk. iNiaio* ntn ia\u* towaao mit* bui w. wiiaar <\ law orrices or SMITH. PARRISH. PADUCK & CLANCY HN.NClAb C(Ntt> BUItOINO . 401-MTM ItlllT 04I1UH0 If. CUPOaKIA Maroh 16, I960 ^ o\'I'n ILuhvh MMO Industrial Acoident Commission 455 Golden Gate Avenue San Francl3co, California Reference: Robert F. Cuthbertson v. Western Asbestos Co. OAK 1053 Attention: Edward C. Neely Referee in Charge . Gentlemen: We have received notice of the appointment of Dr. Sidney ' ^Shipman as independent medical examiner in the above case. We would request that the lung.specimens be referred to Dr.Shipman, and that he have a pathologist examine these specimens for evidence of asbestos. We also respectfully request_that_the transcript of Dr. Crenshaw1s testimony be forwarded as well. Very truly yours. SMIT PADUCK & CIANCT JES:mr Josep cc: Hr. Patrick Maloney Attorney at Law 350 Sansome Street San Francisco, Calif, cc: Mr. Ivan Schwab Attorney at Law 1540 San Pablo Avenue Oakland, California cc: Mullen & Fillppi Attorneys at Law 315 Montgomery Street San Francisco, California State Compensation Ins. Fund 450 McAllister Street San Francisco, California co: V oV s*wrweewp.Mu.uuj j ?" tpwii hjjaiiu.p.jj  u* * Hanna ft Baofmy (40 > ... Avfaut 6ARLAN0 l. CALIFORNIA TlMblHI ( ~ , *ff- i W. HC fUUT* TM0WA9 fllCMA*O40M O'' n<- Haroh 11, 1960 #* rsc>eto iOC v iTiicrt ItN Faciic9 4 FMi^ 0f;Cl rattftO it. CAWir, >4eiMc^*o o*iet In JOftf toco "too'-# ivafrt f jot 14. Cauf, Industrial Aocident Commission P 0. Box 603 San Francisco, California Attention} Edward C Nealy . Referee in Charge Re: Robert F. Cuthbertaon vs. Plant Asbestos Co., et al I.A.C. Claim OAK 1053 Gentlemen: On behalf of the defendants Travelers Insurance Company and Standard Accident Insurance Company, we join in the objections of the defendants Industrial Indemnity Company and Pacific Employers Insurance Company to the receipt in evidence of the report of Dr* Roger H. Wilson, dated February 9, 1960. Tour secretary has advised me that this case has been for warded to the Hedlc&l Bureau for the appointanent of an independent medical examiner. On January 20, 1960, I had a telephone conver sation with the attorney for the applicant in which he advised me that he had arranged for an exssinatlon of the applicant by Dr. ' Roger Wilson, and that such examination bad been completed. This should be called to the attention of your Medical Bureau, as it means that neither Dr. Wilson, nor either of his office associates. Doctors Seymour M. Farber or Mortimer A. Benioff, is eligible for appointment as an independent medical examiner. Very truly yours. IAS:ER , VjL c.c. Smith, Parrish, Paduek & v'-'7'1" Clancy, Attorneys at Lav Financial Center Bldg., Oakland c.c. Mullen k Filippi, Attorneys at Lav 315 Montgomery St., S.F. c.c. State Fund - S.F. o.c. Industrial Indemnity Co., S.F. c.o. Travelers Ins. Co., Oakland (B-8972691) c.c. Standard Ace. Ins. Co, San Bruno (96--C 9607911) r O' VffMKPpJfP** -...... .RECEIVED - M4f? 3 0 If!C) ' .. '- Dwa W Ww4.i AtImW DIVISION Of ' ' 1 BEFORE THEA<33nSTSIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION OF THE STATE OP CALlFOENi 2 CIAIM NO. OAK 1053 3 ROBERT F. CUTH3ERTS0N, 4 * Applicant, . v . . | 0 vs. MOTION TO STRIKE 6 PUNT ASBESTOS COMPANY, et el, y 7 . ' ' j' Defendants. a -- - 9 COMES now, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, defendant 10 ereln, with Its Motion to Strike the letter of Roger H. Vllson, U .D. of February 9# I960 and In this connection shows: 12 : That the letter does not constitute newly discovered 13 vidence and does not otherwise comply with the provisions of the E14 abor Code and of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the ndustrlal Accident Commission. ` 16 - WHEREFORB, defendant respectfully objects to the filing 17 |>f the report and to its receipt into evidence and asks that the 18 eport be strjdcn herefrom. `' 19 STATE COKPENSATIO: <' 20 By 21 ...ir 22 Dated: March 9, i960 23 - Mr. Patrick Maloney ' * : ' Attorney at law 24 350 Sansome Street San Francioco, California 23 - Mr. Ivan Schwab . Attorney at Law - 28 15^0 San Pablo Avenue " Oakland, California* , ^ 27 - Mullen k Filippl- : --' Attorneys at Law . 23 315 Montgomery-'Street " ' . San Francisco, California 29 Smith, Parrish, Faduck & Clancy. Attorneys at Law , ...... 30 ^^Qi-Jinanclal Center Bldg. , . * Oakland, California ' . ' 31 b - Claims Department ' . *JVB:rl . .. . . 32 000^3 ^ijm wwnniin i ^iiuf i.i, igup i ijiMp ROBERT F, CUTHBERT30N , Applicant 8 . Plant Asbestos Company, et al Defendant ROBERT_F_2__________ CUTHamTSOH Dr. Shipman: You are authorized to consult with a specialist in the field of pathology if you feel it ia necossary. Order Appointing Independent Medical Examiner ^onru't KL-.^fyiS ' orniion rjurrtu xemm FILD _ MARA 1260 \^ | Oakland Office : -- , m employee claiming compensation, b hereby directed, under the authority conferred by the Workmen's Compensation LAWS to report for examination to Dr-- Sldney_^iipman _ _________________ t 4 regular practicing physician,at4-90 Post Street, San Franclaoo, California on___ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---and the said physician b hereby appointed Co make such examination and to report the result thereof to the Industrial Accident Com mission for its consideration. 7 . E. JTEELY Aefmr / Dated this___ _________day nf March R.F. Cuthbertaon State Compensation Insurance Fund Smith and Parrish UNLESS THIS APPOINTMENT IS KEPT, FURTHER. PROCEEDINGS IN REGARD TO THIS CLAIM MAY BE SUSPENDED FJedi Sn>di EE________ FR INS______ LN. a__ FVA FRA .INSA_ --SUIF OOO'? i X 1 Claim Vn. . OAK IPS'* - Af'TLICAf^T'j Namp -_____ Robert ?.. Cuthbcrt-son 4 ToPanel i Thla-Cftge _lg_prggently_ln_Wedlgfll fQr_apDolntaent of IMS at COMMISSION EXPENSE since defendants declined to pay for IKE. Dr. Roger H.L. VUson-2/S/60 Attached Is medical rcport/aubmltted by applicant as well as ' . defendant Pae. Emp. Ins. Co Motion to Strike and letter of . objection g from Ind, Indera, Co. Also, I received a call from MtT Schvab^of Kannak Brophy stating that the Medical Bureau ---------------oftreft-appotnte-Dr-.~Benleff as IMS and l-t-ehould--be- caHed-fro------------ the Medical Bureau*s attention that such appointment would not be in order In this case since Dr. Wilson, whose report has Just be submitted by applicant, ie an associate of Dr. Benloff. Date1/1/69.__________________ ________________EMc- (>". . , This information has not been oonveyed to the Medical Bureau by this office. OOO'J^S 90B3E 3S2. > non i. irw'ltwn i. tuier. /*. C. MUl M5UCK . JOIOM [gwllt UITM 0U* W. WII0NT \cS* : 0`v ' *0* . ,rr . LAW OFFICCS OF SMITH, PARRISH, PADUCK & CLANCY Llov<rY l-ICOO ruunau e*xrt tuikoix* <o.utm rrcr . o*ki^mo it. caupmku -1 v * ;>L February 29, I960 Industrial Acoldent Commission 455 oolden Gate Avenue Room 2202 San Francisco, California Re: ROBERT F. CT7THBERTS0N v. WESTERN ASBESTOS CO. IAC No. OAK 1053 Gentlemen: Enclosed herewith find medical report of pr. Roger Wilson;-dated February 9, I960, which is filed in accordance with the rules of practice and procedure of the CtcI*t*nVl3Sit3hlW'4 Very truly yours End* ^ JES:rb . JOSE cc: Industrial Indemnity Co. Mullen k Filippi Hanna k Brophy State compensation Ins. Fund IAC Oakland G'.KX-G pjpgiai^"j|WBeFwwSiiwiU wn^jA'f 1 if PSW9 Joseph E. Smith Smith,Parrish,Paduck & ClAnoy Financial Center Building 405 14th Street Oakland 1C, California ` Re: Robert Cuthberteon Dear Hr. Smith, ' Thank you for enclosing the microscopic report on the sections of Robert Cuthberteon. I feel that such a report la consistent with asbestosis of moderate extent. I en basing this uoon the oleural fibrosis, the thickened alveolar septa and the presence of Asbestos bodies. ' It is difficult to tell in a young pAtlent such A6 this, whether or not he will deteriorate to develop 6iens of pulmonary failure. It is because of this difficulty in making an Accurate prognosis that I think it is important that he should be follow ed up. It would be oy inclination to classify him as a patient with early asbestosis, rather than a patient with asbestos bodies in his lungs. Yours sincerely, CC: Herald Crenshaw, M.D. Vc { cooo::7 uwauu.iu ujssq "3 . r*; N&> .m^;i^60'^ !t- ~<ifir ii^V^ at2&$x' *&** '*g*\ 3EF0EB' THE. INDUSTR.IfAL ACCI DENT'.COiiilS SION O.F T.E5 STAT3. .0.>* CALIFOP. .NI ,: 2 v - . claim no. oak 1053 . 3 rOBEKT' p. cuthberison, . i ) :> 4 a ;;'- '.....Applica n' t,.'. > ,* .) -A' ' . -' . 5 , vs. > ' : ) f.- - . . r; ) .*v.i ' '. ' ' PLANT ASBESTOS COMPANY, et al, " MOTTO?.' TO Si.-?KZ .'. ..'. . 7 ;8 ^'Defendants* .) r,H-' . 9 COMES MGW f Pacific Employers Insurance Company, defendant . 10 herein, with it3 nation to' Strike the letter of Focer 11. Wilson, ' " .* .` ' 11 iiiu, of February 9,1;1960'and in this connection shows: . 12 v . 'That the letter does not constitute newly discovered - 13 evidence and docs-not otherwise comply with the provisions of the 14 Labor Code and of the Pules of Practice and Procedure of t;.e . , 15 industrial Accident.Commission. /. .' '* 16 HiHRliFOPE, defendant respectfully objects- to the films 17 of the report, and 0 its receipt into-evidence ar.d asks that the 18 report be'"striken herefrom.'....... ' . ' - 19 V. > 20 -,V. KVLLEH i riLIPPI, t.- i Attorneys for Defendant, j ; ' f .VFACIFIC DKFLJYF.RL IN X.'L'ZZ CCi'JAhli `' - 2L ";. 22 k > ' . ' 23 Dated: ; torch V**; }96p/ v. * fov.iii W*.hCGRi. . .*// * - ' 24 i , 23 26 ; *..f 27 . *. 28 29 - 30 ' 31 32 od:. ;* Industrial IrfdeBir.itjr.Co,, A I^,v 350 Sansor.e .Gjij San Frar.pioco; i .'^' . .. 't.U * ^ ^^ 'A.; Hanna !c Brophy, Attorneys at Law .'.i, " C^\_ * , 'v 15^0 San Pablo Ave,-,'.'Oakland' l'- ^ ' . ; v;- ' ' *> ' ' 'V'' ' x ' V . State Compensation Insurance Fvtnd \ -J. `4J0 McAllister. Qt., Sah Francisco'* *' ' ' Smith, Parrish, Paduck & Cloncy, Attorneys at Law : A - 501 Financial ;.Center .Building, Oakland ,, f:.\ " . v- .) *' ' . - ~ Pacific Employers Insurance Co.'i' - ' ;'-.'--3770 Piedmont,Avenue, Oakland 11 ' > 1' ' V$, . f. *' .. . ... ' .. ^ . 1/ 'uu.cn * ru.i*i nitnr> .i :* -1~ ooo(j;:s industrial indemnity company ,Srin /'htttrixcn fhi'itinn: .150 Hakiomk STxrr.T, San K*ancisto 4, Cai.ikwhia Trlr/ilW ITlns A.2fVWl (AAR 7 1960 0( March k, i960 Industrial Accident Conmissioo P. 0. Bo* 603 San Francisco, California Subject: Robert F. Cuthbertson vs. Plant Asbestos Company Claim Ho. C 59-51-1671 IAC Ho. CAK 1053 Attention: Edvard C. Neely, Referee in Charge Gentlemen: ... ... Ve are in receipt of a medical report of Dr. Roger Vileon, M.D. dated February $, i960 which vaa filed by the applicant's attorney. Industrial Indemnity Company hereby requests that 6ald report be stricken from the record on the ground that there Is no shoving vhatsoever by the applicant that this report is nevly discovered evidence as required by the rules and practice of the Commission. This natter has been submitted and properly decided by the Honor able Referee and the filing of this report in the record In this natter, vlthout allovance of time for the defendant to rebut the intentions of the report, is prejudicial and improper. Defendant Industrial Indemnity Company also maintains that the'. .T... report itself is not material or relevant to this proceeding because its conclusions contained therein are not based upon any examination or treatment of the applicant or based upon any reviev of the entire record or history in this natter. The ' doctor refers to a microscopic report on sections of Robert Cuthbertson without referring to any additional records or ma terial, It is noted that the doctor does not even state vhat microscopic report he is referring to and for all the information that the parties in this matter have, it could easily refer to the brother, who also filed a for asbestosla. *Jfhe .exclusion made by the doctor, therefore, is speculative and (KHJ'JIO 1 J .DECEIVED MAR 7 -1960 -2- conjectural inasmuch as tbs doctor has not examined tbs above-named applicant and has not revieved the entire record or history in this matter. Bequest is further made that this report be stricken from the record since Dr. Wilson does not set out in detail the tells for the conclusions reached therein. Although the report itself does not indicate that the applicant's expensive surgery and medical treatment and hospitalization vas in any vay necessary or Justified, it is still submitted that said report be stricken from the record on the above grounds since this case is complicated enough vlthout adding obscure and speculative reports based upon unidentified microscopic reports and speculative findings that only the doctor is avare of. Sincerely yours, PRM:eva cc: Smith, Parrish, Paduck & Clancy 501 Financial Center Building Oakland, California cc: and Brophy " 100 Bish Street Oakland, California > v>'' * cc: Millen and Filippi 315 Montgomery Street San Francisco, California cc: State Compensation Insurance Fund 450 MmUlieter Street San Francisco, California -.- r i' 1 ; . . . ' V got v* r 4' tmm i ini** it MM IN4 JO law orriccs or SMITH, PARRISH, PADUCK & CLANCY ahta.ou., t ioi . V- #**'*** MMt , M, 4A* hNANeiAb CINTIO |U<LDIM4 40#-1Jf- T* C CT OAALAMO U CALIFORNIA "t-"--:.9rlvi-u. ........ .. . ....... LfcC .. February SSL I960 Industrial Aecident Comlselon 455 Golden Gate Avenue Foca 2202 San Francisco, California C- -./'.- Rat ROBERT F. CUTHBERTSOM T. WESTERN ASBESTOS CO. - IAC NO. OAK 10b3 ' Gantl : -r Xncloaed herewith find nodical report of Or. iHMaimn1 * V > t imou m >*( i> o HUariHtiti acw<o".M o 90(> * l w.iOK m 0 t'l-P1*- imiii^ I.J .I II. JMLIM.I i.-y .. .. .Ti-'.' -- < ' ' ' iwjwijtw--m " JUJBZ February 9, IbfiO Joseph t. Smith Smith,Parrish,Parfuck * hlnncy Financial Center Pulldlnc 405 Hth tret ' OAkland l*, 'Mlfnnl* DeAr Mr. Smith, Re: Rooe-t huthbertson Thank you for ennloslne the microscopic reoort on the sections of ^oba*t huthbe-teon. I feel that such a ruort is consistent with aabesto&ls of moderate extent. I An basins this u >?n the /leursl fibrosis, the thickened AlveolAr septa And the presence of aebest>e boliee. It Is difficult to te'3 in yo'inn pAticnt such as this, whether or not he will deteriorate to develop sl?ns of oul'moo*ry fAllure. It is b*cauee of this difficulty m raaklne An Accurate prognosis that I think It is ira-jortant thAt h* shoo'd be follow ed up. It wo-M b my IncllnAtlon to clAsslfy him *$ a patient with early A^b^stosls, rather than a ontlent with Asbestos bodies In hie lun^s. %' Y/ors sincerely, Cl: herald hrenshnw, QQWV.2 OONAlD OAHV WAVTl* VAKOAAtN IVAN A BCMWA OMIf N MAC JOHH A WAC QOM&WO rowAMO p me Awttft HfABfAT *. JKNACN fOWAftO W KO*A vt- J U MC *kATW w TNOlUt *lW**0ON OONAL0 v. MITCHIIL a190( M. CHkMAH LAW tflKII M Hanna ft Baophy OAKbANO II. CAblAOINIA rUALIH*-(lllf ,,v. February 26, I960 peite orct :A ~P>` FM 0ftt* Pmm* II. Ckr. Aft* JOftC r*1tff ewc Industrial Accidont Commission P. 0. Box 603 San Francisco, California V Attention: Edward C. Neely Referee in Charge Re: Robert F. cuthbertson vs. Plant Asbestos Co., et al I.A.C. No. OAK 1053 Gentlemen: In compliance with the letter of V/. T. Dunbar, dated February 3* 1960, we requested Dr. Cabot Brown to forward all x-rays in his possession to the Industrial Accident Commission. We asked" that we be informed of the films forwarded, and enclosed herewith is the letter from his secretary, dated February 19, I960, listing the films submitted to the Medical Bureau# My letter of November 12, 1959, to Dr. Cabot Brown, covering his appointment as an agreed medical examiner in this case, contained the following postscript addressed to the attorneys for the applicant: "I will try to ret the lung tissue specimens, the x-rays taken at Herrick Hospital, the Richmond Hospital x-ray3, and x-rays taken for Dr. Hinshaw to Dr. Brown. If Dr. Crenshaw ever did take any x-rays, will you see that he forwards them to Dr. Brown.B It is apparent that no x-rcys taken for Dr. Gerald Crenshaw were ever submitted to Dr. Cabot Brown. The testimony of Dr. Crenshaw was con fusing and ambi'p.'ous as to whether he did or did net take x-rays nrlor to his operation on August 13, 195$. *' f AM OO'K-C-') > pi9. * y1K a I 4 Pat-e two - 2/26/60 He: Robert F. Cuthbertoon vs. Plant Aobootoo Co,, et al i.a.c. Tfo, oas 1053 o RECEIVED ni i<inwrp**i *' If this case is to be referred to nn independent radical examiner, wo rospeotfuliytfto.o.u.eat that, prior to such reference beir.n made, the attomeys^for the applicant either: 1, File with the Medical 3uroau all .-.-rays taken for Lr. Gerald Crenohaw; or . . 2. Give written assurance to the Industrial Accident Comisfion that Dr. C-erald Crenshaw did net have x-rays taken. Vo make this sucyestion because we feel that flint taken at or about the tine of operation would be of extreme inportence for any doctor attempting to review the record. IAS:ER Enc. c.c. fiaith, Parrish, Paduck & Clar.cy, Attorneys at Law Financial Center Bldfl. Oakland 12, California c.c. Mullen C: Filippi Attorneys at Law 315 Mcr.trromery Street San Francisco, Calif, c.c. State Fund - S.?. c.c. Industrial Ind. Co. 3S0 Sansome St., S.F." (c re-n-i67i) c.c. Travelers Insurance Co. Oakland (8-8972691) c.e. Standard Acc. Ina. Co. San 2runo (96-C 960794) Very truly yours, /! BI`I<U! U'-'UM Hf>iT cckkkm GAOOT OWOWN.m.o *o u"e *cer tia 'ktNCiACA^ February 19, I960 / Mr. I. A. Schwab Henna It Bropby 1540 San Pablo Avenue Oakland IZ, California Dear Mr. Schwab: I am listing below all of the x-rays we have of Mr. Robert Cuthbertson, and which have been mailed to the Medical Bureau of the Industrial Accident Commission, 455 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco. Herrick Hospital: 3/17/56 - PA and lateral 11/13/54 - PA and lateral 10/10/53 - PA and lateral Dr. Corwin Hinshaw; 9/10/59 - stereo and lateral Dr. Qbot Brown: H/19/59 - stereo and lateral iuu( 3 very truly* Secretary lf uyun-A- r . i b DEPA/WKTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Intra-Dopartmental Communication To: Edward Neely, Prosiding Referee Date; Division: Industrial Aeeident ConmissicnooaWon; j2-l6-6o San Francleoo Jron: Frank .A Lawrence, Presiding Commlsoioner Division; Industrial Aeeident Commiaslonocation; Sai Prancisco Subject; Robert P. Cuthbertson File No. OAK 1053 Please arrange to have applioant examined by an Independent medical examiner, pursuant to Report of Panel dated January 28, i960. Said examination Is to be at the expense of the Commission. Thank you, , s- .. . ?, Prank A. Lawrence Presiding Comiasioner t- V 1 . ^ 'rrr - cooi:;3 INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY COMrANY 17'iRECi^\Jtyi tf-'smnmi Divirmm .150 Sanwimk Stiikkt, .Saw A-JnfioTrltiihimf VVh*n KxANctwn 4, Cai.ifdxnia oY^ ILL N 11 mlwy u'1960 tr . y ^1 I, owrt^** ' Industrial Accident Commission ^55 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, California Attention: V* I. Dunbar, Presiding Referee iL . . I lr Subject: Cuthbertson vs. Plant Asbestos Company Claim No. 59-51-1671 IAC No* OAK 1053 Dear Mr. Dunbar: Reference is node to your letter of February 3, i960 regarding tbe above natter* , Industrial Indemnity Company yll not defray the expense in connection with tbe appointment of an independent medical examiner in the above case* It vas our understanding that Dr* Cabot Brovn vas an agreed independent medical examiner and ve bad agreed to help defray the expenses of his examination. Ve can see no necessity for any additional medical examinations in this case as the present medical record indicates that the applicant has not suffered from asbestosls. Sincerely yours. Patrick R*. Maloney Claims Attorney PFMteva ce: Smith, Parrish, Paduck and Clancy 501 Financial Center Oakland, California cc: Banna and Brophy 100 Bush Street Oakland, California cc: Milieu & Filipp! 315 Montgomery Street San Francisco, California ce: State Compensation Insurance Fund ^50 teAllieter Street San Francisco, California \ ' .", ;-ll..l Mvl"- ?' H.ryJvsiYI^i-rJvt 0000^7 - ----- , -- wnn- ^5 .. ; pf. 'T' (V^'! ir > THE INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION OF TH^L- > ;>'' V'imM t? `CLA"IM...N..O.........O..A.K....1..0..5...3 FiLfcD ROBERT F. CUTKBERTSON, to 1; 4 Applicant, 5 6 'PLANT ASBESTOS COMPANY, et 'al. 7 Defendants. \ OaWana 0^j66 objscticj mT?:;:..`.jv1* OF INDEPENDENT MEDICAL ' ' EXAMINER 9 Comes Now defendant-pacific, Employers Insurance Co-cany 10 with its objection, to appointment of?'ah independent redicai exarir.- ' ''> "><} / 11 er; V : / /( ' *: } t i h` k. ! 12 i' .Dr. Cabot Rrown was.-agreed upon ao.an "agreed nodical exar.-l 13 iner'1 In the stead And the place .of .an "independent medical examir- . i ' . . ' S *; - * : .> , i 14 er" and acted in' that capacity. r '| 15 The .medicalj--record of-fhls case, clearly shows the Award tc 1 16 tie supported without conflict.' *T ' ^ - .* . ` 17' i . ' To assign to an Independent medical, examiner, or any other 18 examiner, would do`-;no more than to i 'considerable extent retry, the 19 ease.y;, \^ ; ; C-.-. . '. ,' 20 *; ... : Your Honorable Commission is^'ln the position of being a' , ^ 21 (Sourt of Appeal and is required to consider no^ more thar the recorj-' 22 Of the case. To attempt to add evidence which might grant the ' 23 prayer of the applicant confers on your Commission the power and 24 authority delegated.'to the Referees.v;:lt is r.ot intended that your f ... - v~........... -V.`. .. , . .i .. ._ 25 Coranisslon..act in jmy other capacity'than as a juaiclal' bocy of ^r.:. .. >/ 26 appeal.- . . *. ... * ; v 27 Th'e matter')'therefore, .must be submitted-from.ar. evidencia.4' standpoint as theri'is no" stipulation or agreement upon the part o;j . 28 29 Pacific'^Employers Insurance Company to add to the record Ir. any-wa; 30 S'toataoever. .,;V.- . ' . *' t " 31 . . ".WHEREFORE; ?it la -respectfully' prayed that as to'your answer] 32 XUU.CM A riMAPl "* iKg'defendant-the Award be affirmed and the applicant ordered to i; ; V4; V OOOCCS "\ * -. . . ;.__ ,f, . in fit m .V ft "r ' 1 take "nothing. ' > ..'. ' ' 2 ** \ .To follow the procedure suggested herein would tr.ike it po3-- . ' -' .3 s'ible for an independent examiner upon independent examiner to he . .. 4 appointed .until grounds are-found for the applicant's contentions. '.' 5 *6 V* \ V-; ...-'iv; .. ' >1- ;;:v- --rv Z. '\ > 1 Respectfully Submitted: * MULLEN k FILIPPI, Attorreys for. ' 7 ^ Pacific Employers Insure..ce Compsn;. .. * { a? . PitfiJ W. .N. Mullen' 1 9 Bated at San Francisco, California,./this 6th day of February, 19oC ' - ;' 10 Copies this date mailed to: ' ' , n - * - Industrial-Indemnity Co.,. r;?' fV ' '. ..-- . r--rtf>- 12 3^0 San8ome Street^ sort Francisco,. Calif . . (' \. * ' 13 Hanna & Brophy, Attorneys-at Law, '* * 1540 San Pablo Ave^, .Oakland, Calif* ` ; , . ^, . * 14 - y `t i* . State Compensation Insurance Pund', J * ' ` ' ; * f ...:/ 15 , . 16 450 McAllister St.,.San Francisco, California ;' ` f - '*1* - ... Smith, Parrish, Padu'ck k Clancy, Attdrnoys at Law, . 501 Financial Center-Bldg,-, Oakland, California-, * - '. -, 17 Pacific Employers Insurance`Co., '-* 3770 Piedmont Ave,V-Oakland, calif. . ' 13 ; ' 19 20 ' 21 K. ' '. 22 >*. V . t V - . .' 23 24 J, . . <i 25 -!v 20 V; 27 28 k; 29 y* i. JV .1 t y- . :: 30 31 32 *U1ICN 4 PTU4PI '* r* c. i' >. i 4* ?** 4 . ?*' " V, 7; - A' i i: ` ' vi JA - ; -;v . i -2 ': i cooo;:o A* LAW 0* WA1MN ^ MAMMA DONAC0 * t*0*My WALtfAJAKOMIM IVAM A ICMWlI OACAT M MAtf LIAM JOHM A MAC DOMA CO fOW*(? P MC ALftM I utmntmtC jtMfCN fWA JU> W ICC AAA Hanna ft Bwomhy 1140 4a P*4io A*MU| OAKLAMO <1. CACI^OAMIA rcuniiM ** ...gt? ^February 6, 1960 p- j M MC *LATM THOMAS ArCHAftOION OONALO V. MfTCMtWL 010*01 W. tONNlY CV >- x- ^4 !* Mawii4*ii> o>cr i0am fAAACfItAtC<Arv4 lmft QMpf CW*ir 4\o Famm II. Cc* |*C*W0 2* J l'*U* *<"* 14 C*U*. 9 H J0f 2000 M<00 **4 Iffttrt f* jo< It. CAM*. Industrial Accident Commission 455 Golden Gat Avenue San Francisco Z, California Attention: Referee V/. T. Dunbar Gentlemen: Re: Robert F. Cuthbertson vs. Plant Asbestos Co*, et al . I.A.C. No* OAK 1053 I have your letter of February 3, 1960, inquiring as to whether the defendants will defray the expense of an independent medical examiner in this case. I am also in receipt of the objection to appointment of Independent medical examiner filed by Pacific Employers Insurance Company. Hy clients would like additional information before we are in a position to advise you as to whether they would agree to defray the expense of an independent medical examiner. O Ttfe should like to be advised as to wherein the Commissioners * feel that the medical evidence now in the record is incomplete and why they are of the opinion that a report from an independent medical examiner is indicated. We are uncertain whether the Connissioners fully appreciate the circumstances under which, the examination and report by Dr. Cabot Brown was obtained. At the conclusion of the hearing held on October 22, 1959, Referee Ankelo stated that he was dissatisfied both with the medical evidence submitted by the applicant and the medical evidence submitted by the defendants. He stated that he wanted a more complete report on the general subject of asbestosis, and he directed the parties to agree uponamedical examiner. He then ordered that the report of the agreed medical oxaniner bo submitted within 45 days from the date of hearing, I wish to emphasise that Referee Ankele entered this as his order, and not as a request by any of the parties. Referee Ankele proceedod to direot the parties that they were to perform the work of making the appointment, arranging for submission of prior x-rays and laboratory reports, and of all prior medical reports to Dr, Cabot Hrown. Ky letter of November 12, 1959, contained the following paragraph: V, ^r oooc:o MimuiMTJii ,n.u.ti 1.uiii.miij HU.\, I lUAWWff Page two - 2/8/60 Re: Hobart K. Cuthbartoon vs. Plant Asbestos Co., at al I.A.C. No. OAK 1053 ssixn "In view of the nodical conflict that exists, Referee Ankelo requested the attorneys in tho case to agree upon a doctor to examine the applicant and submit a comprehensive report, with the understanding that all parties should be given an opportunity to submit any specific questions they desire covered to the doctor selected. Accordingly, you will probably receive further inquiries from all, or some, of the attorneys named above. Referee Ankele requests that you incorporate In your report a general discussion as to the nature of the disease of asbest03is, with particular reference to the type and si2e of fibres that cause damage, the extent and degree of exposure required, the time after the inhalation of particles within which symptoms become manifest to the individual, the nature of the symptoms which first develop and the nature of the disability resulting, and the manner in which the disease of asbeatosis differs from silicosis." Dr. Brown did Include such a general discussion. Further more, the attorneys for the applicant requested Dr. Brown to defer submission of hie report until he received a transcript of the testimony of Dr. Gerald Crenshaw, who had testified for the defendants. Dr. Brown did hold up the submission of his report, and after he had reviewed the transcript he added some additional comment, which is numbered points 1, 2, 3 and 1; on pages 4 and 5 of hi5 report of November 19, 1959* It seems to me that his report adequately disposes of the medical conflict that existed prior to its receipt. You are^ of course, familiar with the fact that many referees ask the parties to agree upon a medical examiner. The only difference between a report by such sr. agreed medical examiner and a report by an independent medical examiner is that the attorneys for the parties, rather than the Kedical Bureau of the Industrial Accident Commission, have to do the work of arranging for the appointment. . When the applicant petitioned for reconsideration, the only additional medical evidence that he contended should be obtained was a report of s pathologist. As the answers filed by the defendants point out, that is unnecessary boeause all that a pathologist could determine would be that fibres of asbestos ore present in the specimen of lung tissue obtained at the tine of operation, and the defendants concede that the tissue contains fibres of asbestos. BE SB5E5C. 7 Pan three - 2/8/60 he: Hobcrt F. Cuthbertaon vs. Plant Aabestos Co., et jj. I.A.C. No. OAK 1053 Pleas advise whether the Commissioners have in nind the designation of a pathologist or the designation of a soecialist in diseases of the lung as an independent medical examiner. Dr. Cabot Brown submitted a bill of ::>200 for his report. If there is any aspect of the case in which his report is incomplete, I would feel that your Medical Bureau could obtain a supplemental report from him with less delay and expense than if the matter should be sent out to a doctor who has never seen the case before. Very truly yours, IAS:ER c.c. Mullen k Fllippi Attorneys at Law 315 Montgomery St. San Francisco c.c. State Fund - S.F. c.c. Industrial Ind. Co. 35 Sansone St., S.F. (C 59-51-1671) c.c. Smith, Parrish, Paduek & Clancy Attorneys at Law Financial Center Bldg, Oakland 12, California c.c Travelers Insurance Co. Oakland (B-8972691) c.c Standard Acc. Ins. Co. San Bruno (96-C 960791*.) - oooG-:^ talk O 1 BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 CASE NO. OAK 1053 , 3 4 ROBERT F. CUTHBERTSON, 3 Applicant. S ORDER GRANTING APPLICANT'S VL'IITlUr: TOR RECONSTDERATION 7 PUNT ASBESTOS COMPANY, J. T. THORPE, WESTERN ASBESTOS COMPANY, ARMSTRONG 8 CORK, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, 9 PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY, STANDARD ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY 10 and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, 11 ' Defendants 12 13 GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFOR, 14 IT IS ORDERED that applicant's Petition for Reconsideration, 15 filed herein January 1*., I960, be, and the sane hereby is, -ranted. 16 INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT C0MTH3SICN 17 OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 5* 000013 *-r yyrCTHr.*"`"V*L' ">* o * ^sae^ftA.-^-.. -y - ROBERT F. CUTHBERTSON / January 28, I960 v. PLANT ASBESTOS COTMPANY, et al Case No. OAK 1053 REPORT OF PANEL 0:~E The Panel is of the opinion that a report of an independent medical examiner will be of assistance to it in the determination of the issue presented. The Petition for Reconsideration is therefore granted to obtain the opinion of such an examiner, if the parties so agree* ' INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA '.pfi.iiwwtuv .n.,iii p^1. , yy ' . iJ ._^ * '' '4* ' . * .- - * , _ _ ^ J/.--- {:'; l . . O ' JOHN H. ANKELE, REFEREE Oakland 1-20-60 KCCCIVSO Jfl*' 2:: JSGO *+**m } CUTHBERTSON--CLAIM NO. OAK 1053 Injury: Asbestosis REPORT OF REFEREE ON APPLICANT'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION Due date: February 3 I960 The employee, an Insulator, born May 4, 1928, claims to have sustained an asbestosis. After hearings. Findings and Order to the effect that applicant did not sustain any injury arising out of or occuriMng in the course of his employment was served and filed on December 15, 1959. ' From this decision applicant petitions for reconsideration contending that the evidence does not Justify the denial. The preponderance of medical evidence in this case clearly indicates that the applicant does not have asbestosis. It is noted that the applicant quotes from the report of the pathologist as follows: "asbestos body disposition is moderately advanced." This Is definitely not a finding of asbestosis. Applicant also quotes from some portions of the testimony of Dr. Crenshaw. However, the conclusion of H. Corwin Hinshaw, M. D. is to the effect that applicant does not have asbestosis. This Is also the conclusion of Cabot Brown, M. D. in his report of November 19# 1959* Dr. Brown was the agreed examiner. The Answers filed by the various defendants herein are well taken and applicant's Petition for Reconsideration should be denied. It might further be observed that the opinions of Dr. Hinshaw and Dr. Brown should be good news to the applicant who is working at his old Job. JHA;rc INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY Sttn Fmnrittn Divittnn: 350 Hansomr Sta*xt, San Faancw) 4, CAi.irmvu TrhphmM Yl/lran A.JOOO January 13, 1$6q Industrial Accident Comission 577 - 14th Street Oakland, California Gentlemen: Res Robert F. Cuthbertaon vs. Plant Asbestos Company Claim No. C59-51-1671 XJUC. No. OAK 1053 Enclosed please find Ansver to Petition for Reconsideration in the above entitled matter. Copy of the Ansver has been forvarded to the parties listed belov. t Very truly yours. PRM:mac End. cc: Smith, Parrish, Padudc & Clancy 501 Financial Center Building Oakland, California Hanna and Brophy 100 Buoh Street Oakland, California Mullen & Filippi 315 Montgomery Street Son Francisco, California .State Compensation Insurance Fund *50 McAllister Street Gan Francisco, California 000< --r--- - 'T*'w T'.' -*> PATRICK R. MALONEY ;, Attorney at Lav ' : - Suite 700 "-'. 350 Sensome Street \ , San Francisco 4- Wton 6- ; '' :rgr, ,Coa\ . 1; ; O ?^*'?T>;rr. Tl''--- - - . ryUiCJI j ^-.IL,r*W *i-T!C.XJ nCno^ ja1u U d)ibn<i l THE OTUSTRIAL ACCrDOTC CCMCSSIOK OF THE 8TATE OF CALIFORNIA e ftC&SX ?. CtfHffiEKTSOK, .. 9 ' ; ' Applicant, 10 vs. 11 PLART ASBESTOS COMPART, INDUSTRIAL IHKMIITY COMPANY, at al, 12 ' Defendants. 15 I.A.C. SO. 59 OAK 1053 AR5VER TO PHTITION FOR RECOSSnSRATICTr 14 / Cones nov tbe Defendant, INDUSTRIAL UTDJUCTITY COMPANY, and by vay of 15 Ansver to tbe petition for Reconsideration filed herein specifically denies Id that* . ' 17 '/*. . '* 1* The Coamisslon acte' d vithout and in excess of ita povers. ,, * I . ... f . 18 ; 2. That the evidence does not Justify the findings of fact. 19 ' 3* That the' findings of fact do not support the order, declsico or 20 ; avard.' ' ' 21 ' , In his Petition for Reconsideration, the Applicant objected to the 22 finding of fact that he did not sustain an injury arising out of or occurring 23 in the course of his employment. In support of his contention, the Applicant 24 states that Dr. Cabot Brovn, tbe agreed medical examiner, did not obtain inde 23 pendent pathological studies. The petition is not clear as to vhat purpose 26 such studies vould serve and it nay be helpful at this point to clarify the 27 record. .1 , 28 ' First of all, Mr. Schvab,in arranging for the examination by Dr. 29 Brown in his letter of November 12, 1959, authorized Dr. Broun to =n><* use of 30 the service of a Boeobgenologlst or a pathologist if he deemed It necessary, 31 tfltb the records and information available to Dr. Brovn, he quite properly con 32 cluded that it vos not necessary to obtain an additional pathological exaaina- v 'vr m wijurns s* 0<KKJ-'*7 r>A iImii ^ ^aiaihru-t----^^ aaiaMbiuMsaaMtt* O 1 Lon. ' 2I A review of the record shows that the applicant's own doctor sode 3 5 of Dr. David Singraan as a pathologist. This doctor performed his studies 4 b the time the applicant vas examined on Deeeaber 6, 1958 at the request of 5 r. Cronshav. Dr. Slngnan testified that the applicant did have asbestos in 6 he lungs hut not enough to show In ordinary X-ray technique. 7 The Defendant's doctor, H. Corvin Hlnahav, M.D., and the Defendant's 8 ethologist, George Vatson, M.D. also found asbestos particles in the lungs, 9 he important point here, however, is not the presence of asbestos fibers In he lungs but rather the presence of such fibers as cause disabling pulmonary isease. The petition for Paconsideration, therefore. Is not dear as to vfaat urpose an additional examination vlll serve inasmuch as there already is an greeoent amongst the pathologists that the applicant did hare asbestos fibers a the lung. .- The crux of the problem In this case is whether the Applicant had dis ibllng pulmonary disease or asbestosla and not vhether there vere asbestos fibers in the lung. As pointed out by Dr* Cabot Brow on page 3 of his report >f Rovenber 19, 1959: "Bie point I vlsh to stress Is that the mere finding of - a fev asbestos bodies In a section of lung simply means t-' .. that the individual has at some time In the past Inhaled asbestos particles and docs not Indicate that this indi- * `' '> ", s \ vidual has actual disease (asbestosis). It la not un likely that a good many people vho are required to walk . passed large construction Jobs a couple of times a day would be found to have inhaled asbestos fibers, vere it . > ' . **i . feasible to subject their lungs to a searching examination. Hovever, the difference between these individuals and those vho have veil developed clinical asbestosis lies merely in ^. the total amount of exposure. ***" : - The Applicant's contentions are apparently based upon the testimony of Dr. Crenshav. Keeping In mind that a clinical diagnosis of asbestosis de pends upon a history of adequate exposure to asbestos dust, objective evidence of impaired pulmonary function, and radiological appearance consistent with diffuse "ground glass" pulmonary fibrosis, let us Crenshav, * * .. ' ' ' the testimony of Dr. * '' : . According to Dr. Crenshav, a complete work history vas not token of -- l' ; 0000^3 . ` ' -2- 1 the Applicant* The doctor testified that he had treated the Applicant'a brotberj 2 approximately five years ago and be felt that a history of asbestos exposure 3 ii vas unnecessary in view of the fact that the doctor had already obtained a wrk 4 history from the brother* It is to be noted that INDUSTRIAL EdS-fCITT CCHPA5I 5 vas the workmen's Compensation Insurance carrier for PLANT AS3SSTCS CCMPA5I 6 from January 1, 1952 to January 1, 1959* The doctor neglected to even obtain a 7 vork history of exposure to asbestos during a substantial portioa of the appli a cant's employment vith KAJfT ASBESTOS COMPACT vhile HOWSTRIAL XTOEHRITI CC% 9 PAW vas the carrier*, 10 ` It is further to be noted that the doctor did not even make a study of 11 the type of asbestos material used by the Applicant in his esrplcymest vith PLANT 12 I ASBESTC6 COMPANY, It is further to be noted that the doctor testified that this 13 3 is the third aabeatosis case that he has had In his experience. It ean be 14j inferred, therefore, that Dr. Crenshaw's diagnosis appears to be speculative 15 and conjectural because be did not take an accurate vork history of the Appli 16 cant's exposure to asbestos and did not take any samples of the material used by 17 the Applicant. . ' 18 , It is also dear frost the record that the Applicant does not bare any 19 objective evidence of impaired pulmonary function, nor is there radiological 201 appearance consistent vith pulmonary fibrosis. Dr. Cabot Brown la his report I 21 of November 19 1959 points out that these are essential elements for a gitaieai 22 diagnosis of asbestosis. In hie emmaary and conclusion* on psge 2 of his report 23 of November 19, 1959/ Br Brovn points outs .. 24 v "While this man gives a history of exposure to dust. // ^ containing an undetermined amount of asbestos particles 25 . over a period of some twelve years, he has no symptoms . ' ; or complaints which I would attribute to asbestosis or 26 " , any other forms of pneuaonoconiosls. Limited pulmonary ' function studies gave normal findings, as did physical 27 .. . examination." 28 ' ,, According to E*v Crenshaw, the Applicant's doctor, the only factor of 29 disability consists of improper bronchial drainage* There is no testimony by 30 Dr. Crenshaw,or any other evidence `in the record * indicate that this drainage ' I,- '7 t. 31 problem is in soy way disabling or that this problem ia causing an impairment 32 of pulmonary function., .V`-. ': - ' V " ,*'/ : ' ; GOOU ^Uj . fV; - -3- " It is also obvious from the record that there is no radiological, eri- deace of pulmonary fibrosis. Dr* Slogman, the Applicant's pathologist, testi fied at the bearing that there vae asbestos In the lungs according to the sub mitted samples taken on December 8, 1958 but there vas not enough to show in ordinary X-ray technique. The doctor further testified that fibrosis is usually] found In asbestosls cases and generally the particles can be seen. Ee also testified that most of the noxious agents that affect the lung vlll cause fi brosis . It Is obvious, therefore, that there vas no X-ray evidence of disabling pulmonary disease in this ease according to the Applicant's ovn pathologist. I 10 I Dr. Kineh&v in his report of September 22, 1959 also concludes that the X-ray 11 examinations demonstrate no progressive pulmonary disease. 12 - It is also submitted that there Is no shoving by the Applicant that 13 the lung biopsy vhlch vas performed by Dr. Crenshaw as a diagnostic measure, 14 according to his testimony, vas In any vay necessary or Justified. As pointed 15 wit earlier, the record shove that there is no clinical evidence of disabling 16 pulmonary disease present prior to the performing of the operation. Dr. Cren 17 shaw did not perform pulmonary function tests prior to the operation although 18 such tests were performed post operatively. - As pointed out by Dr. ainshsv in .I 19 his report of October 12, 1959: 20 21 )1 1. <1'> 22 " *** Biopsy served- no useful purpose whatever in a situation such as this vhere there is no clinical, physiological or radiological evidence of disabling pulmonary disease." ' 23 Dr. Cabot Brown, the agreed medical examiner, also points out oo the 24 last page of his report that apparently pulmonary function tests were not per 25 formed prior to surgery and the doctor cannot understand vhy the Applicant's 26 doctor belittles the significance of such function tests vhlch are essential to 27 determine the amount of pulmonary disability present. 28 V. Tba Applicant has therefore failed to show that the biopsy performed 29 la- this case vas necessary to cure end relieve from the effects of his injury 30 inasmuch as standard clinical and functional teats were not performed prior to 31 surgery. If such teats were performed, it is obvious that there would be no 32 necessity for the biopsy because the doctor mould bare found that there was no -V- OOO'JCO @ .^' ' ;# ."* V . ;. . 1 disabling pulmonary disease present according to *i imn*i tests* In this par- j 2 tieul&r case, the operation has resulted in approximately tvo sooths of dis 3 ability to the Applicant along with an expensive tospital bill*. There is an 4 Insufficient' shoving In the record that such major surgery vaa necessary in order 6 to cure and relieve from the effects of injury* . It is also submitted that if the Applicant felt that an independent .I 7 pathological examination vould be helpful In this case, he could tare raised Vet* question immediately after the filing of Dr. Brown's report at the Ccaala- 9 Xioo and he could have requested to cross-examine the doctor on that point. The! 10 report va* filed into the record vith no objection raised by anybody and oov, 11' at this late date, the applicant Is attempting to obtain additional delay sod 9` t .t ** 12 : time in this case for *bhe obtaining of examinations and reports vhich could 13 easily have been obtained prior to the submission of the case* As pointed out .. 'i 14 i earlier, it is also not clear from the record vb&t purpose such studies vould 15 be inasmuch as studies were conducted hy his own doctor and by Defendant's doc 16 tor and both studies Indicated that there vere aabestoc fibers pretest in the 17 lung. 18 , It is therefore obvious that the Applicant has failed to establish a 19 case Lnassuch as there is no shoving that the applicant had disabling pulcxmary 20 disease or ssbestosis. There is also no shoving that the major surgery perforate 21 upon the Applicant as a diagnostic measure vss necessary to cure and relieve 22 frea the effects of.'the alleged injury herein. 23 VTEERSXS, INDUSTRIAL XKDQfTTET COKEART contends tint the findings and 24 Award heretofore issued in this matter is proper in all respects, and prays that 25 the Petition for Reconsideration he denied and that said findings and Award be 26 affirmed. i 27 . - : : . . 2S DatWit January 13, 1$60` 29 30 31 f PATRICK R. ittLOKsr, Attorney for Defendant ikdustrial xkdqstti cokpast / ' 1 State of California ` ' 2 City and County of Son Francisco- 3 4j l. 6 6 PATRICK R. MALCNET, first being duly svorn, deposes aad says: . 7; ! That he Is one of the attorneys for Petitioner UOtEESIAL fsraaiT? 8 CCVPARf, one of the defendant* herein, and that he is verifying the foregoing 9 Anever to Petition for Reconsideration for said defendant for the rmson that 10 he is more familiar with the facts stated therein than are the officers of said 11 defendant and that said facts are vlthln his knowledge; that he has read the j 12 foregoing Answer to Petition for Reconsideration aad knows the contents thereof 1 i } I ooog:^ i 7 nww^TF V 7'A6--C'--'''M 0: V -. ` - fV ML , ct;iTW3t O r.*'hT*Ul. auw*s THE INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION OF TiE^T^^^'j^oPj; .', *' - CLAIM NO,` 59 OAK 1053 5 ROBERT F. CUTHBERTSON, ; > '); 4 * V- ' ' - 1 ^'Applicant,'. mam ^ Oakland 6ffic3 6 .. vs. V- 1 -.v : 6 PLANT ASBESTOS, et al, and - -* UNION MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE " 7 COMPANY, et al, .' _____ . ' "* a *' ' . Defendants. ANSWER TO PETITION ?0R i^ECON- ' SIDERATION 9 10 *. Comes now Pacific Employers Insurance Company, defendant u herein, with its Answer to Petition for Reconsideration in the * , 12 above entitled case' and in this connection, denies: 13 sc; v \ \ xc ,: ;; - 14 : ' The Commission acted without and in excess of its powers; 15 77Y 7 'n; 7 ' <:/ ' ' . ". ' " 16 t - That.the evidence/.does not Justify the Findings of Fact; 17 + !jt'in ' .` V > "; ' -' .. ' .' ' 18 - ; That- the Findings, of Fact do not support the Order, De 19 cision or Award of your Honorable Coomission. . ~ * - * - 20 . 7 'V - "a ' ' 21 * > ; *. - THE PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION " 22 >> . Applicant petitions for-reconsideration notwithstanding 23 o:\conflictlng medical evidence-'between tho opinions of Dr3. H. ' 24 Corwin Hinshaw and flerald Crenshaw/, there was a reference to an '7 ' ... \` - :1 25 agreed medical examiner, fir. CAbot Brown, who resolved.the conflict "f 26 against the applicant... -"'i'' $*' "... ' v . U.-* .., vY - - v. . ; . .. . 27 28 ,I_1 _ 3.-THE CONTENTIONS 0? THE APPLICANT 29 V.' ' The applicant was'employed'sb-an installer of Insulating 30 materials principally..on construction- Jobe. - He' claims that he has **s - . ' ` * . l 31 worked' from 19^8 through'1958 which caused a lung .condition cf * 32 lcn nu*i ** 1, asbeatosis. *^ Vw i-.v-. i: .. ; 7-\ - '** . ' " . w.- .7, -1- ' ' 7 . w-u. .. ; 3^. *. \j \ r.;000;'L. * <i -\ J i\ (i, "pr 1 that an'Independent pathological examination was to be had"* Ko- 2 thlng was said about an independent' pathological study until the 3 Petition for Reconsideration. . Mr.'Schwab arranged for the examin 4 ation by pr,. Brown-'and forwarded all the material to Dr. Brown. 6 While we do not think it of great importance, we believe that the 6 slides ..of the tluade were forwarded to Dr. Brown end were reviewed 7 by him. * At the end. of Mr-., Schwab's.letter to .Dr. Brown, the ,1 * - B tower was told ,if you desire to use the servicos of a roentgen 9 ologist or- a pathologist,: you Are authorised to do soM; If 10 Dr.- Brown .had seen fit. to haveadditional pathological examina 11 tions, we are sure he would/have so*arranged. Had applicant been 12 serious about another pathological examination, we are sure that * ; . ' / - - - ^ * 13 he would then have' requested Dr. Brown to have an additional path 14 ological examination. . The pathological opinions of Dr. Singman, 15 to whom the materiel was referred initially by Dr. Hineha*, andw * IS | ot Ttr, Watsori7' are not in .^conflict, Dr. Watson conceded the . 17 presence of asbestos fibres,_ Neither, of the pathologists tsade a IS diagnosis of asbestosis." : .. - * . 19 it. _ The question here is not whether there was some asbestos ' . ' ' 20 fibres in the lung. ; The real question was whether there had been " 21 s>ifficient exposure^, to asbestos particles of a size and in suffi * - 22 cient concentration'-to cause the disease of asbeatosis and whether ..} '. ; 23 the applicant was suffering from the .disease of asbestosis. . 24 V . It is noteworthy that Dr. Crenshaw at the hearing of . : 25 October 22,-;1959,-could not recall the size and concentration of .26 particles of asbestos which would be.disease producing although.he ; :27 claimed that he had .known this but vao too' tired to recall it. The .; . : 2a applicant argues ini.effect that .the finding of asbestos in the lungs * * ...... ........... 29 mfcessithtes 'the finding of asbestosis. - ; 30 31 32 iucn a riiir* 4n|M|v% *** *. W1f I, %-U*' , Dr, Brovm points out, however, that: '' ; n * f, k'- C* i "A clinical diagnosis of asbestosis depends on a "'history of adequate exposure to asbestos dust, ob . Jective evidence of impaired pulmonary function, and radiological appearance consistent with pro- boouc; -3- t*' yr s1 w p.';wr v , . v ' v /. f V 0 0/ -.'o-rr ':: . '1 V If*. ` 7 " 2 Vi; V' 3 fuse `ground glass'1 pulmonary flbro3l3. The find ing of aabestoa bodies in the sputum or by lung biopsy may clinch the diagnosis when these cor.di- ' tlon3 are .met but the finding of such bodies, per ee, would.not in Itself Justify the clinical diag nosis of.asbestosis.!' . A * .4 V t; . 5 /'y. .V Dri Brown further 'pointed 'out that the symptoms the ap- ' 7 7s '7 * S ' " 4 . .7* ` 9 10 ii plicant was'complaining of were not those usually found in asbes- , ; - 1* % $* .* toals':'.' '. ' *v 7 * " "The dominaTrt, symptom which causes workers exposed to any duet to seek medical advice is, in my exper- / ; lence, shortness of breath,. This is usually associ- . , ated with some degree of cough, dry or productive, 7 as well aa weakness, weight loss, and occasionally . . clubbing'of the fingers. Just pain is not a fre- ... quent or,promlnent complaint." . !2 j Dr. Hinshaw in his report of October 12, 195S, points cut ... / 13 that: . - ,, ' 14 ' 10 . ..7.:- 16 . ' 17 . 13 X ' ` ' 19 "it must be emphasized that the presence of'these ' ^ . fibres bears no relation to the degree of injury, . .* if any, and that other methods of examination must . be relied upon to determine whether significant . pulmonary disease la present. ' '`f........... ' t ' ' `........... .... T ,* w. -J.t - . "Biopsies serve no useful purpose whatsoever in a V; . situation such as thi3 where there is no clinical, physiological or radiological evidence , of dls.1 abllng pulmonary disease."- , - * j ' .. y ' . ` 20 . 7 21 .. ' . 22 . . 23 - .7" 24 ' 25 . . 26 , 27 . 7..23 ' This was 'very aptly put by`Dr. Brown: ' x.. . .. ` ' ' ; " "The point I wish to stress 13 that the mere find- / V ing of a few asbestos fibres in a section of lung '; simply means that the individual has at some time , V. in the past inhaled asbestos particles and does not indicate that this individual has actual- -j :, disease (asbestosis)^"- .* :s Vtj ;* In the conclusion/of ..the Referee, it is well pointed out' w.- that the report of Dr. Brown resolved any apparent medical con filet existing in the case.1' \ i * > X"*k ; ; V ;, > .* PC a : *. * '. 29 WHEREPORB,'* it is respectfully submitted that the ?ind- ''*>>.` * V7--i1 ' *" / ' `. `. ` 30 iogs and Award andkOrder^ar^ groper'inwall,respects and. it .is re 31 32 "Ubic**M**<r-tum t. t] > 5 t/ ........................... ; r;. - . ,- \f .000`J^o 5',.. . ;> -* Q X q&ested, tha^t.your Commission deny reconsideration without further ' , '' .. . . . * 2 proceedings*,' \*4\>% 3 4 t- * `* ^'.Respectfully Submitted: .... r. ' MULLEN &'MMfPI, Attorneys for ' 5 r -+' Q 6 \k,. Pacific &nplo^fs ^Ioai^cpnce Company fly- ' W. Moore . 7 Dated at San Francisco, California, this 11th day of January; i960,: *' " ... .;>,. ", . Copies this date mailed to: ' ; : 9 SMITH, PARRISH, PADUCK & CLANCY, Attorneys at Law,' * - 10 501 Financial Center Bide., Oakland, .Calif. - ' ,`V HANNA (f. BROPHY, Attorneys at Law, - .. \ ; .> 11 15^0 San Pablo Ave., 'Oakland 1, Calif /"' - *; ' ! INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY CO., ' . Vj K 12 350 Sansome,st., San Francisco^ CaliXV STATE FUND, : . X - '' .'..u 13 ^50 McAllister St.,' S;jn Francisco,. dalif. " Z PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INS. CO., / V ! ' ; 14 244pine Sty, San Jfrancla^o/ Calif., % ' ' '****':' 1 / V,' 15 S'-r 16 * j 7/n z-*> ft;* .j . * . ' * v'v;. ?. 17 t;n-_'*; Yr ! .',: V ' * 18 . . ' ~ S A' r. *.; . *''? ( > r ' / 19 Cl 20 21 '7- X -- .v>.r . b--: * - A;.. - "C. ' . kyVv.*'. '. . ? 22 23 * 24 20 V 26 V- 4 A 27 v 28 V* \0 <v:;. \ * > " i 'V *t< i*-. ru-- Sa~.. , 4; 7 jir- .. ;i ... *.**/. i, '* - .' ... 29 30 31 t: 32 MUILCH * FIUPPI ' M>nr|T. /; . -r- .v*r>..` . ' % Ms 4. s.y- V-5- OOUCo W mJ npr ?' vr^vv.^ . *; -:v- 'C'h r::<fia.: ,<;:./^ . ' i 3 ....' :V.:. 4 T' - - $ ; STATE OP CALIFORNIA-'. <.' s CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ) i t: . ' '' 'VI. %-j. JOHN W. MOORE, being first duly sworn, deposes.and says: \ . !* < . ' ; ' That he is-'an attorney at law, admitted to practice be ' B fore all Courts of the State of California, and is one of the at ' ; . - 6 .[ ' 7 torneys for the defendant. Pacific Employers Insurance Company, In V * . .* ,, the foregoing proceeding; that the factsotherein stated are within & the personal knowledge of affiant and .ha authorized to make this ; ..." s verification on its behalf; that he has read the Answer to Petitlorj 1. i : .u for Reconsideration and knows the contents thereof, and the same Is %: * - ' i true of hla own knowledge except as to matters which are therein -12 ' gtated on his information ;or .beliefand as to those, he believes .'. ."13 ' I4 ' -V* 15 It. to be true. r; ' 1. . ^ v' /yy .iOKH- W. MOORE s. . /.y i ,: 16 Subscribed and ioen to before/<Tie this . 17 v 18 ' ;> " 19 / ' r;; 2o nOTaW 'VtfjSLliS'" irn^a'nd ^i'6r~tne (ilty and County of San Francisco, State X . of California " k i s*`- . 21 * '22 y. fi'- .3: V-'--x 23 ** > * . 34 " ' 25 . 26 ' '' , . 27 ' r> 28 ' / 29 30 31 * 32 UU.cn * riiiPPi fT, S'-y.}. vX i- 1. w- y x-' V, .".v <v. > v;- . $; --.lA-r-.v. :v -i . V\ V :!.<' k; .. li y. y r f'tW C .. '--k v V . ** r j i ' *s > >/ < -v.t '-4r - ' *? v-. -,r . * ; ^ r! ( *Tj'; *. - . . w. /.'"f'*'"'/ t!* -6- v:-: : 0000-3 c cf ORE THE INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COl STATE OP CALIFOR1TIA ^ JAN 11 'CIO ROBERT P. CUTKBERTSON, 4 Appllcant, 5 vs, e PLANT ASBESTOS COMPANY, at al. 7 Defendants, 8 ) ) 02k'and Office )------------- ) ) No. $9 OAK 10S3 ) ) )j 9 10 ANSWER TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION 11 Come now the defendants STANDARD ACCIDENT IKSCRANCE 12 COMPANY and TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, answering the Petition 13 for Reconsideration herein as follows: 14 The Petition for Reconsideration proceeds upon the same 15 basic assumption advanced at the time of the hearing; namely, 16 that the presence of asbestos fibers in a sample of lung tissue j 17 is of itself sufficient to establish the presence of the industrial 18 disease of asbestosis. That basic assumption has been shewn to J 19 be erroneous, in the well considered medical reports of Doctors 20 H,-Corwin Hinshaw and Cabot Brown, 21 The argument that reconsideration should be granted so j 221 that Dr, Cabot Brown may have an independent pathological study 23 made is but a red herring drawn across the trail, for the purpose 24 of confusing the real issues in this case. All that such a 25 pathological study could demonstrate would be that the tissue 26 taken from the applicant's lung contains asbestos fibers. The 27 defendants admit that fact. It has already been abundantly 28 established through the report, of Dr. George A. Watson, which 29 is quoted in full in the report of Dr. H. Corwin Hinshsw, dated 30 October 12, 1959, 31 At the conclusion of the hearing held on October 22, 32 1999, the referee advised that he wanted the parties to agree OOOOoO ug2F. a iiJdi2.il wi-^'insi.*., i.ti. ha thv^ snter&d an holding s.: ; >-156 op*R i^js j} i'or ubi idling d ccti `id2 s "i-jed ' m.ii.tal 3ncai.u-.-v IvsiS A, Schrfib? the etfcosewy ::o;? Ac.icrh ; ] j Accident Insu^-towa Company and Tya-ielers Insursr.ee Company^ '. senfaw-ed with tbc it-vcvnsyi representing the c.o^difJr.dant.3, and 6 then **abttiv;$ed nc the a<5to;?r.s:i3 for tbs applicant t list of four ' 7 name a of doctor^ jsiy one of srhich tould bo iccaptihle to ti* | 8 dependents as sa a-,_-eed. tu.-2ical examiner* The name of Dr Cabot S Brown was azscng the four narws aufcnitted* On November 3, 1959# i j 10 th- attorneysfer who applicant advised Mr* Schwab that the appli- ; u cant would agree to an examination and report by Dr* Cabot 3rown 18 . The arrangements' for the examination and report were 13 made by letter aenvby Kr t. Schwab to Dr* Cabot Brown? dated 14 November 12? 1959* A copy of that letter went to the attorneys 15 for the applicant? end a copy also want to the Industrial Accident 16 Commission^ Dr* Gwbot Brown was .specifically advised; 1 .* _ ; .* 17 "If you desire to use the services of a roentgenologist ` - or a pathologist, you are authorized to do so." 18 ; . Dr* Brown did-not consider it necessary to have any 19 further pathological studies, and tbs reason why is perfectly 20 clear when one reads his report* In bis report of November 19, 21 1959, Dr* Cabot Brown states; 22 .. "The point I wish to stress is that the nere finding 23 V' of a few asbestos bodies in a section of lune simply means that the individual has at cone time in the past inhaled 24 | asbestos particles and does not indicate that this individual j. has actual disease (asbestosls)* It is not unlikely that a 25 / good many people who are required to walk passed large !'. construction jobs a couple of tines a day would be found to 26 \ have inhaled asbestos fibers, were it feasible to subject v their lungs to a searching examination. However, the 27 . difference between these individuals and those who have " well developed clinical asbestosls lies merely in the total 28 V amount of exposure. The exact aize of the particles, their concentration in the inhaled air, and the duration of 29 , exposure arc all factors in the total quantity of exposure, ;* It is true that the larger the particles and ths more concentrated they are in the inhaled air, the less the 30 . required exposure time in order to develop the disease. <; There is, however, no evidence to support the fact that it 31 , is impossible for an individual to develop asbestosls from 32 ' the inhalation of smaller particles in less concentration, v provided the total exposure time Is adequate* .CUKO * o*uro* rc> *** / uoo^ -2- trnrwtt . ^?T ' '-'*'* Aik '" "A clinical diagnosis of asbostosls dooer.da upon a history of adequate exposure to asbestos dU3t objective evidence of impaired pulmonary function, and radiolorlcal appearance consistent with diffuse ground rlaos* pulmonary fibroai.3* The finding of asbestos bodies in the sputum or "by lung biopsy may clinch the diagnosis when these conditions are met, but the finding of such bodies per se dees net In itself justify the clinical dla?rnosxa~of asbestogls^111 ' 1 IQnphaals addedj . \ _ In hia report of November 19* 1959# Dr* Cabot Brown also said: . Isa la complete agreement .with Dr. Hinshaws statement, which you quote." The reference is to the following quotation* taken from the report 10 of Dr. H. Corwin Hlnahaw# dated October 12, 1959: 11 "Doctor V/atson'a findings confirm the patient's statement 12 j' that he has inhaled asbestos fibers. The inhalation er.d ' the deposition of asbestos fibers does not by itself con 13 stitute evidence of disabling or necessarily significant occupational pulmonary disease. It would be predictable, 14 - that any person long engaged in the handling of asbestos - materials would collect asbestos fibers in his luncs which 15 would be detected if a sufficient amount of lur^g tissue 7 were examined. It muet be emphasised that the presence 16 f of these fibers bears no relation to the decree of injury, ' If any, and that other methods of examination must be relied 17 7 upon to determine whether significant pulmonary disease is ' presont. The function of lung biopsy in cases such as this 18 .> should be to determine the nature of serious injury and dis- ability when such disability has first been demonstrated. 19 Biopsy served no useful purpose whatever in a situation such as this where there is no cllniaal, physiological or radio 20 > logical evidence of disabling pulmonary disease.9 21 1 We respectfully submit that tbs Petition for Reconsider 22 ation presents nothing that has not been previously exhaustively 23 considered by Dr. Hlnahaw, Dr. Brown* end the referee, and that 24 further studies of any type are not required* 25 ' WHEREFORE# it is respectfully prayed that the Petition 2Q I for Reconsideration be denied. 27 DATED: January 11, I960* 28 Respectfully submitted. 29 c.c, Smith* Parrish, Paduck 30 ? Clancy c.c. Kullen & Pilippi 31 c.c. Standard Acc. Ins. Co* (96-C-960794.) > ' 32 c.c. Travelers Ins.-.'Co. (B-8972691) c.c*. Industrial Indemnity Co., S.F* c.c* State Fund !? V WW  V TF*T". 'fl .ifnMii* ^ifiaaiifliMiiiaM-itfrVnff **'. d|^aij|*iaaLbMUMtai / 1 > : C/ < / . '/< /- X;? V-0`-? L ~i :' , ( .'0 V:"-H>;' - 2 3 Under penalty of -perjury I declare the truth of the 4 following: (a) That the contents of the foregoing document are 6 true and correct of aiy own knowledge, except as to r.atters stated 6 therein on information and belief; (b) that the matters so stated 7 are believed by me to be true and correct! and (cj thjt x 8 this declaration because the facte set forth in said document are 9 within my knowledge and because as attorney for the answering 10 defendants herein, I am more familiar with such facta than are 11 the officers of said defendants. 12 13 JJ 14 15 Dated at Oakland, California, 16 this 11th day of January, I960, 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 i 28 J 29 ' 30 31 v' v v) 32 MANNA A IIOVHV &COi>9 *. AU'8aH T(%** ! t i:r;'n r . "> l. A / ; ^ 000002 i "\ J ,:v> 0 2 3 . cf v<r~r`4. a^^cTi THE INDUSTBIAL ACCIDENT COKMISfex^^s z rcaT^i vsesrara OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CLAIM NO* 59 OAK 1053 FILED ^ JAN 4,1>:c r; 4 ROBERT F. CUTHBERTSON, l '' 5 * Applicant, Oakiahd Clflfio 6 ' vs. -' PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION 7 PLANT ASBESTOS, et al and UNION WJPJAL LIFE INSURANCE 8 COMPANY, et al, 9: Defendants* 10 M tT H . PARRISH. 11 12 i is 5. u I< 14 *J Sea u5t|i 15 so*<.5I3< iJfijS 16 Hi! s* IS 19 20 ' 21 22 23 - Comes now the applicant and petitions your Honorable Commission for reconsideration in the above case on the following grounds: , >' 1. The Commission aoted without and in excess of its powers* . 2. That the evidence does not Justify the findings of fact* ' 3, That the findings of fact do not support the order, decision or award of your Honorable Commission* . Applicant herein objects to the findings of fact that he did not sustain an injury arising out of or in the course of his employment: That his disability was not caused by any injury arising 1 j t j j j 24 op in the course of his employment: - 25 And the order that applicant take nothing by reason of 26 his claim asserted in this proceeding* l j I ! ____ ^ 27 > A resume of the applicant*8 testimony indicates he worked j 28 as an asbestos worker doing insulation with asbestos materials 29 from 1947 through December 1958, the record clearly shows that .* . ] r 30 asbestos was in the materials used and applicant testified as to > 31 the dusty conditions caused by the materials containing asbestos* ; 32 .* ` , He was having pains in his chest so he saw Dr* Lawrence in i 1. * ;. ' c 1\ v 1 z z 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 < 14 IJf 15 ii 16 1958* and Dr. Lawrence referred him to Dr, Crenshaw, a chest specialist, and the doctor placed him in Richmond Hospital on August 3, 1958, and surgery was performed on his lung at which time Dr. Crenshaw advised him that he had a3bestosis which con dition was caused by his work, . ! Dr. David Singman, defendants witness who is a pathologist, testified that specimens of the lung were sent to the State Department of Health and are shown by the Referee`3 memorandum | j "a quantity of formed asbestos was even demonstrated in the tissue" ' [ 1 | . Further the report from the Department of Public Health ; dated December 31, 1958, over the signature of William Thielen definitely shows particles of and presence of asbestos in the ; i : lung. | ' , Your attention is directed to the report namely Dr. George j Watson which is set forth in the report of Dr. Otto Shaw, dated j October 12th, 1959# where the pathologist 3tates that "astestos body disposition is moderately advanced." j j C rn ia uii.bih* An TxTxO Mi uN TV * A T L A W SM ITH. PAR R ISH . PAD U C K ft C LA N C Y Ol 19 ]_. j'.The'testimony of Dr. Gerald Crenshaw, chest specialist ha3 j 20 been transcribed and your attention is directed to page 1, line 23 j 21 And in your report dated Kay 25, >59, you stated that the j 22 studies were made and Indicated that there waa evidence of asgestosl 23 in the 'chest? A. "mat is right. I 24 Q. Do you have any opinion as to whether that asbestos -was causing 25 any disability? A. Yes, I feel definitely It is. j 26 Q And what disability was it causing the man? A. Improper I bronchial drainage." , . Q, And you ultimately did aome surgery! on the chest? A. Yea, we took a piece of lung as a diagnostic 29 procedure to determine the amount of scarring and fibrosis, and de 30 termine the presence of the asbestos particles." Purther on page ] 31 22 of the transcript line 3 And what was your diagnosis. 32 Doctor, immediately after the biopsy was performed? M fT H . PAR R ISH . PAOUCK & C t-AN C Y 1 A* My pre-operative diagnosis baaed on what the history and i 2 based on his working and surrounding environment, was asbest03ls. 3 My post-operative diagnosis was the same* Dr. Lawrence Brown 4 helped roe with the surgery and collaborated* Q, And this was - 5 based upon this history and the symptoms? A* And observation, 6 and.feeling, and palpation of the lung, which to me is a mo3t l | j 7 delicate and definite way of telling how badly Injured the lung la. 8 We are amazed constantly how little the X-ray shows us, those of 9 us reading X-rays and entering chests* Q. As I recall your testi 10 mony with respect to X-rays, Doctor, you are not sure that any 11 X-rays were taken at your office before the biopsy? A* Hone in j .. i 12 my office but, of course, I wouldn't go into a chest without having; 13 seen.the X-raya first* I was being equivocal because I thought j 14 nr '-=5 15 ti ll! 17 -5 13 you might be hedging on certain dates and certain times and making ; much of that, and therefore, the X-rays -- * and on line 9 page ! i 23/ "Q* , Did you rule out asbestosis. Doctor? A* We.ruled in aste8tosls, Q* By* a process of elimination, was it? A. By a patholo-j gical examination*11 again on line 18 page 27, "Q* Is th*re any j 19 evidence that there has been an extension or a change in the fibrous 20 appearance of the lung? A* At surgery there was gross change* 21 Q* Change as compared to what period. Doctor? A, Oh, I can only 22 say, 'speak of the actual time I saw him when the chest was opened, 23 and I had the, lung in my hand. Q,* Yes* When you saw it at 24 surgery, were you able to differentiate it whether or not the 25 appearance you saw were not -- could you differentiate between the j 25 appearance which, you.saw between residuals from a chronic pneunon- 1 27 ltis or pneumonia or whether- it was due to the presence or absence 23 of asbestos materials, or whether it was due to quartz that may 29 be in the lung? A* Ve couldn't tell what the substance was that 30 produced it but we could tell there was definite destruction to 31 this man's lungs, Q, So far as -- by your observation at surgery 32 you knew-- A* His lungs were injured* Q, The lung had evidence -3- GUOU tMMuiiftteHttawiiifiUUt jin"' Prl?"K' 9 ' ^ SM ITH. PAR R ISH . PAOUCK ft C LA N C Y ATTORKCV. A t LAW 1 of injury? A, That is right"* then again on page 30, line 16 2 "A. * * I would deduce from these facts that this man and also 3 from my clinical and surgical experience that this man has modera- i ' 4 tely advanced asbestosis." ** ^ ' . . 5 {. :;At .this point by way of clarification, I think we should i 6 refer to page 25 line 22, "Q. Dr* Crenshaw, how do you define the 7 term `asbeatosisr? A, Asbestosis, clinically, would be impair 8 ment of -- particles within the substance of the lung, asbestos 9 particles within the substance of the lung, producing sufficient 10 fibrosis that the functions, and the lung has many functior.3 be 11 sides respiration# that the functions of the lung would be ispaire 12 It is agreed that the medical opinion of Dr Henshaw is 13 contrary to that of Dr. Crenshaw and it is to be noted that Dr. * 14 i is =!16 II17 5 18 19 Cabot Brown, the agreed Medical Examiner agrees with Dr. Henshaw, however, in reviewing Dr. Brown's report it appears that the pathological report and studies would appear to be the important ' . answer to the case at hand. i i It is my understanding that Dr. Brown did not obtain inde- \ pendent pathological studies nor did he review the slides as Dr. 20 Brown makes no comment on the pathologioal findings and report of 21 pr, George A. Watson, who refers specifically to moderately ad 22 vanced asbestos deposits. The chest men in this'matter have 23 deferred to a certain extent. . . 24 * Dr. Crenshaw based his opinion upon pathological reports, 25 his treatment of the patient as well as doing surgery on the man's . 26 lung and handling and observing the lung and its functions. The 27 insurance company's doctors have based their reports and opinions 28 on the X-rays and pathological reports. 29 Dr. Brown makes no mention of the pathological reports nor J 30 has (he had an independent pathological study made. It va3 within 31 the contemplation of the parties that Dr. Brown would have an irr 32 dependent pathological study made and it ia hereby requested that -4- 000'/*-< f  * - </** . . V' ... i* .. - .` * . .. .. . -' -' 1 Dr* Brown have an 'independent pathological study made to determine 2 the presence of asbestos and whether the asbestos fibres are 3 causing an inClannation or irritation of the lung which can be 4 classified as asbestosls and which is causing the man disability l- * ' ,. 5 from a pathologists stand point# . 6 WHEREFORE# it Is prayed that petition for reconsideration I 7 bs'granted# j 8 9 10 11 12 cct Hanna & Brophy , , 1540 San Pablo Ave. 13 ; Oakland 14 : Mullen Sc Filippi 315 Montgomery St. 15 San Francisco 16 Industrial Indemnity 350 Sansome St. 17 7. Satv Francisco , . i 18 * State Fund ; 450 McAllister St. 19 i San Francisco 20 *1j . -. - 21 22 23 24 25 26 l 27 26 *j. 29 1 .! 3C 31 32 I 1 0000G7 |  O i r>NAM<IU. C tllLO IN A O AKLAN D I * . C ALIFO R N IA ' '"-.Li 1 1 ` *- *,vi PT. ..._,.;|t>.! ^'r-r*7z-.t:iUt;-.';:rawvi- '- -- Q PILES AND SERVED: /< -A~^-- On all parties of record--R. Crowley 1 BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION OF THE STATS 07 CALIFORNIA 2 CLAIM MO* OAK 1033 3 4 ROBERT P, CUTHBERTSOK 5 Applicant 6 a* 7 TOOT ASBESTOS COMPANY, J. T. THORPE, HESTBUf ASBESTOS COMPANY, ARMSTRONG 8 CORN, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, 9 PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY, STANDARD ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, 10 and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND 11 Defendants 12 FILED nrei5i959_ FINDINGS AND ORDSt 13 The above 'entitled satter having been regularly submitted 14 before John H. Ankele, Referee, said Referee now makes his decision 15 as follows: 16 PTNDINQ3 OP FACT 17 1* The applicant was employed by the various employers 18 above named from July, 1947 through December, 1953, and alleges 19 that he sustains* an Injury arising out of and occurring in the 20 course of his said employments, consisting of asbestoels. 21 2* Applicant did not sustain any injury arising out of 22 or occurring In the course of his employments from July, 1947 through 23 December, 1958, 24 3* The disability of which applicant coaplalns was not 25 proxlaately caused, or caused at all, by any injury arising out of 26 or occurring in the coupse of his employments, or by his employments. 27 ORDER 23 IT 13 HEREBY ORDERS) that applicant take nothing by 29 reason of his data asserted In this proceeding. . 30 JHAtro OAK 1033 JOIE' INDUST .jiiuj.i.*. UA, JI. V *vmm**W~ REFEREE ACCIDENT COMMISSION OOOCCJ T 'i tiitfifrrmnn JOHN H. AXXKLE, Referee * Oakland, August 13, 1959 CUTHBERTSOH -- 59 OAK 1053 Iitfuryt Aobestosia REPORT OP REFEREE The employee, an insulator, horn May 4, 1926, claims to hare contracted aabeatosia as a result of his employment. Nothing has been paid. ISSUES: 1. Trijurii, 2. Medical. 3. Statute of limitations. 4. Lack of notice and prejudice. 5. Jurisdiction -- maritime. APPLICANT testified in substance as follows: He obtained the employment records from the union and the employers. In Jily of 1947 he started to work for the Plant Asbestos Company and worked through January of 1948, The period of employment was about seven months. Be worked on ships for this employer, and cork was used for insulation. He worked for J. T. Thorpe from May to December, 1$43, applying asbestos insulation on one Job In Tracey and one at-Hunter1a Point, a power house at PO&E. He cut and fitted asbestos material and used wire and mud in the application. This work went through January of 1949. The places where he worked were enclosed and there would be duet there. Others were on the Job. He then worked for the Western Asbestos Company from January, 1949, to May of 1949. On that Job there was also some insulation of asbestos material for PGSsE, and also for the Union Oil Company. Then he worked again for J. T. Thorpe from Kay 11th through August 10, 1949. This work included Flbreboard Products at Antioch. Vie work was all in an enclosed area. It was hot and dusty, and there was dust from asbestos material. Prom August 11, 1949, through February, 1950, he worked for Plant Asbestos and the work was at Flbreboard Products at Antioch. The work was the same and the conditions the same. From March 13 1950, to August 3, 1950, he worked for the Western Asbestos Company on a POfcS power house at Moss Landing. This was the same type of asbestos insulation, and it was in enclosed and dusty places. . On August 20, 1950, to September 3, 1950, he again worked for Plant Asbestos at Oalland Laundry. This job was very hot and dusty. Prom September 13, 1950, to July 17, 1954, he worked for the Armstrong Cork Company.. . There were about nine months at the PO&E plant in Antioch in 1950 and he worked at Travis Air Force Base moat of the balance of the time. Also he worked in this period at Regal Pale for two months where they used cork insulation, and there were other smaller Jobs during this interval. The PGfeB power house Job was very hot, and (MKKr'H Mill i ia mii lie'erilftlhii ^ Cuthbertson - 2 he worked for Plant Asbestos Coajpany which was all asbestos work at various schools, and he worked continually for Plant Asbestos through Beceaber, 1953* except when he was off on account of a leg injury in 1957. The works all aabestoe work, mostly in boiler rooms and oloae quarters. Be saw Br. Crenshaw on July 29, 195&, on reference from Br. Lawrence, his fsally doctor. He had seen Br. Lawrence two or three weeks before and he did have pneumonia in February, 1953. He had surgery at Richmond Hospital on August 3, 1958, and he was advised by Jr. Crenshaw following the surgery that his condition was due to his work. He hod worked through August 10, 195&, and was off three months, and he returned to work at Plant Asbestos on November 4, 1953. Before his surgery there were no masks worn on the job. He is doing the same type of insulation work now but wears a mask when on the job, continuously. He has slowed down physically and he hurts all the time. He did not work on the Burgerwelater Brewery for Armstrong but he did work at Napa State Hospital for Armstrong, That was asbestos Insulation work and living quarters, all underneath the building. He did not use wool felt there. He recalls working at the State Employment Building la San Pr&nclsco for about a week. Insulating the storage tank. He does not remember doing the Job at Borden's 3alry In Oakland but he could have been on that Job, He worked in a radio transmission station between Bavls and winter one day. He did not work on the Camp Beale Job. He worked at & refinery In Rodeo two weeks or so In tunnels under the highway, insulating. The Travis Air Force Base Job took nearly two years, there was some wool felt used on that Job, but mostly asbestos. He believes that MeKeesby and Madison were the manufacturers of the asbestos pipe covering, and it Is known as magnesia pipe covering, eighty-five per cent magnesium. They use some Fibreglass, and up to 1953 or 1954 he does not remember if they used a^y Johns-Hansville products. On heating pipes they generally use asbestos pipe covering. He has a twin brother named Jack and he worked with his brother at all times, and they were Inseparable. He knew his brother had surgery at the hands of Br. Crenshaw, and he hnd Sr. Thompson check him after his second operation In 1954. At that time Sr. Thompson had X-rays taken. Be did go to Br. Thompson to see if there was any danger about his having asbestosls. Be -------went two or three times. He is not sure when the second X-rays were taken. . When he had pneumonia he changed to Br. Brown. Yhen he first saw Ur. Brown he had tightness of the chest and pain. He *$4 X-rays taken at Richmond Hospital at that time for pneumonia. Be Informed Pr, Brown that his brother had lung trouble but he did not inform Br. Brown of the previous check-ups he had at the hands of Br. Thomson. It was after he got out of the hospital from his own surgery that ^ Br. Crenshaw told him he had asbestosls. 0000 ... ... ... jn ; ' ' iq'y z. tfa Cuthbertaon - 3 He lnforaed the Plant Asbestos Company that he .was going to the hospital. He believes that Blue Cross paid most of the medical bills and son* of Jr. Crenshaw* s bill. He paid about $50. in hospital bills. He drew unemployment disability benefits at $50. a week the time he was off, and he also received $12. a day for hospitalisation. Be knew that his brother Jaok had a proceeding before the Industrial Accident Commission. He understands that dlatomaceoa* earth le the same as asbestos. When he saw Jr. Thompson for a chest check-up he had no chest pains. At that time he was working for Armstrong Cork. Jr. Thompson told him everything looked all right. m May or June, 1958, he began having chest complaints. He stopped smoking on the advioe of Br. Crenshaw. He was troubled with shortness of breath last year. He was off a week after he returned to work in November, 1953, and then he was off another week because of his chest. The eighty-five per cent magnesium pipe covering that they used la manufactured by Pabco. They always use Pabco materials. He did not lose any time before August of 1953 because of his chest. He also worked In some old buildings for plant Asbestos. Be did not have pneumonia before Pebruary, 1958, He did refuse to work on a Job recently because they did. not have a blow fan. He Is still under Jr. Crenshaw's care. Els present cosplalnts are in effect that: be has slowed down, he has some pain, he oannot sleep as well, and It is hard to work. He has been a foreman since 1954 on. was ' ' J. T. Thorpe was all blook work and that/worse In respect to dust. This was eighty-five per cent magnesium pipe covering. It was made by Pabco. He has covered all the employers for which he worked but he does not remember all the odd Jobs. He worked along with his brother fro* 1949 through all of 1950. He does not do home Insulation. Prior to 1947 he was an able-bodied seaman in the Merchant Marine, and he did not have a history of having a lot of colds. He perhaps would get one or two a year. In his bout with pneumonia he was In Richmond Hospital about three weeks and stayed home about six weeks. He felt fairly good after that. Be cannot pinpoint the time when his chest pain developed. It was either In May or June of 1953. He got so bad he saw & doctor in July. It oan be very dusty when they cut asbestos. Thvj cut it on the Job as they went along, and the pounding and fitting would always cause dust. mTK ST* "- Cutbbertson - 4 OAKLAND October 22, 1959 RICHARD S BEAUDRT, celled by the Defendant* Traveler* Insurance Company and Standard Accident, testified in substance aa follows: He Is an Independent Insurance adjuster. He reviewed the job records on which the applicant worked botween 1950 and 1954 at the Armstrong Cork office. He worked with J. S. Taylor, the plant manager. A tabulation was made in the home office In re sponse to a letter of August 3> 1959 (Defta. Ex. 5) The Information under the column "Materials* was made as the result of his lnvestigstlon of the obtainable contracts. The percentage In this col umn "Materials'* stated the amount of material used on the Job and net their content. The imtlAla'KPC stood tor magnesium pipe covering; BQ for "fibreglass." Where there is a dash In the materials column, the contraot could not be found. He made a special study on the Job at Travis Air Porce Base. These were marked as Indicated by the Z's. This tabulation supposedly covers all of applicant's em ployment with Armstrong Cork, VICTOR SACOES was called by the Defendants Travelers Insurance Company and Standard Accident, and testified In substance as follows: He is the president of the Sacoao Manufacturing Company. They manufacture pipe insulation, pump packings and the like. Re has had 25 years of experience. He started In 1934 with the Plant Rubber & Asbestos Company, and worked with them until April 1, 1948, when their factory wa* bought by Sacorao Manufacturing Company. They manufacture wool felt Insulation. They obtain their materials from other manufacturers. They use crepe wool felt, which is laminated, and then covered by asbestos paper. This la then covered with muslin and the muslin will overlap about one and one-half inches at one end of a 36 inch section. Wool felt is about 30 rag base, and 50 to 60% wood pulp of the ta*aft stock. Next to the pipe there is a water proof taraHW&r-. The asbestos paper is a six pound asbestos paper, and Is filled within the wool felt paper for a three Inch thick wall. 13 to 14 layers of wool felt are used. This is the standard wall. They will have smaller and larger walls on the insulation. The asbestos paper is 40 to 50 asbestos fibre. The balance is wood pulp and Kraft stock. There are fillers and sizing to give the stiffness. In the manufacture of air cell insulation, they use a six pound asbestos, which is corrugated, and then four layers are laminated to build up a one inch wall. Adhesive used is silicate of soda, sometimes known as water glass. This Is also wrapped with a muslin and put out in 36 inch lengths with an inch and a half muslin overlap. The wool felt insulation is generally used on cold lines. The air cell insulation is used on hot water lines. The insulation material is cut with taives, table saws or hand saws. The Joints are probably attached with asbestos cement. He did not know because he does not install any covering. Onibeatos Is cade of amosite asbestos fibre, with bundles of sodium silicate. Amosite is a long asbestos fibre that Is mined in South Africa. These fibres are as long aa five and six inches. White asbestos or vlwysotile is mined in greater abundance in Canada. These fibres are about 3/Sths inches in length. He 1* familiar with the 85* magnesium pipe oovering. (joa<j7;j - ~ * j . * . . ' ! ' ` ,-^N 5 ;r- ?r v TT @ . o Cuthbertson - 5 PAUL NIETO, aailed by Defendant Industrial indemnity Company, testified In substance as follows: He Is rice president of Plant Asbestos. Ee has been with them for 12 years. He knows Cuthbertson, and has known Mu for the last slz years. He Is familiar with the over-all materials used by the company. They use 85^ magnesium pipe covering, fibreglass and wool felt. They also use foam glass, cork, and air cell covering. He does not know the breakdown or content of 85$ magnesium pipe covering, but there la a certain amount of asbestos material. The asbestos materials would be adhesives and cements. The last two years they primarily would be fibreglass materials. Five or six years ago Cuthbertson worked under his direct supervision. He then had no lung ecsrpiatjrt?v. He had heard that Jack Cuthbertson, the applicant's brother, bad lung trouble, and that the applicant was troubled and worried. They do not manufacture the pipe covering but they buy most of It from Pabco. They use 85$ magnesium powder cement, which they mised with water in the work. OERALD CRENSHAW, M.D., testified In behalf of the applicant in substance as follows: He is duly licensed to practice medicine in the State of California. His specialty is diseases of the chest, Asbestosis caused the applicant's disability as it caused an Improper bronchial drainage, A piece of lung taken out at the lobectcoy Indicated the presence of asbestos flbreo. The applicant was still under his care. His various employments were the only places where he could have gotten asbestoa in his lungs, and he will need observation for some period of time. - Be first saw the applicant July 29, 1953. He never took a complete work history but he had a history of recurrent attacks of pneumonia previously last year. There were X-rays taken in October 1953, November 195^ and March 1956. He can not tell if he had all those X-rays but he attempted to get them. He does not remember if he reviewed the reports at Herrick Hospital. The X-rays taken at the Richmond Hospital on August 15, 1958.. A bronchoscopy was made on August 13, 1958. He certainly saw an X-ray report before the operation. The X-raya show an infiltration but they did not demonstrate what the infiltration was. He submitted the lung tissue to the pathologist at the Richmond Hospital and received a report as Indicated in the hospital record. A specimen was then sent to the laboratory of the State Department of Health. He never received a written report from the State laboratory but he received an oral report from Dr. SIngaan, a pathologist. Dr. Crenshaw was recalled in the afternoon, and testified further in substance as follows: The applicant returned to work roughly two months after the surgery. He generally sees him once a month unless he Is suffering from respiratory infection. He must he properly treated. He gives him pressure breathing and antibiotics. Antibiotics were prescribed on February 16, 1959 because there was a respirator Infection and a sore throat. Also treated him February 20, 1959. At that time he felt he was getting over the infection. In June of 1959 he had a 100 degree temperature and further anti biotics were preacrlbed. This is the third asbeatoala case that he has had In his experience. Otheroases were that of applicant's brother and a Xr, Thorated. Their employment reoord was similar to that of Cuthbertson, in fact, Cuthbertson's work history was identical. *weffssarii gw?ftjpjw y 000071 Cuth'oertson - $ The biopsy was major surgery, and was diagnostic. Be did not feel that fibreglass had a great effect. Recent nrgary Indicates that It should be avoided. Be told the applicant that be had aabestoais right after the surgery. Asbestos within the lung impairs the function of the lung, Elastic fibres of the lung are affected. DAVIE SINOKAS, M.D., called by the Defendant Traveler* Insurance and Standard Acoident, testified in substance as follows; He Is duly licensed to practice medicine in the State of California. Hie specialty is pathology. He does the pathology at Rlctnond Hospital. He received the specimen Indicated by the hospital re port. He does not know the exact number of actual specimena. He submitted specimens to the State department of Health on December 8, 1958 at the request of Dr. Crenshaw. Be brought them up to the Department of Health himself. He also received the report of t.A. Soave, & doctor of veterinary medicine. He was then called to Sacramento, there they had special X-ray diffraction apparatus, and the quantity of formed asbestos was even demonstrated in the tissue, as Indicated by the report of the State Department of Health. It follows therefore, that there was asbestos In the lungs but not enough to show in ordinary X-ray technique. He can not tell from the repo-t as to the quantities of materials found. Be called Dr. Crenshaw when he received the report, but he can not recall If he sent copies of the state report to Dr. Crenshaw but he usually does. If Dr. Crenshaw did not get a written copy of the report the fault was that of the witness. He, himself, did not see any abnormality of the bronchi! if it is not In his report. Dr. Crenshaw was unhappy with his first pathological report because Dr. Crenshaw had expeoted to find asbestos, and therefore, suggested that It be sent to the State, Pibrosia Is usually found In aabestoais cases as Is usual In silicosis cases and generally, the particles can be seen. Most of the noxious agents that affeot the lung will cause fibrosis. ' ROBERT CT7TKBSRTS0H, recalled, and teetlfied in Ms own behalf as follows: He did not work at the Pacific Coast Portland Cement plant on Kay 11, 1952, nor on the Walnut Creek School on June 29, 1952, nor at Camp Beale on Kay 3, 1953. It was the prac tice of the company to shift the payroll records to another Job when there was a loss on a Job from which the payroll Report waa submitted. Be recalls all the-Jobs In the tabulation except the three he mentioned. He la not a cork man ao he does not use too much cork. Be believes that he Just used cork for about a week in his employment with Arm strong. DISCUSSION AND DECISION: On December 3* 1959 the report of Cabot Brown, *. D., the agreed, medical examiner, was served and filed. . It would appear that the report of Dr. Brown resolves any apparent medical conflict heretofore existing in this csss. Dr. Brown concluded that the applioant does not have Asbeetoala. Therefore, a denial oust issue. JBA: afa/ws/rc 0000:5  /* WAMIN k. MAMMA DOMAkO a bao.my WALTKa JAKOB.IN _____ VAN A. II II III 1 _~ -o.f-TM Arf^t Cof^^on fT ^ 1 V E DJOHN A MAC JONMB* dec-i 1959 lOWI'OW NAB , _IL J J M MC 73^m Daklaftd Otfee_J THOMAS B aikUMalTiOH OONAkO V. MITCHfkW Sioaoc W. BOMMfY Hanna ft Baophy OAKLANO II. CAklAOBMIA TfBAllW* t ill* December 3 1959 IOO itftert ft# fMMlKt 4 fenee QHgt Itegsin v*m tsM. fMt II. C*A>e. |scawt#*4 0*+>tt 14 J Itiift iKlustirtt 14. > Jose 1009 ** Inti? a# Jo* tt. C-auv. Industrial Accident Commission 577 - 14th Street Oakland, California Re: Robert F. Cuthbertaon vs. Plant Asbestos Co,, et al I.A.C, No. 59 OAK 1053 Gentlemens Ve submit herewith the report of Dr. Cabot Brown, dated November 19, 1959, who made his examination and report 4 as an agreed medical examiner. Copies of the report are being served as shown below. Very truly yours. XAflsER Eno. o.c. Smith, Parrish, Paduek & Clanoy c.c. Industrial Indemnity Co. c.e. Mullen & Filippi . o.c. State Fund - S.? ` UOO'JTG _C<*80T aPOWN.M.O. filed (o vjtn r*ert r.eiro DEp 3_ 1959 November 19, 1959 Re: Robert F. Cuthbertson vt, Plant Asbestos Company, et al Mr. Ivan A. Schwab Hanna &c Brophy 1540 San Pablo Avenue Oakland 12, California Dear Mr. Schwab: Herewith report of my findings in the case of Robert F. Cuthbertson, whom 1 examined today: Patient's presenting complaint is chest pain, worse on the left, and unrelated to change of position or deep breathing. It is likewise unrelated to his operation of August 1958 and in fact it antedated the operation by a long time. It would appear redundant to give you another written report concerning his occupational and clinical history. It is probably sufficient to say that the history obtained by me agreed in every detail with the report of Dr. Hinshaw. This refers to his family, past and personal history, as well as his present complaints. One point worth stressing is his complete freedom from pain and shortness of breath during the two weeks vacation he spent at Lake Almanor, despite the fact that Lake Almanor lies at an elevation of slightly in excess of 4, 000 feet, as I recall. One new complaint, which has apparently developed since Dr. Hinshaw's examination, is that of slight productive cough throughout the day. This, together with the greenish morning expectoration, is relieved by various aerosols and ultraviolet light treatments which he has received from time to time from Dr. Crenshaw. Physical Examination: He is a very well developed and well nourished young man, who gives the impression of being slightly apprehensive, although apparently in good health. Stated age 31. He seems anxious to impress the examiner with his veracity, although he evidently has a poor memory for dates and details. He is 5'8" in height and weighs 182 pounds. Temperature, pulse and respirations normal. Eyes: Pupils round, regular and equal. React to light and accommodation. Ocular movements normal. Fundi and disks normal. Nose: Mucosa appears slightly inflamed. There is no nasal obstruction or pus seen. Ears: Drums appear normal. Left not well seen because of the presence of oerumen in the canal. 000077 US5KS1., CABOT BROWN, M. O. M 4to trier* AN *M4NCiCO Page two - 11/19/59 Re; Robert F, Cuthbertson J f| Throat: Teeth appear in fair condition. Tonsils have been removed. Mucosa normal. Neck: Thyroid normal. There is no cervical or other adenopathy. Cheat: Except for the preeence of the well-healed right thoracotomy scar, the findings are entirely normal with respect to the heart, lungs and other contents, of the thorax. Heart rate is 68, regular. Blood pressure in the right arm is 105/60, in the left arm 108/60. Vital capacity is 3.3 liters and the chest expansion 6 cm. Fluoroscopic examination shows normal excursion of both diaphragms. Abdomen, genitals, reflexes, extremities: Not remarkable . X-rays: Stereo and right lateral chest films on November 19, 1959 show no change from the examination of September 10, 1959. I have nothing to add to the x-ray report of Drs. Hinshaw and Garland on the earlier films. Summary and Conclusions: While this man gives a history of exposure to dust containing an undetermined amount of asbestos particles over a period of some twelve years, he has no symptoms or complaints which X would attribute to ashestosis or any other form of pneimonoconiosis. Limited pulmonary function studies gave normal findings, as did physical examination. A review of his x-rays taken at intervals from October 1953 shows unchanged and normal findings throughout, except for the appearance of evidence of scarring at the bottom of the right lung since the oper ation. To answer your specific numbered questions: 1. t am in complete sgreement with Or. Hinshaw's state ment, which you quote. 2, Even a brief review of the medical literature os asbestosis reveals a wide range of disagreement as to the length and concentration of asbestos fibers, as well as the over-all duration of exposure necessary to produce clinically significant disease. One author says that there must be at least fourteen years of exposure to air containing at least five million particles per cubic foot, varying in length from 10 lo ipu microns. It is generally agreed that the degree of hazard is a function of the length of the fibers, but the boundary line between long and short fibers is ill-defined. 000073 anuffc 0 CAOOT BOWN,M.D. *0 tutftft traetT IAN ftAke iCO | Page three - 11/19/59 Re: Robert F. Cuthbertson 5. I am unable to express an opinion and unwilling even to hazard a guess as to when the fibers which were found in Mr. Cuthbertson's resected lung tissue were actually inhaled. It is my belief, as already expressed, that the symptoms which caused him to consult Dr. Crenshaw in August 1956 were in no sense attributable to the inhalation of asbestos particles. 4. I know of no articles on asbestosis which are con cerned with percentages of asbestos in the material to which individuals were exposed. It is however generally conceded that asbestos miners and factory workers engaged in the manufacture of asbestos products have a much higher incidence of asbestosis than do workers who merely handle asbestos products. This brings us to a general discussion of the disease, as requested by Referee Ankele: Asbestos is one of a very few substances the inhalation of which produces fibrosis (scarring) in the lungs, which does not contain free silica. The fibrosis is diffuse and relatively homogeneous, although it tends to favor the lower portions of the lungs and, as in the case of any inhaled foreign material, the right lung more than the left. In contrast, silicosis characteristically produces multiple discrete nodular infiltrations. In advanced states these may coalesce so as to form what appears in the x-ray to be large tumor masses. Both con ditions tend to produce pleural as well as pulmonary fibrosis. The dominant symptom which causes workers exposed to any dust to seek medical advice is, in my experience, shortness of ' breath. This is usually associated with some degree of cough, dry or productive, as well as weakness, weight loss and occasionally clubbing of the fingers. Chest pain is not a frequent or prominent complaint. The interval between the time the asbestos particles are inhaled and symptoms become manifest is undoubtedly subject to wide variation. Individuals probably have to be exposed for a matter of several years before symptoms develop. The point I wish to stress is that the mere finding of a few asbestos bodies in a section of lung simply means that the individual has at some time in the past inhaled asbestos particles and does not indicate that this individual has actual disease (asbestosis). It is not unlikely that a good many people who are required to walk passed large construction jobs a couple of times a day would be found to have inhaled asbestos fibers, were it feasible to subject their lungs / TflUU 000073 .......wir I~ ' i i i i i i i vvr 1-' -\ J CABOT B*OWM,M.D. 4*0 *l/*T*n UN 'IKC'ICO - P*Re lour - 11/19/59 Re: Robert F. Cuthbertsoa to a *earching examination. However, the difference between these individuals and those who have well developed clinical asbestosis lies merely in the total amount of exposure. The exact size of the particles, their concentration in the inhaled air, and the duration of exposure are ail factors in the total quantity of exposure. It is true that the larger the particles and the more concentrated they are in the inhaled air, the less the required exposure time in order to develop the disease. There is, however, no evidence to support the fact that it is impossible for an individual to develop asbestosis from the inhalation of smaller particles in less concentration, provided the total exposure time is adequate. A clinical diagnosis of asbestosis depends upon a history of adequate exposure to asbestos dust, objective evidence of impaired pulmonary function, and radioigical appearance consistent with diffuse "ground glass" pulmonary fibrosis. The finding of asbestos bodies in the sputum or by lung biopsy may clinch the diagnosis when these conditions are met, but the finding of such bodies per se does not in itself justify the clinical diagnosis of asbestosis. I had already dictated this report when I received notice of the impending arrival of the transcript of the testimony of Dr. Gerald Crenshaw, with the request that 1 withhold my report until 1 had read it. This document arrived on November 30. I have read it twice and will state categorically that it has in no way changed my opinion regarding this case. It does, however, raise some interesting points: 1. I am sure that Dr. Crenshaw did not operate on Mr. Cuthbertson in August 1956 on the basis of the latest currently available film, which is dated March 1956. The testimony refers to a report under date of February 21, 1958 of a chest x-ray, quoted in part, "wide spread bilateral infiltration, becoming confluent in the right lower lobe." The fact that this condition cleared up, as shown by the available postoperatire x-rays, proves that it could not have been a manifestation of asbestosis. Films must have been taken between February and August 13, 1958 and one wonders why these are not available. 2. A photostat of the preoperative summary dated August 13, under physical findings of the chest, states "diffuse nodulation throughout both lung fields." 1 am not aware that pulmonary nodulation can be diagnosed by physical examination. It is an x-r*y finding common in silicosis and certain inflammatory diseases and virtually unheard of in asbestosis. (X)OCU) CA0OT 0 MOWN, M , O. 4%0 tgttcn TJtCCT AM Page five - 11/19/59 Re: Robert F, Cuthbertaon a' 3, Dr. Crenshaw readily admits that the pulmonary function tests which were performed postoperativcly were within normal limits. Apparently there were no such tests performed preoperatively. Just why he tends to belittle the significance of pulmonary function tests I do not know. 4. On page 46 he readily admits, as I have stated above, that the mere presence of asbestos particles is not in itself diagnostic of asbestosis. Yours very truly, CB:C Oaoot iJrown, M. iJ. frOffpw*-- JS&"*/v,. & h rs-^y tr' m *&v..., I A ; fr- t:. . 'U ... MMb ' `JiggcW%.';.T-g^'nirfB^U'rs<.-Vl*mly&Tt > y^-j whs iEEFO. THE UffiUSX&LU, A(^rnc!^,r r_r>MMT^rnu m i OP THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ' 1 ' " --oOo-- ROBERT F. CUTKBERTSON, ' Applicant, VS./ ' No. 59 OAK 1053 PLANT ASBESTOS COMPANY, J. T. THORPE, WESTERN ASBESTOS COMPANY, ARMSTRONG CORK, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY, STANDARD ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, *wvBi2K r :'-;vi;N-i>^vi5wn e L 0 NOVJlyi869, 10 and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, teV'MCWte J 11 Defendants. 12 13 PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT OP TESTIMONY before JOHN K. ANXELE, 14 Referee, at Oakland, California, on October 22, 1959, at i 15 9:00 a.a, Wallace H. Smith* Reporter. . : - 16 . , APPEARANCES:., i. w;.,,', : *.. . ....... ! 17 Applicant: 16 ` Present 1 SMITH, PARRISH, PADUCK Se CLANCY: By JOSEPH E. SMITH, Esq. j 19 Deft. Travelers and HANNA & BROPHY : Standard Accident: By IVAN A. SCHWAB, Esq. i 20 Deft. Ind. Indemnity: PATRICK R. MALONEY, Esq. . | j21 Deft. State Fund: JAMES V. BURCHELL, Esq, 22 Deft. Pacific Employers: MULLEN & FILIPPI I 23 By JOHN MOORE, Esq. 24 WITNESS: PAGE 25 Gerald L. Crenshaw, M.D. 1 26 /Z3 cu*- s\/.s. .ssL /// / ^iok'.Vbx *wtjwrni*n.ii~iin>m n' iiimillin i ii^v- ii--it"i-***-*----- -.. n . j*4 : * 1 *, 4 1 (JERALD CRENSHAW, M.D. 2 called as & witness on behalf of the applicant, being first - 3 duly sworn, testified as follows: 4 REFEREE: Have a seat. And your name, please -- * S Oh, somebody has that section of this hospital report. 6 Who has that? . .- . .. 7 MR. SMITH: Has what, sir? 8 REFEREE; That hospital report, li - 9 (Document handed to Referee.) - 10 REFEREE: Q And your name, please? j" 11 A 12 Q Dr. (Jerald Crenshaw, . And you're duly licensed to practice medicine in the ; 13 State of California? A I am. 14 Q Any specialty? . ^ 15 A Yes, medical and surgical chest. Certified American ' 16 Board of Thoracic Surgery; eligible for the American Board,. * 17 American Board in Internal Medicine, and sub-board of * 18 diseases of the chest. . V 19 REFEREE: All right, Mr. Smith. ; * 20 MR. SMITH: Q Doctor, excuse me -- Doctor, you had Mr. 21 Robert F, Cuthbertson under your care for a chest condition? ; 3 22 a i did. ^ s. 23 Q And in your report dated May 25, '59, you stated that the . 24 studies were made and indicated that there was evidence *of i 25 asbestos in the chest? A That is right. s 26 Q Do you have any opinion as to whether that asbestos was > ?tMr+Vn I).<IK /; ! } U'JUUOd T If causing any disability? Yes, I feel definitely it is. L' . Q. And what disability was it causing the man? A Improper bronchial drainage, ' v . Q And did you do anything to correct or alleviate that improper -- '. , . ' A Yes._ ` * ' . .. .' 1 Q (Continuing) -- bronchial drainage? A Since that time we have had to treat him for this per sistent upper respiratory infections well past the tine of 10 a normal individual, and recurrence of such infections 11 productive of cough, pains in the chest -- . 12 Q And you ultimately did some surgery on the chest? 13 A Yes, we took a piece of lung as a diagnostic procedure 14 to determine the amount of scarring and fibrosis, and deter 15 mine the presence of the asbestos particles. ' - 16 Q The man is still under your care? cv c 17 A Still under my care, that is right. ' 18 Q, Doctor, if the man gave a history of working in and 19 around asbestos from '47 to *58, sometimes working In j 20 materials that had ten to twelve percent asbestos in them, and 21 other times using what we call mud that had ten to twelve [ 22 per cent asbestos in It, using other materials that nay not 23 have had any asbestos but were required to use mud that con 24 tained asbestos to Join them, and that the conditions 25 under which he workedwere dusty, do you have an opinion as 26 to whether the asbestos that you found in his lungs could ha^c v/ T 00005T ........................... Wi >H--'**>*'nTrr'fcihrf IT . n. r-trtifi'T-nrrtiVir Hi i t------if r-----------------< ,-- 3 ..a -T!* been contacted over that period of employment? A Yes. MR, SCHWAB: I will object, Mr. Referee, as not a prop;.? hypothetical question In that it does not Include all factor necessary to express an opinion such as the nature of the material, the finished material with which the man works, and what he did with it. After all a truck driver works around the asbestos if he delivers it on the Job. - REFEREE: It is defective in that respect, Mr. Smith. 10 I will let it stand, however, and it will go to the weight. 11 ' MR. MOORE: I will make the additional objection as 13 calling for surmise and speculation. " ' 13 REFEREE: That goes to the weight. 14 MR. SMITH: Q You say you have an opinion: what is 15 it. Doctor?. _. . .. ,, 18 A I feel it has. It's the only source of asbestos that, 17 this man could have, where he could have gotten it, and he 18 has it-present in his lungs at the present time; that's 19 to my knowledge, . 30 Q Does the man still need treatment and observation? 21 A He will need observation for some period of time, 33 that is right,. 33 MR, SMITH: I have no further questions. 34 REFEREE: Mr. Schwab. 33 MR, SCHWAB; Q Dootor, when did you first see Mr. 36 Cuthbertson? A May I check my chart, please? ------------------------------------------ *---------------------------------------- UOtiOfiS- \ kill M UJ"J.V>"TO jPjH lUl'l1 Q Yea, A July 29, 1958. . ' ' ' *; 3 Q You had treated hia twin brother In 1953> I believe. A Yeah, hla brother la not an identical twin; they're just twins. 6 Q No, but you lad not seen Robert Cuthbertson during 6 the time that the brother was under your care in 1953 and 7 5^7 8 A To my knowledge or record I had heard of him but I had 9 not seen him. ' .. 10 Q And do you have with you the history that was taken on 11 the occasion of that first call in `58? A I have. 12 Q May I look at it." ' ' ~ 13 (Document handed to Mr. Schwab.) 14 A In faet, Mr* Robert Cuthbertson waa referred to me by 13 Dr, Larry Brown because of recurrent pneumoninitles and - 16 re current cheat diffic. u.ltie_ s... , ' 17 REPORTER: Doctor who? .. . . v>i*. ' *."*. : - .. 18 A 19 Lawrence Brown of Richmond, California. MR. SCHWAB: Q When he came to you on July 29, 1958, 20 no work history was taken at that time? 21 A I do not believe we have a work history taken from Mr. 22 Cuthbertson at all. . 23 Q You never took a work history? 24 A I don't think so. . 25 Q And you did, though, at the time of that first call have 28 a history of there having been an attack of pneumonia in n 0eW; 1 1^.fm*iy w w. p.u|pyypyiwpywvmi ssnwwuiijiu:;yi'Miji juiy>ijjiau jjj '* *<.9/\'--%i* u-^^-v *.". 1 the earlier part of the year? , 2 A Yeah, recurrent attacks of pneumonia. 3 Q That1a right. Now, when was it that you performed your 4 biopsy? A August 13, 1958. 5 Q And prior to that time had you obtained X-raya taken 3 for Dr* A. R. Thompson at Herrick Hospital in October 1953, 7 November l$5h and March.1956? 8 A All attempts were made to get old X-rays possible. 9 REFDIEE: Will you answer the question. Doctor? 10 A Well, I don't have -- I don't have it. 11 REFEREE: The question is. Did you? ; .. . 12 A I made attempts to get then. I can't answer. 13 REFBlffi: Read the question and let's have an answer. 14 (Question read.) . 15 A Again Z can only answer it X do not have the X-raya 18 present and I can't tell whether I have them or had them. I 17 made attempts to get them. " '` 18 MR. SCHWAB: Q What attempts did you make? 19 A Contacted the doctor and contacted the hospital. 20 Q Did you go out to Herrick and review the radiologist's 21 reports on any films there? 22 A I don't remember that I did, 23 Q Do you mean by that that as far as you can recall you 24 did not7 25 A I did not as far as I can recall it now. 28 Q Now, before you did this biopsy, did you have X-rays OOOOS*? 1 r' ", *yf'9 taken? ' A Mr. Referee, I don't have the X-rays present and I can't be specific as to which X-rays were taken. REFEREE: The <iuestion Is, Did you take X-rayo. KR. SCHWAB: You can refer to your file, 6 A There Is no record of X-rays taken in ray place. 7 MR. SCHWAB: May X see the Richmond records, the 8 earlier one? . ' ` ' .. ...... 9 (Documents handed to Mr. Schwab.) . ' 10 KR. SCHWAB: Q In the Richmond Hospital record there is 11 a report of roentgen examinationty Dr. Lloyd E. Smith, of 13 films taken on August 15, 1958, at your direction. 13 A tfh huh (yes). . 14 Q Are those the first films that were taken under your 15 direction?.. . ...... . .... ...... ... - ; 16 A Yes. Attempts were made by associate Dr. Eldred, who 17 was my asaoci&te at that time, to obtain the Herrick films 18 oh September 2, 1958. 19 Q September? 20 No, beg your pardon. This Is ray error. He was awaiting br.<t- 21 report on the one specimen. We had -- 22 Q You had no films taken until two days after you did the 23 biopsy? 24 A Yes, I had the advantage of films prior to that, however,) 25 X-rays taken -- 26 Q Which ones? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OOQUta. 1 A They must have been the Richmond X-rays or the -- 2 Q You mean the ones taken -- A Prior, 3Q 4A When he was in there for pneumonia in February? Sure. ! i 1 5 Q I found in those records first a report of films on ; 6 February 21# 1958 {handing document to witness). Do you 7 recall whether you had seen that report before your operation? 8 A I saw the X-raysand undoubtedly the reports before my ! 9 operation. j 10 Q Are the findings reported there typical of a pneumonia? H A They're more than typical of pneumonia. They're also | 12 typical of a diffuse -- let me see where it stated -- i 13 "Widespread bilateral infiltration, becoming confluent 14 in the right lower lobe* 15 Does that answer your question? 16 Q Well, by infiltration, you don't know what infiltration? 17 A No. NO. 18 Q From this? A From your X-ray you could not tell1 19 Q Yes. Now, in your report you -- strike that. After 20 the operation you submitted your specimen to the pathologist? 21 A Pathologist at Richmond Hospital, that's right. ! 22 Q At Richmond Hospital, and that's Dr. -- 23 A Singman. 24 Q -- singman, a That is right, 25 Q And did he submit to you his written report? i 26 A He did. m *..-^ -.,r-f-- i -ir;mi th __________ (U)QU^) or --i f-w rT.j"` "r.;Ti4 r.7',r;r^*n!*---vvT.'> i.-r'tr ri:v:-.<.' _ i^Ut ;, --7,.J.-lr-r---'>r--- yv---------- -T ' '.-... . -- - __J__UI---J-WiUiUiKfiHU'Wli*1** mwiimTi------------------t-----.- ....... Q And Is that one In which he gives the diagnosis: 'i - ,-f ' chronic fibrosing pleuritls and chronic fibrous pneumonitis? A That is right, ' Q Now, in your report of May 25, 1959, you say the speci mens of lung tissue were sent to the Health Department for _ study. A By Dr. Singman. , Q Well, do you mean by Health Department -- j A Dr. Singman sent them to a laboratory for examination, ; and he reported to me they were sent to the Health Department'. 10 Q Did he say wteher he meant a City Health Department, 11 a County Health Department or what? . 13 A I have a report here from those people, 13 Q All right, fine. 14 (Witness handed document to Mr. Schwab.) 15 REFEREE: We have two minutes remaining this morning, 16 MR. SCHWAB: Q As I Interpret this sheet you have shown Knu .jiiji 1? me, this is a sheet that was prepared In submitting the 18 specimen? a That'ls right. ' 19 Q Did you ever get a reply? 20 A I have no other records than this. 21 : MR. BtIRCHELL: May I see it, please. 33 (Document handed to Mr, Burchell.) 33 MR. SCHWAB: Q Well, Doctor, this sheet that you sent 34 me contains,the only doctor's name It has is your own. Is 35 this a sheet prepared in your office? / 26 A No, this la a sheet prepared by Dr. Singman^ and sent ----------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- QQtxm. *ir* i ; r:\ tj ' tft ': 13 .tf 4 i -1 i with a specimen to the laboratory. Q And did he send you a copy? : j A I have no copy. Q Well, where did you get this? A This is a copy he sent to me showing that he had . forwarded the specimen. j Q I see. Well, Isn't it customary to include in the sheet ;a i statement of the laboratory work done by Dr. Singraan? 9 A You mean he was forwarding this specimen on to, for 10 further study, and this is merely a sheet. You asked me 11 where the specimen was sent, and there was some question 12 as to which health department had done It. This Is the 13 answer to that question. It was forwarded on to the 14 authority who could determine whether asbestos was present 15 in the specimen or not. . ... . . . le Q You never got any report then from the State Department 17 of Health? 18 A I have no report, no such report. , 19 Q You have never checked with the State Department of Health 20 to see whether in fact It ever did any laboratory work? 21 A No, but I have checked with Dr. Singman. 22 MR. BURCHEIX: Q Is that Dr. Singman? 23 A David Singman, S-i-n-g-m-a-n, the hospital pathologist 24 at Richmond Hospital and Alta Bates Hospital. 25 MR. SCHWAB: Q Did Dr. Singman ever give you any S 26 written report following the report in the Richmond Hospital! uwm. waiyw&u J0000 jl- ~\ y sswr* 5 ' ;j . -aH m il !f*7 II 1Ju mIMmW aMial 1 records? 2 A He gave me an oral report. ! 3 Q And I believe that data sheet Indicates a submission on : 4 November 18th, is it? 1 6 A 11-17-58. 6 REFEREE: Any further questions of this witness? j 7 HR. SCHWAB: Yea. 8 REFTOEE: Just a minute. 9 MR. SCHWAB: Yousaid -- j ! 10 REFEREE: Just a moment. It's 12:00 o'clock. Continued; 11 tol;3o* . / . / .. . 12 MR. SMITH: Your Honor, IbelieveDr. Crenshaw has a j ' 13 surgery scheduled at 12:30 for acancer, and feel3 that he . 14 is unable to be here at 1:30; he can't be here. He can come! 15 later. .' . , . 16 REFEREE: All right, wasn't this the case that Dr. j f j 17 Crenshaw was supposed to be here in August? 1 18 HR. SMITH: That's correct, sir. < 19 REFEREE: He had an emergency then. He can be excused j 20 once but not twice. ! 21 MR. SMITH: Well,sometimes emergency eancer3 arise. 22 Q Is this surgery one that is Just has to be done? 23 A A proven carcinoma, a proven cancer. 24 REFEREE: You see the point here, this was set before 25 and then he had an emergency. j ! ; t j 26 MR. SMITH: Yes. i limit muu 10 ,,i vv-.*; 1 REFEREE: -- at that time, and this morning we waited 2 for him. 5 MR. SMITH: Yea. I can appreciate that, your Honor. HSi 4 REFEREE: And wasted the time of all these attorneys 5 whoeame here. Understand, other people's time 13 valuable 6 besides doctors. The case is continued to 1:30. 7 MR. SMITH: Will you be able or unable to be here, y 8 Doctor? 9 A Who will pay the mal practice? 10 11 A 12 REFEREE: When will you be through? It will take three hours to do this. - REFEREE: You knew you were going to be here for a i4 13 hearing today, you know. ' 14 A I was scheduled at 4:00 o'clock today. , 15 REFEREE: You weren't scheduled as far as I was concerned 16 at 4:00 o'clock. , 17 A That was the information I received, 4:00 o'clock today, j 18 REFSIEE: When did you notify the doctor of this hearing j 19 today, Mr. Smith? j 20 MR. SMITH: Our records show that he was advised of a 21 hearing date. No time was specifically set. Thursday 22 and Friday I went out of town and advised my girl to call > ! : 23 the doctor and to ask him to be here at 10:00, 9:00 or 24 10:00 in the morning, wasn't sure on the time, or 11:00 25 o'clock at the latest. / 26 REFEREE: When was that, last Friday? TT /.**1> \7\\ m- -" v-*jj . *> -^ 4 > - > <;:t r,:i v / :.1h p.-: -j: -i .i' I . , - "rv yv i i' '#i>' mr M>r*B;^p*wyw>iu> +' -<* - --- Hi jni>iMHiiiiiunifmn nmxwn'rgwiiiMT HR. SMITHi Yea, last Friday.' REFEREE; And Doctor, I suppose you had your surgery scheduled already? A Yea, that's right, REFEREE: You note that notice of this hearing was sent out on the 27th of August, Kr. Smith. All right, recess un* til 1:30, (Thereupon an adjournment was taken to 1:30 o'clock p.r.. this date, Thursday, October 22, 1959.) 10 ---oOo-- 11 12 13 14 16 13 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 GOO'J'J * PERALP CRENSHAW, M. D.. recalled as a witness on behalf of the applicant# having been previously sworn, testified further as follows: *1 REFEREE: All right# Doctor. Had you finished# Mr. Schwab? 1 MR. SCHWAB: No# I Just have a few more questions about 1 the nature of the treatment. k REFEREE: All right. MR. SCHWAB: Q Doctor# after the operation had been 10 performed, when did you discharge Mr. Cuthbertson to return n to work? 12 A May I check my chart here? Now, let's see# he returned 13 to work -- what date is the date of the surgery? 14 Q August 13th. 15 A August. Roughly, within a matter of two months. IS Q And then do you have your chart showing treatment sub 17 sequent to that time? a Yes, oh, yes. 18 Q When did you next see him after the return to work? 19 A I have been seeing him routinely. I saw him October 30 27th, October 30, November 28, December 12# 1958. 21 REFEREE: Q At what intervals. Doctor? 22 Pardon? ' 23 At what intervals after surgery? 24 Depending upon his general condition# usually once a & 25 month or if he has a respiratory infection, then once a week. 26 MR. SCHWAB: Q Well, when is the first date after the _i i<ir; 13 ri * ?m j|. a :rrcr*7nr.TTT,p-..-^r7r_''-r~r cigaataAteAfcV U return to work that he had any complaints that required treatment? . A Let's see if I can get my dates straightened out here. Well, he goes from November 28th, December 12th, then to January 10th, of 1959 -- 1958, then 1959, some during February -- . ...... ' . 7 Q Now, Just a minute. On those first three dates did 8 you examine only or did you treat? . , 9 A Oh, treated. He has had treatments at that time. j 10 Q All right, give me the first date and what office history U you took at that time. .......................... .- 12 A It was February 9th, patient complaining of pain in 15 left chest. X-rays of the chest: rales present in the 14 left upper lobe ~ beg your pardon. - . - 15 Q 16 A 2-9-59? } .. . ... - .. .....................- That would be 2-9-59> is the note. Dr. Eldred saw . /. 17 him September the 29th. States good rehabilitation of chest, 18 and -- well, you got me. Then X-rays were taken p.m. right 19 lateral at that time. 20 REFEREE: Q That's '58 now? , 21 A That's September 29* '58, We wanted to know what we 22 were doing. .. 23 MR. SCHWAB; All right. 24 October 30, 1958 -- 25 Wait Just one minute. Doctor. 2d & time. A Uh huh (yes). *rtr Let's take each one at 1/ OUOU^p- ^,,j V-^^M;. >*; V. ,. -ft 1 : 0 Dr. Eldredge. A Eldred. . i* i 2 Q Eldred. That's your office associate, 13 it? 3 A Yes, was. He is now in practice by himself. ' 4 3 I see. And his note. Doctor, is that the man was < 5 getting a good result? * - *.. .. 6 A No, no, Good rehabilitation of chest* ' . 7 Q Yes. A And another word here which I can't read. 8 Q All right. And -- ., .* 9 A X-rays were taken at that time. 10 Q The onV thing the doctor did was to take some X-rays? 11 A Examined him, . .. ; j ' 12 'Q Yes. But I mean he didn't prescribe any medication? ./ 13 A Well, I can not tell because the medication is not put - 14 in the chart. .'.,; . . ..15 ft All right. When is the first date after that that you 3' ...'.. IS saw him? . - /y. ; ^. j ,.. *-,i. - + *.-,- < n ** . ; s. y : ' ' 17 A It's on October 30th, and the reason I didn't see him :! 18 at this time was I was on a lecture tour through Japan,* and 19 through the Par East. 20 Q You mean you called him so you could? A Oh, no. -! 21 Oh, no, this man was in association with me. 22 ft I see. You had come back at that time? af 23 A I came back in October. 24 ft All right. Now, what note did you put in your file j 25 at that time? / 28 A I was waiting the pathological report. |/ i 1 . ***** Jk r ... .. 4 OOOU'JV is 1 Q And then when did you next see him? 2 A January the 10th. Report states patient has asbestosis. 3 Q That's the verbal report you got from Dr. Sln^aan? 4 A Verbal report, that Is right. 5 Q Well, then -- ' A February 9th. ' 6 Q, Pardon me. That wa's January, what date? I didn't get 7 that. A January 10th.. 8 Q And up to January 10th, 1959, you hadn't given him any 9 treatment for -- A Oh, yes. 10 Q For any respiratory Infections? ' 11 A We were treating him to rehabilitate him as far as 12 the motion of hia chest was concerned and that went along 13 right straight up until -- that was before, actually before 14 the surgery -- wait a minute, something is wrong. Oh, I 15 was going the wrong way. My error. That was after the 13 surgery. '.W . 'a- ..r -> . 17 0, What treatment were you giving him? 18 A We were giving him intermittent positive ^pressure 19 breathing and occasional antibiotics. . 20 Q. Did you prescribe an antibiotic? . 21 A February 16th we gave him cerocillin and streptomycin. 22 Q On what date?? A February the 16th. 23 1 Of '59? A '59. 24 Q And that's the first time that you have a record of 25 prescribing antibiotics? 26 A He had intermittent positive pressure breathing right IS" UUUC'JS- .. Jl PWttW 1 along. Yes, that's the first time following the surgery. 2 Q And what complaints did Mr, Cuthbertson make to you 3 on February 16th? 4 A He had a respiratory infection and a sore throat. 5 % The soreness was in the throat? A At that time. 6 Q All right. Had any -- *. . '' . 7 A His chest -- pardon? 8 Q At any later date was there a prescription of medication 9 A Veil, he received a series of one, two, at that time 10 and I checked him February 20th, and felt that he was 11 getting over his respiratory infection. On March the 2Sth, 12 he had periodic treatments and March the 6th, patient was 13 still having pain in left side and was worried about it. 14 May the 9th he had some antibiotics. March 13th -- March 15 9th, patient coughed up greelnlsh material, and was put 16 on albumyeln and other antibiotics.^ .. ,...w 17 Q Are those March or May? * 18 A This is May. May 9th. - 19 Q 20 A May 9th. Yes, he had antibiotics in March; again May 9th he 21 had antibiotics. That was May 9th. May 11th, I saw him 22 and he was improved and stopped the antibiotics. 23 He had repeated intermittent positive pressure breathing 24 to improve his bronchial drainage at that time, periodically 25 during this time. On June the 11th, 1959* the patient 26 still having sputum but it was clear. June the 8th, 1559 T .) ' ,,T v>v W O * ,; .'*/* #*V**T* ** -t'**' *rt .V4^fw>4 WA^S?y;^*i^ r>yw ,> .,. v *.*_ aasammuanaaMassasasssXSSSZST^^ i > '.. . '* {} ? patient had a temperature of 100.2. Was put on antibiotics. Q Veil# on those visits in June# what complaints did he make to you? A Chest pains# sore throat# fever# but no pneumonitis. I am very sure there would have been if it had not been controlled. MR, SCHWAB: I haven't any further questions. REFHIEE: Mr. Maloney. MR. MALONEY: Q Doctor, have you observed any other 10 cases of asbestosis during your practice? ! 11 A Oh# many cases. This is the third in a series asso~ : 12 elated with the same type work and the same situation. 13 Q By same type work, what are you referrengto# Doctor? ! 14 A Installation of asbestos materials. : i 15 Q I see. And you observed three cases of similar nature? 18 A. I did,.. .. ,I 17 Q Would one have been Mr. cuthberteon*s brother? 18 A That is right, 19 Q And would the other one be Mr. Thorsted? 20 A That is right. i i 1 f j | j 21 Q As l recall your testimony/ Doctor, you did not take an j i 22 occupational history when you first examined Mr. Cuthbertsonl 23 No, on Mr. -- on Mr. Cuthbertson's brother we had an 24 occupational history. We felt it was not necessary to go 25 into detail as they worked Jointly together in the same I I 26 situation. Iff Tjou^tr iyws^^!yjii4^.AwiijMiw*|WiWA- jn nmsmuiM'iuiwwj hwjww* '-m ,--iWT.mi*rifcii>- .'AjO>VMA` rw VV*W*. **n.*^UPJMfmiUJlWl JWSfcWttMfipra* nm&i - -r^Hjjtirfc*rtfff-f > 'rJt'J^:>- -'-,iff-t II '--Jn *1 :; i. f* l>) IS 4 41 v* 1 Q So you referred to his brother's history at the tine? 2 A That's right, Z Q Doctor, before performing the biopsy, did you take 4 any laboratory prooedures? 5 A Routine laboratory work was done, of course, In the 6 hospital on admission and I am very sure ~ 7 Q Well, that would be at the Richmond Hospital? 8 A At the Richmond Hospital, and all those reports were 9 here, blood typing, and of course, we always check for 10 tuberculosis and cancer, and diseases of this type. Those 11 reports are here. He was bronchoscoped. No tuberculosis; 12 no malignant cells found. 13 Q Were any sputum tests made? 14 A Yes, actually, there was more accurate washings, in 15 which we got the flow of, or the bacteria of his respira 16 tory tract. ,. .. .. 17 Q, What was the result of the bronchiitest? 18 A Actually cultured for fungi and we cultured for 19 tubercle bacilli, which were negative, and if you would like 20 the various organisms that are present, their sensitivity, 21 they're right here on this piece of paper if you wish. 22 Q Let's see. 23 (Document handed to Mr. Maloney.) 24 Q You say that bronchial tests were negative. Doctor? 25 A For tumor. 26 Q For tumor. -ouoim a 1 Por cancer, that's right, and also for the tuberculosis. 2 I see. Were any other conditions. Doctor ~ 5 What7 - 4 Possibly asthma? 5 We checked for allergy routinely. Charcot-Leyden 6 crystals and eosinophils, which designate allergy, were 3 7 checked for as well. . 8 Q Were any blood tests also conducted? 9 A Routine blood count and urine. 10 Q And what were the results of these tests? 11 A I must get my glasses back on. I still have them 13 fogged. His -- he was running a 12,000 white count on 13 admission to surgery and, but had 97 hemoglobin, and 14 the polys, were fairly normal. Monocytes and leucocytes 15 were within normal distribution. He was a Type 0. Rh 16 negative as far as blood typing was concerned. His urine 17 test was essentially negative. j 18 Q Doctor, after running these clinical tests, you mentioned, 19 was there any clinical evidence of disabling pulmonary j 20 disease present as the result of these tests? \ 21 A Not of these tests. These tests are non-specific tests, f 22 Q And did you take any pulmonary function tests before the 23 biopsy? 24 A Not before. I have some after; following it, but I 25 did not take any before because I feel they are not -- 26 as I have expressed myself in the other cases, I feel the / 1 ' -n . ^ jiiniiai. !C- u as.** ?:v &' '*4 ft.-. , v| j* r 'd 18 'i ri la 1$ ft 1 .3j i j j j V I web ie too wide. There are too many loopholca in them, and as far as function tests are concerned, I do not feel we can rely upon them, and I think that's the universal feel' ing of practically all surgeons, and I have talked to many of them throughout the country, and throughout the world. I take them mainly because they seem to be faddish, and we are In that phase at the present time. Q Now, you performed a biopsy on August 13, 1953? A I have a surgical report here if you wish. 10 Q Doctor, what was the purpose of performing the biopsy? 11 A To find out what this man's disease actually was, 12 and I was very suspicious. It was a diagnostic procedure 13 and also rules out pneumonitis of this type, to rule out 14 a malignancy or a fungus infection or something of that 15 sort, .. . j 18 Q And this is a surgical procedure, is it not. Doctor? j 17 A That is right, an accepted surgical procedure. 18 Q Surgical procedure. 1 Thisusually results in some i 19 disability? i 20 A Some disability, buttemporarydisability; notpermanent,! 21 of course. : 22 Q I see. How long -Is the man generally disabled when youj 23 do this procedure? ! 24 A That depends entirely on the individual but usually two 25 months or more, 26 Q Ie this considered major surgery? -I -tuw'ji^TMTr-ni-rr-Vti M, n jr.i'" "'l**.*?;*'1'..^*"T?*f*<f***^^ * - . * I v _ i - lifer* - !r fr '- f 3 .* ;; ,, v* i t 7A;A ;* j -i: j J J\!1 / \J j J free tft t,u tj.yi f*f.w(gi iwynvi/A <Hmww' '^^Yi r A Opening -- by definition opening up a cavity within a body is major surgery. Q And what was your diagnosis, Doctor, immediately after the biopsy was performed? A My pre-operative diagnosis based on what the history anc based on his working and surrounding environment, was 7 asbestosis. My post-operative diagnosis was the same. 8 Dr. Lawrence Brown helped me with the surgery and col9 laborated. 10 Q And this was based upon the history and the symptoms? 11 A And observation, and feeling, and palpation of the lung. 12 which to me is a most delicate and definite way of telling 13 how badly injured the lung is. We are amazed constantly 14 how little the X-ray shows us, those of us reading X-rays 15 and entering cheats. IS Q As I recall your testimony with respect to X-rays, 17 Doctor, you are not sure that any X-rays were taken at 18 your office before the biopsy? 19 A None in my office but, of course, I wouldn't go into 20 a chest without having seen the X-rays first. I was being 1 21 equivocal because I thought you might he hedging on certain 22 dates and certain tines and making much of that, and there- ' 23 fore, the X-rays -- | 2* REFEREE: Doctor, you Just answer questions. Don't 25 assume if they're hypercritical or not. 26 A All right, air. But the X-rays not being present, I | rou: - ! * X was being equivocal. 2 Mfi. flAI/ONEY: Q Did you ever review any of the ma 3 terials used by Hr. Cuthbertson in hla employment? 4 A I do not believe I have* i 5 Q Could Mr. Cuthbertson1s symptoms have been produced by :!T k 6 other causes such as cancer/ tuberculosis -- 7 A His symptoms could have been, yes, that's right, but 3 we ruled those out. 9 Q Did you rule out asbesto3is, Doctor? 10 A We ruled'In asbestosls. 11 Q By a process of elimination, was it? 12 A By a pathological examination. ' 13 Q This was the examination you testified to earlier, was 14 it not? A Cross and microscopic. 13 Q, And the oral report was submitted to you by -- 16 A That's right, 17 Q -- Dr. Sinnan. Doctor, would the inhalation of dust 18 or particles from foam glass, materials have any effect 19 upon the condition that you diagnosed? 20 A Foam glass? /} 21 Q Yes. A Foam glass. You mean fiber glass? 22 Q Foam glass. a I am not familiar with it. 23 Q I see. Are you familiar with fiber glass materials? 24 A Yes, somewhat. 25 Q Would this material have any effect upon -- 26 A The feeling at the present time is that it doesn't have rVtr a___f_!**> HT^' i r*; - -^ - _H * ~ r lk-^Tv jj_ > - tf- v i^n in n r - , ; nn.i tm n -.^ hi :.:ig * * 5 ^ a great deal, although In the more recent literature It . warns you against Inhaling it in any quantity and that's experimental work done on animals. an Q Did you ever tell Mr. Cuthbertson that he had asbestosis condition? A In my clinical opinion he has it, and I told him so. 7 Q When was this. Doctor? 8 A Immediately following his surgery. - 9 Q In August of -- ^ 10 A Well, right after his surgery. As soon as I had a j 11 definite report, . 12 Q Did you also tell him that this condition may be related! 13 to his occupation? 14 A I don't believe I had ter do that. 15 Q Were you paid for your services in connection with the IS operation. Doctor? , 17 A That I can not answer. My bookkeeper handles that, and 18 I do not have the records present, 19 Q When did you last treat Mr. Cuthbertson, Doctor? 20 A He was in my office on October 12, 1959, for pulmonary 21 function studies, 22 Q And what were the results of these studies, Doctor? 23 A They're within fairly normal limits as far as pulmonary 24 function studies are concerned. 25 Q / Do you have any recommendations for future treatment? 26 A I Yes, complete observation, especially protection from \ ./ . -i W yww,bij m enjjv ^ jii ~0<TOTU\-> ir f=: ?t-i 1' t L .* J- *iitU'< -Jl.ii. < %<>-w- 'ri^'S'" 1 . .*! -^-Uw*< .1 uNr 11 r liiifT^^^^Larara!;^ rajtMtHaWifSTgWSartMiZwMmvm in tvi r *i 1 Mii'inVni ii*i'ininil*M.-+~- t;.. r ,: . 2TJ :% fi j -5 / )r: i <> 1 further Inhalation of these agents that are causing trouble 2 tn his lungs, complete protection. I do not feel he need 3 leave his chosen occupation but he certainly should be 4 protected against further damage and observation because I 5 don't believe any of us know once the fibrosis starts in a 6 man's lung how far It's going to go, and that's the usual 7 story of asbestosis and silicosis. ." 8 Q You say there was a fibrosis condition present? 9 Reported by the pathologist and definitely grossly. 10 By the pathologist, Doctor? 11 And definitely grossly at the time of surgery. 12 Doctor, you also mentioned this greenish material that 13 Mr. Cuthbertson coughed up, you mentioned one day of Kay 14 9# 1959# do you recall when he first mentioned the material? 15 A I have It recorded. That means an Infection in his 18 bronchial tree. That means sputum. Coughed up greenish, 17 material May $, 1959. 18 Q I see. Is asbestosis a common disease? 19 A No, I would say it's not common. 20 MR. MALONEY: I have no further questions. 21 REFEREE: Mr. Burchell. 22 KR. BURCHELL: Q Dr. Crenshaw, how do you define the 23 term "asbestosis"? 24 A Asbestosis, clinically, would be impairment of -- 25 particles within the substance of the lung, asbestos j 28 particles within the substance of the lung1, producing\J ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Itu if;. - > M > i-- ^^ ,.* *v t, MuMfiXhS .**< ,*> a ^^Uw'.Nw--J <1*.%*s *s**/^C yiTOT*' *#^. .*, ,<W* *W * . ^44>M| %U IHi.muM,'<% iik.'>nlA.M>: sufficient fibrosis that the functions, and the lung has . many functions besides respiration, that the functions of the lung would be impaired. Q Are you familiar with the fact that so far as the pathological investigation has been determined there is : i no interference with the bronchi! or bronchioles of the lungl A I don't agree with that. That's the microscopic ! and I am basing mine on what I saw. ' < Q If this is a fact, the microscopic analysis, or is it 1C a fact that there is no interference with the bronchii or , i 1 12 bronchiole, then do you have to conclude that there is no 12 asbestosls? ' j | 13 A Oh, no, I don't accept that in the first place. 14 15 A ie REFEREE: You don't accept what? That there la no interference in the bronchii and i f 17 REFEREE: They're asking you what the answer is if you 18 do accept it. 19 K I didn't, 20 HR. BURCHELL: Q Well, assuming that they're normal. 21 REFD2EE: Assuming there is no effect. 22 ^ No, that doesn't necessarily -- it's true because one 23 >f the most important functions or factors of the lungs 24 -s exhalation in the lung as well as others. There are 25 .bout twenty different functions of the lungs and the 26 ilastic fibres are probably more important in this regard \i 0001G3 . V* ft; :i * i > it . ".`lW wi 1 than the actual conductive system In other disease in 5 which the elastic processes are interfered with by any 3 scarring or sclerosing substance. You may have normal 4 appearing bronchii and bronchioles and have a non 5 functioning lung, and that being true in emphysema, for 6 instance, before it gets into the cotton candy lung. 7 Elastic fibres are extremely important in function. 8 MR. BURCHEXL: Q You feel that asbestosis in this 9 situation affects the elastic fibres of the lung? 10 A It affects their function; the fibrosing elements 11 would affect their function. . 13 Q Now, do you have any evidence in your record that the 13 elastic fibres* function have been affected by the findings 14 that you have made or other people have made in this case? 13 A I do not think so. . 16 Q Pardon me? _ 17 A I have no record of it, no. 18 Q Is there any evidence that there has been an extension 19 or*a change in the fibroua appearance of the lung? 20 A At surgery there was gross change. 31 Q Change as compared to what period, Doctor? 32 A Oh, I can only say, speak of the actual time I saw him 23 when the cheat was opened, and I had thelung in my hand. 34 Q Yes. When you saw it at surgery, were you able to 25 differentiate it whether or not the appearance you caw were 23 not -- could you differentiate between the appearance which 1/ I-JIUJI .J fl r'7 J! i i 4 4 Jl 1 r-j nftrsX- 1 you saw between residuals from a chronic pneumonitis or 2 pneumonia or whether It was due to the presence or absence 3 of asbestos materials, or whether it was due to quart* 4 that nay be in the lung? 5 A Ve couldn't tell what the substance was that produced 6 it but we could tell there was definite destruction to 7 this man's lungs, 8 Q So far as -- by your observation at surgery you knew -- 9 A His lungs were injured, . 10 Q The lung had evidence of some injury? ' ` U A That is right* . ,. 12 Q Would your opinion be any different today if you knew 13 there had been some disposition of quarts within the pleura 14 of the lung? .......... . ^ . 15 A What do you mean by quartz? : . - - : 16 Q Well, let's say -- I mean what the Pubiic. Health.. . 17 Department means by quartz, . 18 REFEREE: Quartz, You know what quartz is. 19 A Silica. Is that what you are getting at? I mean, 20 there are inert substances that don't cause any trouble 21 at all and certain things that cause a great deal of 22 trouble -- silica? 23 MR, BURCHELL: Quartz. ' 24 REFEREE: Quartz. You know what quarts is. Doctor. 25 A I am still trying to get your definition of what you 26 mean by quarts. OOOllO 555353H ti'MV *.. v* REFEREE: The dictionary definition of quartz. . A Would you state your question again to me, please? MR. BURCHELL: Yes. Q Would your opinion be any different today if you knew the record shows there was a distribution of quartz in the lungs? - ' * * v . A My clinical opinion has not changed in this man at all. Q Regardless of what's in the lung? ' - A Regardless of what-' was found in the lung, 10 ft You mean it1s not important to know what was found In ' 11 the lung? V* ;' . *r ^% %7 ' . t , , 12 A Oh, it's very important to know what's found in the 13 lung, very important to know. . 14 ft Is it important to know the quantity of what was found 15 in the lung? A That is right. Id ft Isn't it important to know that it is something that calc 17 not be if there was asbestosis. It could not be reducible 18 by ordinary pathological Investigation? 19 A No, ordinarily pathological examination as done by 20 Dr. Singnan would miss asbestosis except infer advanced 21 stages. | 22 And that's true, the amount that was present was so slight 23 and so small it cauld not be found by the even rechecked i [ 24 pathological investigation? 25 Oh, I don't think that is true. I think theyfound far 28 advanced asbestosis in this man's lung and that's the iyf lNlai.l.lllll 1 *S*.-. If'ia rr. ,-YVr - ^ :S written report, REFEREE: What written report? A Dr, Watson's report, MR. BURCHELD: Q And Is this what you based your opinion on, a far advanced asbestosls? A Oh, no, I am not taking It from his report. MR. SMITH: I think the Insurance company's report shows asbestosls bodies moderately advanced. It's on page two. 10 REFEREE: "Asbestos body deposition, moderately u advanced lung." : 12 MR. BURCHELL: $ Well, there Is a difference. Doctor, ' 13 is there not, between asbestosls and the, Just the presence I 14 of asbestos In thelungs? 13 A It's the amount of reaction around It, yes. Moderate ' i j 16 interference with drainage, ,, . , 17 ft So -- i 13 A But not being an expert pathologist, I would deduce 19 from these facts that this man and also from my clinical j j 20 and surgical experience that this man has moderately advanced 21 asbestosls. j 22 Q Well, what evidence did you rely on to come to this 23 conclusion before yousaw the report of Dr. Watson? ! > j 24 A The evidence was based on the history and experience witn 25 his brother in which I missed the diagnosis, in which the j 23 man had surgery because of an extensive pleural effusion j JL'JjyAlL.WI. JWTfTl-Jvy ' o 7KIU*- ' t-7 ~t: ',.777*.e*;ji7-.^ir~ ; .f " .. ... ^ yi.h-jm u~~'j7f?Mw. mwi iiij! .'tu^a^fwy t'-w- 'W-wW ~2z&&sss3e ' v*. .. . r, * 'Alt's i and I could not determine the nature of it, and then It we.-; on to further trouble. In which surgery was required to make a definite diagnosis again on the opposite side, and ?ar which time we took a lung biopsy and found his trouble and a,- with real damage to this man's lung. That case has been before the Commission and has been settled, as I understand. fc- And this man worked under the same circumstances. He is a twin brother of the man, over the same period of time. 0. Then you base, as I understand your testimony, you 10 based your diagnosis initially on the fact that Kr. u Cuthbertson had a brother who had asbestoaia? 12 A That was one factor, 13 Q, And you did not take a history from'Mr. Cuthbertson? 14 A No, I had the history, I had the history. You're , 15 talking about occupational history. X had an occupational J Id history. '. ' . j 17 Q Doctor, ray Initial question was to reach a conclusion i 18 that the fibrosis in the lungs and you feel Is present, ; 19 and was related to the asbestosis? j 20 A That's right. j 21 $ It is important to know the quantity of the asbestos that 22 Is in the lungs, is it not? A That is right, j 23 Q, That la right. And if it's not found by ordinary ! 24 pathological medical Investigation by Dr. Singman and Dr. j I 25 Soave in their techniques and is only found in minute 26 quantities in the lung, keeping this in mind, and keeping , 1 --------------------------------------?,------------------------------------ (JO X..*> -*-~T'.l*Z'---- . *- -.Xj--*>* ....i--" KaMfifr IfMWMOfMK .^ifr ::. '-f * 31 In mind that the man had pneumonia in the past and other i l chest difficulties, isn't it a distinct probability that the fibrosis in his lungs is related solely to the other condition? A I can't -- MR. SMITH: I will object to the question as being com pound and complex. 8 REFEREE: Overruled. Can you answer? Answer the ques 9 tion, Doctor. 10 A Veil, I wouldn't -- you put up a proposition there, 11 a hypothesis to me which isn't true in the first place, 12 REFEREE: 13 first place? Q What do you mean it isn't true in the , - 14 A He said this man didn't have, and I was basing it on ; 15 things that I didn't base it on, and you said that the ex- } 16 amination of Dr. Singman, who didn't look for asbestos bodies, 17 was a criterion in determining whether asbestos particles ' 18 are present or not is not true; when this question comes up, ! 19 we send it to a special lab. for examination and Dr. Singman' 20 won't even test for it. This is a specialty. . 21 MR. BURCHELL: Well, you asked Dr. Singman to look ?2 again to see if there was any asbestos, didn't you? j 23 A I asked him what he thought of it, and he said, "Well, i 24 send it to the State lab." 25 Q You got his report. 26 A After he got a report from the lab, 1 =ssr 00011 It *--**' IWTII--!K~r irrrt-niT)V|iin-TH)l l ` 'f ` I ""*' `f --*' --* iiw..iawt ?v ? Q No, before you got hla initial report, after he looked at it, didn't you? A Yes. Q And he said he found it was fibrosed due to the pneumonitis, right? A No, chronic fibrosing pleuritis and chronic fibrosing, pneumonitis, which is entirely different from what you are trying to make it out. Q All right. Now, then, you asked him to look again, didn't you, to see if there was any asbestos? , 10 A And he said he couldn't, he would send it to the j 11 state lab to pass on it. He might have said he couldn't 12 find any, but that didn't mean asbestos wasn't there. If : j i 13 I had been served with that examination, we would have . 14 stopped there, and that's no criteria to determine whether : 15 a person has asbestos or not. . I j ' .i 16 Q Isn't it true that after Dr. Singman says his technique t 17 wasn't critical enough, he could not go down far enough to 18 get a small tracer amount, that you suggested that he | 19 send it up to Berkeley? j 20 A No, that is not true. At surgery I suggested this be j 21 sent out for an examination for asbestosis through Dr. 22 Sin^nan, realizing that he doesn't do it, realizing the | j i 23 ordinary hospital pathologist doesn't test for these things, j 24 that it must be sent for special examination. I know Dr. I 25 Singman very well, respect his ability very much, but I 29 would not respect his ability to diagnose or not diagnose OOOXi^ ; WMKHMUUUUOl'nlidtnMritlU'jjAiFamUttMwMtwiUe^A<..- 1 asbestosls as exemplified by the steps taken. .1 2 Q Did you receive a report from -- have you seen 3 the report of Dr. Soave? 4 A Unless it's here, I haven't, and I don't know. .,1 0 MR. SMITH: I think it's that short, that one right 6 there. Doctor. 7 A I have the report here. 8 MR. BURCHELL: This is the one to William Theilen. 4 9 A Beg pardon? 10 Q Is this the one made to William Theilen? :d 11 A Yes, William Theilen. 12 Q December 10, 1958. A That is right. i a 13 0 Which is part of the Defendants' Exhibit No. 6 this 14 date. . 15 REFEREE: Oo ahead. Let's have the question, Mr. Id Burchell. - 4 17 MR. BURCHELL: Q Having read this report, if the 18 pathological investigation, microscopic, clinical testing 19 by the pathologist at the Department of Health is negative, a 20 for any evidence of asbestosis -- .V 21 A Do you read that in here (indicating)? .5 / / 1 22 Q I don't find any evidence there is any pathology \ 23 to asbestos there. i 24 A First of all, this man la a veterinarian, and I don't 25 think he says much of anything ether than the presence of 26 fiber glass and granulomatous lesions that couldn't be J't Vi--------------------------------------(JOU1TT7 T 'jgagasass A _ij.^inMHi-HH>iijw<r_wn>it' i 'fVP**:uwimTru^mviav< if'' [j'` ^na*liry THi fWi i iaTr'( i'V'Ii .:a *4 .. determined from tuberculosis, coccidioidomycosis orcertaln Irritants or toxins. REFEREE: All right, the point is, does that report specifically indicate asbestoala? A The report doesn't indicate anything. Q All right, why didn't you 3ay so? A O.K. He didn't ask me. REFEREE: He did ask you If It indicated asbestosis. A I didn't understand It then. 10 REFEREE: Then you say It doesn't mean anything. Now, 11 answer the question directly. Doctor. 13 MR. BURCKELL: Q Now, If the amount is so small, 13 or of such an insufficient quantity to be able to 14 be determined by microscopic analysis by two pathologists 15 on hlstopathologlcal examination of the specimens that 16 were taken during your, when you did the lobotomy? . 17 A Lobectomy, 18 Lobectomy. X am sorry. 19 That'8 right. There is a big difference. 20 MR. BURCKELL: You're confusing me -- 21 That's what you're trying to do to me, 22 I was going to suggest you would 2Jke to do it to me. 23 If this amount was such a small amount that couldn't 24 be found by microscopic analysis, would your opinion be 25 any different? 26 A Not changed one iota. ^ f r Ii'inn - ' " '" OUUIjt *W"WO-tf **, >* #1.' '* I 1 Q Well, isn't the quantity of asbestos important that you 2 find in the lung? 3 A It's the reaction of the lung to the asbestos is the 4 important factor. 5 Q I think you have already testified that you can not e determine from the reaction as to whether it's due to asbes 7 tos, pneumonia or quartz, can you? 3 A Question once more, please. - 9 Q You could not tell from observing the lung or what we 10 know today what evidence we have before us today in this 11 case whether it's due to quartz, whether it's due to the 12 chronic case of pneumonia in the past or whether it's due -- 13 A Oh,-that I can tell definitely. Chronic pneumonia 14 usually leaves not even scars in the pneumonic process, I J 15 I can tell if it's pneumonia. Quartz -- apparently, I 16 can't get the definition of what you mean by quartz, but j 17 quartz, saying silicosis, I couldn't tell that grossly j 18 between silicosis and asbestosls. 19 Q Well, to produce a finding of chronic fibrosing - j 20 pneumonitis \t any number of noxious gases or fume3 could ' 21 produce it, could they not? 22 A They can produce fibrosis in the lungs, a 23 Q And cigarette smoking could produce it? I i | 24 A Cigarette smoking produces just the opposite. It & 25 produces a vanishing lung. 26 Q Could benzine 24 cause scarring? 1 ilMI< 00011,* frri> >' ~i in i ii--*-timT**! iTrf-'****- ---~- 1 A I have no idea of what benzine 24 causes, | 2 REFEREE: Any further questions, Mr, Burchell? j 3 MR. BURCHELL: Yes, sir. Just a moment, * 4 REFEREE: Let's get on with it. i j 5 MR. BURCHELL: Q Do you know whether your records S indicate if Mr. Cuthbertson had received any medical treafc- 7 [ raent for respiratory infections in the year before you ! 8 1 first saw him? v j 9 | A He was referred to me by his private doctor. Dr. Larry - 10 Lawrence Brown, Richmond, who told me, and in fact, called 11 me as a chest specialist because of this problem* 12 Q When Dr, Brown first called you into the case, did he 13 discuss with you the fact that Mr. Cuthbertson had a brother 14 that had been Involved? : ` 13 A He was surprised to hear that there was a family 16 relationship, that the brother had been exposed to asbestos 17 -- asbestosls, or had asbestosis as the result of his 18 occupation and that this man was a brother, and he was, 19 he could understand then why he had such current respira 20 tory problems. 21 Q If the bronchial, the bronchial drainage and the find 22 ings of the sputum and what not that you identified as 23 late as May 9# 1959* that were present, these could be 24 residuals from the blood and the accumulation of material 23 following your surgery, your biopsy, could they not? 26 A You're asking me, as I understand your question, that qeuiiyiUJMi hjsjkmw i itumiw -------------------------------- ----------------------- 1 '"' "v~ ` . V- I-- 1 changes In this lung were due to ray surgery? ' 5 H. 4*ell, *35s changes were. `' ' `. 3 A There would be some changes but not -- 4 Q No, ray question is, you said that you found a bronchial 5 draining that continued up until May $th of 1559. 8 A Whether they were part of the surgery? No, we worked 7 with this man for sometime in an attempt to rehabilitate 8 him following surgery, and I have already testified that 9 periodically.lasts about two months in an ordinary Indi 10 vidual after thoracotomy* ' 11 Q Had his bronchial drainage stopped following surgery? 13 A No, bronchial drainage never follows. Kis abnormal 13 bronchial drainage at thepresent time exists and will 14 exist because of the damage to his lung, ; 15 Q During surgery there is a certain amount of accumulation 18 of blood and fluid at that time, is there not? , . 17 A Would impair the lung for a specified time in the 18 majority of cases bearing the fact that each person reacts 19 differently over a period of time. We could give them 30 around two months or roughly that length of time for them 31 to clear. Now, if you have diseased lungs and impaired 33 or injured lungs, it will take longer and much longer, 33 Q . I see. 34 A You might be interested in knowing that we are very 25 actively engaged at the present time on a Navy research 36 project, the further details I can not tell, in which 38" Tjrrcrnnr  y.A*'`'>,i'-..'l V;1*..IjiT'i >*;< t*i - '*>><*V ?.-*'.'- *- X the detailed anatomy of these lungs have been found to be 2 entirely different than what some of the other men have 3 been basing their knowledge upon and I Just returned from a 4 meeting in Arizona where parts of that program was given. 5 Many ideas and concepts are going to have to be changed. 6 Q Now, Doctor, as I understand it, your definition of -- 7 your diagnosis of asbestosis is based on the presence of 8 fibrosis in the lungs. . .. 9 A The presence of asbestos products, asbestos. 10 MR, SMITH: The question has been asked and answered. 11 REFEREE: It has. How, let's get on with it, Mr. 12 Burchell. ` * 13 MR. BURCHELL: All right. l I ! 14 Q Besides asbestos in the lung3 and fibrosis, is there anyj 15 other evidence In this record that you found? - - 16 A No, I found no other evidence for this man's disease . 17 than what I have testified to. 18 Q Did any other evidence for your conclusion other than 19 asbestos found in the quantity that was found and the 20 fibrosis - 21 A My conclusion is being based upon the occupational 22 history, being based upon the clinical history, being 23 based on X-raya, being based on surgical observation and 24 gross and microscopic observation and clinical follow up 25 on this man made me come to a definite medical diagnosis of 26 asbestosis with definite injury to Mr. Cuthbertaon's lungs. _______________ ' oomr. -i______ 1 4* <v -*-v 1 Q Now, have you had this matter referred to any patholo 2 gist other than Dr. Singman? 3 A These pathologists here are the only people we have seen, 4 Q 1 see. And this opinion also includes the opinion of 5 Dr. Singman, your opinion? 6 A I can't give you Dr. Singman's opinion. I don't even 7 have his report. 8 HR. BURCHELL: I have no further questions, Mr. Referee. 9 REFEREE: Mr. Moore. ' ' 10 HR. MOORE: Q Doctor, you say you are a hoard, 11 certified. ' i 12 A Board Certified, Founders Group American Thoracic . ! 13 Surgeons, board qualified in diseases. In internal medicine,, 14 and eligible for board of sub-group of diseases of the 10 chest, however, I can not have both because one would 16 nullify the other. Unfortunately, that gives away my age. 17 Q Doctor, did I also understand you to say that the three 18 cases are the ones that you have had experience -- 19 A Two cases in this group. -}, . . 20 Q. Two other cases in asbestos? 21 A In this group. I 22 Q In this group. Have you had others of this -- 23 A I have been in practice of diseases of the chest and 24 surgery in this area for twenty years. 23 REFEREE: What's your answer?? ;<5 26 A My answer is I can not recall any right off-hand but OOOIZZ I" t 'jj! <! w 1,9ms > * I an not sure, I have had others* ^ !But you can not recall them? A I can not recall them right at this time. Q Have you ever had any specialized training. Doctor, in s occupational diseases of the chest? A Yes. 3 $ And where? 7 A X have attended meetings throughout the world and a gone to groups, some group meetings throughout the world, 9 throughout the United States and part of our work in my 10 general training daysdealt extensively with Industrial 11 diseases, IS Q Vhat meetings were these you attended? ' 13 A Internationl symposiums of diseases of the chest; In 14 Tokio last year; made a tour through Asia, New Zealand, 15 Australia; sent out by the Navy and by -- 16 Q Doctor, the question was -- . 17 A You asked me what I had, where I had gone. You want IS to hear -- ' 19 Q Por occupational diseases of the chest. 50 A This all includes occupational diseases of the cheat. 51 Q I asKed you if you had any specialized training In 22 occupational diseases. Y' 23 A X don't specialize specifically but X have as much 24 training as practically all men in thla field, 23 Q Have you ever attended any lectures or studied any of 28 the material in- the symposium at Saranac Lake, New York? L TT j* IIIWUBMWI Wlt'.lil LZ 1 j A Yes, I have looked at Dp. Wright's work on pulmonary z 1 physiology and silicosis. I won't say I am familiar with s it but I know them and I know Dr. Wright, 4 Q Can you tell us, Doctor, what concentration of 5 particles and what size asbestos are pathogenic for asbestos 6 A The size must be sufficiently small to pass through 7 the bronchioles on respiration to be picked up, and by the 8 lymphatics and carried through the mucus membrane at that 9 point, ' 10 , Q Specifically, what is that. Doctor? 11 A I do not remember right at this time.' I am a little j 12 tired tonight. j 13 Q Well, so far as concentration, do you know what the 14 concentration Is? 15 A I don't, I can't. 1 do not. . 16 Q Pathogenic? A I do not know at thia time, j 17 Q Well, Doctor, isn't it true you haven't made any special; 18 training in silicosis or asbestosis? I I j19 A Any special training. I am trained In diseases of the 20 chest, which includes a large part of it, as exemplified 21 by care of these patients. Of course, 1 have. 22 Q Doctor, you don't know what sizes or concentration of j I iI | 23 asbestos are necessary to produce the pathological changes j 24 in the lungs, do you? j 25 A I know that this man has asbestos particles in his lung 26 and I know they're the ones that cauoed the damage. / (K a? mw rt~ni~rnT~i--i-- *>^^r^~""''`*`"'^"^"-`,*'"*J`<J-^ kft#. * REPEREE: Doctor, will you please answer the question.? , :;i A I have had a lobotoray but go ahead. You wanted to know j 7 If the exact size. X can get them for you in two seconds. j I don't remember them at this time, ' REFEREE: I can get them, too, but I want to know if youj know. . ! A Not at this moment I do not know. I have known them !fi many times, - : MR, M0#RE: Q Now, Doctor, there is no reported j Jl 10 specific pathology in any of the X-rays, is that right? j u A As far as the X-rays of the man is concerned there i i 12 actually isn't. If my eyes -- if I had the X-rays here, j 13 but to me there was in my eyes, I feel that a man special- : 14 izing, that there was a fine granular appearance to these 16 X-rays, however, I again can not answer that because I don'tj 1ft know at the moment because the X-rays are not here. 17 Q You don't remembereven seeing it prior to surgery? ! | j ia A Of course, I saw them prior to surgery, ' 19 0. Well, I am sorry. I understood your testimony this 20 morning to be that you did not remember, whether you saw then. ik 21 A I No, the only equivocation this morning was I was trying.i 1 22 I did not remember the dates the X-rays were taken or I | 23 exactly where they were, I would not operate on the man's 24 chest unless there was testing and pathology present. I 25 saw the X-rays at Herrick and X saw the X-rays at Richmond \ =26 ---b--e--f-o-r-e----t-h--e---s--u-r--g-e--r-y---w--a-s---p-e,,rformed. Likewise Dr. Brown \ / oooi;;;/ J- wi* m^wp^gw,yijiii y in,ij niii ^ J wj.li ejujl ! j i 'j ji1 ........... . ,,.t._.r^1J.^.._4. Ji*iniiiurimi~~r ir T~r~-p------- >v- . J% , ; :<' i a would not allow me to operate on this man hear surgery If I hadn't seen them. . Q Doctor, X understand you would not have operated on j this man as you did unless there was pathology visible on X-rays. A There was pathology visible on X-ray. j Q Despite the fact that the X-rays may have been reported j 8 negative by roentgenologists? ; 9 A Who did not have a complete medical history or Informs- , 10 tlon regarding the possibilities of disease In this man's : ii chest. . 13 Q Well, Doctor, don't you. In that situation don't you 13 frequently provide the roentgenologist with the history, 14 tell him what you were looking for? 18 A I do on occasion. I did not on this occasion. 18 This man read his X-rays long before I had an opportunity 17 to talkto him and made his report. 18 Q Well, can you tell us whether prior to the time that 19 you took, whether prior to the time you did your surgery 20 you actually took current X-raye? 21 A He had current, he had recent X-rays taken. Now, I 22 can't remember at this point Just where they were or how j 23 they were, and that's why I was being equivocal this morning j 24 to your other collaborator, but he had X-rays prior to { 25 surgery or we would not have done surgery, and that's a 26 matter that can easily be straightened out, merely getting mi; W1 TiT A'MJjvixyj ---------------------- 000 ^ ;V hiX" ----- 1 IW .r mjk t "JSS :L4'fci to--'-:-~g !r i'.\j i s 1 - Tn -n-*y r- v iTOW HMWfflUTwinuwwrwti ifrtir&rnm *<w-vu *' '' Ifi'liV^iYiiV i 1 the X-rays. 2 Q Doctor, I believe the ones, the X-rays which were for 3 warded to you by Dr. Thompson included those going up to 4 1956 and included those -- strike that. Now, Doctor, so 5 far as the pathological reports again there waa none of 9 the pathological reports showed any specific diagnosis of 7 asbestosis, is that right? 8 A No, Dr. Watson reports asbestosis. 9 Q He reported asbestosis? 10 A Asbestos particles and fibrosis of the lung. 11 Q Well, isn't Doctor -- 12 A Isn't that asbestosis? 13 REFEREE: I don't know, you tell us, 14 A I have tried to many times, 15 HR. MOORE: $ The question. Doctor, whether the 16 pathologist's report -- . ; , ... . 17 REFEREE: Before we go any further -- 18 MR. MOORE: The question is whether - 19 REFEREE: Just a minute. As you say thiB morning, you 20 equivocate too much. 21 A The question -- 22 REFEREE: Nobody Is asking you to argue anything; 23 they're only asking you to answer questions. Answer them. 24 If you can't answer them, say so, 25 MR, MOORE: Q Neither pathologist. Doctor, made a 26 diagnosis of asbestosis? A No. vr oiKn^ I1/ ji r. iiMnwRim a* " , j', wjwiwtwn'*ift*w Q The mere bare existence of asbestos particles In the lung is not diagnostic of asbestosls, Is It? A No. . Q. And so far as the pathological or laboratory studies are concerned, that Is all they have shown, isn't It, the mere existence of asbestos In the lungs? A Am I to answer that Just the way he wants It? Limit yourself solely to the laboratory examination. Laboratory examinations do not show the -- 10 Yes. . 11 Do not show -- wait a minute. Laboratory diagnosis -- 12 the pathologist has not diagnosed asbestosls. 13 Q So you have to determine whether there is sufficient 14 asbestos and sufficient pathological changes in the tissues 15 to cause this disease, isn't that the essential question? 16 A Yes. 17 Q And in this case, this gentleman has had a history of 18 recurrent episodes of pulmonary infection. 19 A Not before e^>osure. I am sorry, I didn't answer it 20 "Yes" or "No. 21 Q Doctor, the flbrotic change -- 22 REFEREE: You see. Doctor, if you will answer "Yes" 23 or "No." To be frank, the way you appear, you impress me 24 very much as being on the defensive. 25 A Not defensive; I am merely tired. }/ ^ 28 REFEREE: All right, answer questions directly.i ________________________ nnrn^Ml "TfiT ^ *,*' . 4 r-. ttl J.r^-r. ni-rHi II.I* n.-i -------i -- .a^4*fc- a;* |H *V>^ii. i W> -.*< ?*-<* ' ' riit<<tfM<iifiiiiMWin^Wfi'ffl"i'it>iiii1:>1,>y'itii*ia<rMi^tfYaBliMMiiifliifV/~i1^>Ti'~TitT'^'Vr' *r i r v,ri',*-- itni * T4 MR. MOORE: Q Doctor, the so-called flbrotlc changes are very, very minor in this case, aren't they? A They're not; no, they are -- now, I don't know how to answer that "Yes" or "Ho." REFEREE; Q Are they mild or not? A They're not minute. MR. MOORE: Q Well, none of the roentgenologists have noted their existence, have they? A Ho. 10 Q Doctor, the temporary phase of disability in this 11 case was caused by the surgery, is that right? 12 A No. 13 Q Well, was he working up until the time of surgery? 14 A He was not working when he came, no -- yeah, he was 15 working. IS Q And the reason he took off work was because you did 17 the surgery? A No. 18 Q. Why did he leave work. Doctor? 19 A What you're asking me -- 20 Q Why did he leave work? 21 A He left work because of respiratory complaints, an 22 undiagnosed chest problem. 23 Q Well, Doctor, the surgery did not, was not designed to 24 alleviate his situation one way or the other? 25 REPEREE: That's been asked and answered, Mr, Moore. 26 Let*8 not ask useless questions. w `W .p u jjijwMJuu [III n.wwip ,uu Ut in . j . J - ~ I ii ii ;ii Vi^'itrt^mar^ j." 1 MR. MOORE: Q What/ Doctor, Is Intermittent positive 2 preeeure Irreattrlng? What la this? Would you tell us? 3 A That's oxygen and air given under pressure to Increase 4 Inhalation and reduce the edema and open up congested 5 air.ways. t* 9 <1 You have been giving that since you gave It for a 7 period from August 27, '58, intermittently, through May 8 of f 59* A And now. 9 Q Well, Mr. Cuthbertson has testified that he still has 10 the same complaints. Doctor? A That Is right. 11 Q But then this treatment has not been very effective In 12 alleviating them, has It? A Yes, it has.* 15 Q What are the normal ways. Doctor, in which you make a 14 diagnosis of asbestosis? ` - .. 15 REFBtEE: Oh, let's not go over that again, Mr. Moore. 18 . MR. MOORE? Q Speaking, Doctor, of vaccine which 17 you have given this man: what is that? 18 A Cutter mixed up a respiratory vaccine that gives them 19 temporary immunity against the organisms within his own 20 respiratory tract. It's a passive type of immunity. 21 MR, MOORE: I don't have any further questions. 22 REFEREE: Mr, Smith, any questions? 23 MR. SMITH: Q Doctor, you made reference to two or 24 three occasions where you have had to give him some anti 25 biotics and that he had respiratory infection. Was there 26 any relationship between the respiratory Infection and the V *7,rr pop*:: a s N<V<> raaggsrascB^^ ?'-v 1 need for blotlee and his asbestosls or not? 2 A There Is definitely, yea. 3 Q What la the relationship? 4 4 A These people, once they get a respiratory Infection, 5 It hangs on because their lungs are not functioning 1 8 normally, and goes into periods of pneumonitis similar a 7 to the one Just prior to that when I saw him. 8 Q Doctor, you were asked, I believe, and shown the report 9 of Dr. Soave, and you had also mentioned that you had read 10 the pathological 4 report of Dr. Watkins? 11 A Watson. 12 Q Watson. Excuse me. Which is in Dr. Hinshaw's report, 13 and there is this microscope, or this report of the 14 Department of Health as to their findings. I don't know 15 whether you have had occasion to see that or not, 16 A Ho. 17 Q I gave it to you. I don't know whether you read it. 18 A I haven't had a chance to see it, 19 Q Would you Just read that a minute and advise whether 20 or not any of those reports, whether in view of your report 21 you wish to change your opinion or diagnosis in this case? 22 A My opinion has not been changed whatsoever. 23 MR, SMITH: I have nothing further. 24 MR. SCHWAB: May I have one question on that? 25 Q When is the first time that you saw Dr. Soave's report? 28 A Today. b6oivi. *,3*5- REFEREE: Any further questional' That's all, Doctor. A Thank you very much. REFEREE: Oo ahead. ' . '........................ MR, SMITH: I was Just going to ask the doctor to send me a bill for his time, which I would file, and I believe we have some litigation costs in issue. REFEREE: Yes, that's in issue. 6 . V.MR. SMITH: Yes. Applicant has nothing further, your 9 Honor. '- ' .. 10 REFEREE: Do you want Dr. Crenshaw's report? Do you 11 want to put that in evidence?'. .- .. 13 MR. SMITH: Yea. * :v- ' M`,"' ' ' " 13 REFEREE: That willl be Applicant's Exhibit Ho. 2, 14 together with his bill. Now, anything further? 15 MR. SCHWAB: No.................... . ... ..... .. . IS MR. SMITH: Your Honor, we would like to submit a bill 17 from Dr. Crenshaw for his testifying before the commission. 18 REFEREE: I am not going to accept it. X am going to 19 make a suggestion. The medical evidence in this case is 20 very poor and very unconvincing one wa'y or the other, both 21 ways. I don't know If this man haa aabestosis. None of\ 23 the doctors will tell me what aabestosis is and what causes 33 it. I would suggest you get an agreed examiner and leave ; i 34 it to him and file his report. Agreeable with you, Mr. 23 Schwab? 38 MR. SCHWAB: Yes, sir. ui iniwu'siyj wa, so -aya. bafciMMTW^ VMM *K n-m i.hi ntt t MR. MALONEY: It's agreeable to me. REFEREE: WIT the defendants take core of It, Mr. Moore? MR. BURCHELL: Agreeable. REFEREE: le that agreeable, Mr. Moore? MR, MOORE: Yes, satisfactory. ' REFEREE: Is It agreeable? 8 MR. SMITH: I will go along with your recommendation. 9 REFEREE: All right, you people get together and pick 10 -out your agreed examiner. Get somebody who knows something 11 about occupation and who has had some background, and tell i 12 me what asbestosis is. Just like they do in silicosis cases.j 13 They tell me what silicosis is and what causes It, the 14 exposure necessary, the size particles. I want some 15 information on which I can decide a case. And see to it 18 that they get all this medical information you have... . 17 How long do you think it will take to do that? I know 18 this is more than the usual case. I agree that thirty days 19 isn't too short. .' 2Q MR. SCHWAS: I don't know whether we can agree to a i 21 man, Mr. Referee. ' j 22 REFEREE: What? .... 23 MR. SCHWAB: I don't know whether wecan agree on a j 24 doctor, `! 25 MR, SMITH: I was going to suggest, why don't you discuss 26 with the Medical Bureau -- 51 \ 1 REFEREE: I am not going to do that. I want all- the 3 2 parties -- that sort of a situation. It would be much more ; 3 scientific) for me to toss a coin, and be much fairer to both: 4 aides. 6 MR. SMITH: To whoa? * 6 REFEREE: To both sides, to toss a coin* 7 MR. SMITH: Oh, all right. . 8 REFEREE: You take any choice of doctor -- I can hand ; 9 pick a doctor. I can hand pick a doctor with the chances 10 of haring one doctor or another doctor with a better 11 chance going to the applicant or defendant. I am not going 12 to do that. I see no reason why you can't get together on. 13 it. '. 14 HR. BURCHELB: Could we have ten days to get together? 16 REFEREE: You can have ten days to get together on it. 18 I don't think you need ten days. You get together on it. 17 Vhat is today, Thursday? You get together on it next 18 Wednesday. Then after that then you will have forty-five -- 19 the submission is: The parties will agreed upon an agreed 20 . medical examiner by next Wednesday and thereafter they 21 shall have forty-five days to serve and file a report of 22 such agreed medical examiner; the case then to stand sub 23 mitted without further proceedings. That's all. 24 MR. SCHWAB: Mr. Referee, we still have some physical 25 exhibits that haven't been received in evidence" / 26 REFEREE: What? iiu-fnhttKK* ;T!1* "* ''-1 .'.uu fl! Lf V MR* SCHWAB: There Is no longer a nan's rooting 4 section at Cal. we could give them to, so I think we 1 I j * should receive them in evidence. - ; . I REFEREE: I don't want then in evidence.. We have got 1 < * * *I! a description of them. That won't help having them in 6 evidence. We have a description ofwhatthey are and 7 how they'remade. That's all we need. a All right, submission as given. . . ..................... j I f j 9 --oOo-- ' 10 u. , . CERTIFICATION . . 12 13 I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true 14 and correct transcript of the proceedings taken by me 15 in stenotyp9 on the date and in the matter described on i 16 the first page hereof. . . ir 18 19 .. . . l(/n 1 Official Reporter" INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION! 20 November 25, 1559. 21 22 I 23 24 25 28 i i mure; - - *1 ; K J'V/.'J Mir ruTwamnuBsj; * LAW OFFtCKS OF . SMITH, PARRISH, PADUCK 8c CLANCY . .\ ' / 0 d~^ flMAMCMl. CIMrtft .UlLtX*. 49IT, ITHIT OllUXO 11. C* L I fO N I A v,.: November SO, 1959 . ' FILED ! Cabot Brown, ;<,P. *50 Sutter Street San # Franc.iaoo. C^ alifornia , , v *vV Ret FOBETT F. CUTHBSSTSOff'tei . tlAtt AfiTiE5TQ3 CO.. Ct ,t Dear Dr. Brown1 You have been appointed i*''an ingjartlal aeileal exarainer to examine t.-ia above client. ' lu hawing-aeript of Dr, CrenehowU"'4- testimony prepared and will forward it to you when received. You are requested to withhold your opinion and report until you nave the .opportunity to review aid doctor** transcript -and findinc# which we feel would be material to ah' Opinion by you, ---- \ ' ` Very truly ymire# eel Mullen * Flllppl 315 Montpcnery St. . San Francisco Industrial Zndeanlty 330 Sanaont Street San Franclaeo Hanna k Erophy 13^0 San Fable Ave, Oakland State Fund 450 MoAlllater Son Franolaoo Industrial Accident Coanlaalocv^ ' 377 - ltth Street Oakland, California jji.