Document v6GqvK43NMjMMY1m70bENVYjb

Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 1 1 In the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Illinois 2 Law Division 3 4 Russell Bremer and 5 Barbara Bremer, 6) 7 Plaintiffs, ) ) ) 8) 9 vs. ) No. 01 L 133 10 ) 11 Metropolitan Life 12 Insurance Company 13 et al., ) ) ) 14 ) 15 Defendants. ) 16 .) 17 18 Deposition 19 of 20 Victor Roggli, M.D. 21 22 In Durham, North Carolina 23 January 22, 2002 24 1:09 p.m. - 2:36 p.m. 25 Reported by: F. M. Harvey Winnebago County, Rockford, Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 2 1 APPEARANCES Page 2 2 For the Plaintiffs: Mr. Steven R. Penn 3 Attorney at Law 4 3319 W. Belden Avenue, Suite 1 5 Chicago, Illinois 60647 6 (773) 289-4393 7 For the Defendants: Mr. R. Thomas Radcliffe, Jr. 8 Georgia-Pacific Church Loker Radcliffe & Silver 9 2 North Charles Street 10 Suite 600, B&O Building 11 Baltimore, MD 21201 12 (410) 539-3900 13 Union Carbide Mr. Christopher Larson 14 Heyl Royster Voelker & Allen 15 Bank One Building, Suite 600 16 124 S. W. Adams Street 17 Peoria, Illinois 61602 18 (309) 676-0400 19 Garlock Mr. Timothy W. Bouch 20 Leath Bouch & Crawford 21 134 Meeting Street, 4th Floor 22 Charleston, South Carolina 29401 23 (843) 937-8811 24 25 26 Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 3 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 3 2 EXHIBITS 3 Defs' No. Description Page No. 4 1 Dr. Roggli's CV 5 5 2 Dr. Roggli's December 20 Report 5 6 3 Handwritten Notes 5 7 4 Dr. Roggli's December 27 Report 6 8 5 Remaining Documents Including Reports 9 from Experts, Medical Records, 10 Transcripts 6 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 4 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 4 2 Whereupon, 3 Victor Roggli, M.D., 4 having first been duly 5 affirmed, was examined and 6 testified as follows: 7 Direct Examination by Mr. Radcliffe: 1:09 p.m. 8 A Dr. Roggli, good afternoon. We're here to take your 9 deposition in the case of Mr. Russell Bremer. Is 10 that your understanding of why you're here today? 11 A Yes, it is. 12 Q Can you identify for us the materials that you've 13 brought with you today? 14 A I brought a current copy of my CV. I brought my 15 reports in this case and my handwritten notes. I 16 brought my medical files. I brought the Notice of 17 Deposition. I brought three depositions by 18 plaintiffs' daughters and correspondence from Mr. 19 Penn's office. 20 Q May I see your file? 21 A Sure. 22 [Witness Hands Paperwriting to Counsel] 23 Q Are the documents you brought with you copies that we 24 can mark and attach to the deposition? 25 A Yes, except for the article by Ilgran and Chatfield. Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 5 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 5 2 I'd like to keep that. 3 Q When did you get the article by Ilgran and Chatfield? 4 A Well, I just picked it up today. It was--I'm not 5 sure when it was sent to my office, whether it was 6 sent late last week or--yesterday was vacation day so 7 I don't think it was sent yesterday. 8 Mr. Radcliffe: We'll mark the CV as Exhibit No. 9 1. 10 [Defendants' Exhibit No. 1 Marked] 11 Q Your December 20 report is three pages, is that 12 correct? 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Mr. Radcliffe: We'll mark that as Exhibit No. 15 2. 16 [Defendants' Exhibit No. 2 Marked] 17 Q Are these your handwritten notes? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Is there only one page of handwritten notes? 20 A Correct. 21 Mr. Radcliffe: We'll mark that as Exhibit No. 22 3. 23 [Defendants' Exhibit No. 3 Marked] 24 Q Your December 27 report is one page, is that correct? 25 A Yes, sir. Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 6 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 6 2 Mr. Radcliffe: That will be Exhibit No. 4. 3 [Defendants' Exhibit No. 4 Marked] 4 Q The remaining documents and materials in this stack 5 are what was sent to you by plaintiffs' counsel in 6 this case, is that correct? 7 A Yes, sir. 8 Q And they consist of reports from other experts, a few 9 medical records, as well as transcripts, is that 10 correct? 11 A Yes. 12 Mr. Radcliffe: We'll mark these collectively as 13 Exhibit No. 5. 14 [Defendants' Exhibit No. 5 Marked] 15 A Somewhere in there, I think, is the article, unless 16 you took it out. 17 Q I did not. I didn't see it either. Maybe I skipped 18 over it. 19 A It's one of the paper clipped things, I believe it 20 is. 21 Mr. Radcliffe: I'll hand your file materials 22 back to you, all of which we're going to attach to 23 the deposition, with the exception ofthe article by 24 Leigh and Ilgran. 25 Mr. Larson: Ilgran and Chatfield? Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 7 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 7 2 Mr. Radcliffe: Ilgran and Chatfield, excuse me. 3 Q Dr. Roggli, when you wrote your report on December 4 20, what were your conclusions about the cause of Mr. 5 Bremer's mesothelioma? 6 A I need to see my--okay. I don't think my December 20 7 report dealt with causation, as I recall. 8 [Witness Peruses Document] 9 A Yes, that's correct. 10 Q Now, is that because the materials sent to you at 11 that time were not sufficient for you to reach an 12 opinion about causation? 13 A No, not necessarily. It was--the way I typically do 14 these cases is that my report about the pathologic 15 findings deals with objective findings, medical or 16 pathological, that allow me to determine about 17 whether a mesothelioma is related. If it cannot be 18 determined from that information, then I have to rely 19 on subjective information, which I typically do in a 20 separate report. 21 Q The objective information that you had, did anyone 22 describe finding any asbestos-related disease--a non- 23 malignant asbestos-related disease in Mr. Bremer? 24 A Not to my knowledge. 25 Q Did anyone describe finding asbestos bodies or above- Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 8 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 8 2 background asbestos fiber levels in Mr. Bremer? 3 A No. 4 Q Objectively, if all you had to go by was the medical 5 records and the results of the various medical tests, 6 what would your conclusion be about the cause of his 7 mesothelioma? 8 A It would be inconclusive. 9 Q So the additional materials which are collected in 10 Exhibit No. 5 are the materials upon which you 11 relying in order to reach your conclusion as to the 12 cause of Mr. Bremer's mesothelioma? 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q Now, included in that stack of materials there were 15 some reports from other experts, including Dr. Crapo, 16 I saw Dr. Barrett, and Dr. Dyson, is that correct? 17 A Yes, sir. 18 Q You're familiar with Dr. Crapo, correct? 19 A Yes. 20 Q And are you familiar with Dr. Dyson? 21 A I've heard the name. I'm not really familiar with 22 his work. 23 Q Did you read--do you understand Dr. Dyson to be a 24 certified industrial hygienist? 25 A Yes. Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 9 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 9 2 Q Did you read his report? 3 A I skimmed through it. I did not read it in great 4 detail. 5 Q Did your skimming through of his report affect your 6 opinion in any way? 7 A No. 8 Q Were Dr. Dyson's conclusions about the allegations of 9 exposure different or the same as the information 10 that you've been provided and upon which you're 11 relying? 12 A I'd have to look back, because I don't have any 13 recollection sitting here today of what Dr. Dyson's 14 report said. 15 Q Did you read Dr. Crapo's report? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Did Dr. Crapo's opinions differ with your opinions in 18 the case? 19 A Yes. 20 Q In what material way? 21 A I think that Dr. Crapo did not believe that exposure 22 to joint compounds contributed to the mesothelioma. 23 Q Did Dr. Crapo believe this to be an idiopathic 24 mesothelioma? 25 A I think so, yes. Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 10 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 10 2 Q You do agree thatidiopathic mesotheliomas exist, 3 right? 4 A Yes, sir. 5 Q And there are a certain percentage of cases that-- 6 mesothelioma cases that occur for which we are unable 7 to determine a cause, correct? 8 A Correct. 9 Q And of those cases, there are probably a portion of 10 them that just occur without any specific agent or 11 material being the cause of that cancer, is that 12 correct? 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q So in order to distinguish between a mesothelioma 15 that occurs just naturally without any cause and one 16 that occurs as a result of exposure to asbestos you 17 have some criteria that you apply, is that correct? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q What are those criteria? 20 A Well, the criteria is basically that the person has a 21 level of asbestos in their lungs that's above that of 22 background. And there are a number of things that 23 you can look at to determine that, objective and 24 subjective data to try to determine whether or not 25 that is likely to be the case. Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 11 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 11 2 Q In this case we don't have any objective data that 3 lets you conclude that Mr. Bremer did, in fact, or 4 does, in fact, have above-background levels of 5 asbestos in his lung tissue, is that correct? 6 A That's correct. 7 Q So you have to point to the subjective? You have to 8 look at the subjective data, is that correct? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q And the subjective data in this case necessarily 11 relies on people's memories from 30 or 40 years ago, 12 is that correct? 13 A Yes. 14 Q A person can--you agree with me that a person can use 15 an asbestos-containing joint compound and not have 16 above-background levels of asbestos in his or her 17 lung tissue, is that correct? 18 A That canhappen. 19 Q And so what you want to see--you, Dr. Roggli, want to 20 see in a case like this is a description of use of a 21 joint compound for a sufficient length of time that 22 would result in an above-background level of asbestos 23 in lung tissue, is that correct? 24 A Yes, sir. 25 Q And what is that length of time? Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 12 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 12 2 A A couple of months. 3 Q I want to talk to you specifically about the joint 4 compound allegedly manufactured or sold by Georgia- 5 Pacific. You understand that there was one five- 6 gallon bucket of Georgia-Pacific joint compound that 7 Mr. Bremer allegedly worked with or around? 8 A I didn't know it was only one bucket, no, sir. 9 Q Assume for me that there's only one five-gallon 10 bucket. 11 A Okay. 12 Q You agree with me, based on just common sense, common 13 knowledge, and your review of the available 14 literature about drywallers and people who work with 15 joint compound that that five-gallon bucket is not 16 going to last indefinitely, correct? 17 A Sure. 18 Q The use of the joint compound is going to make that 19 five gallons disappear over a certain amount of time, 20 correct? 21 A Sure. 22 Q Do you know how long it takes for a person to apply 23 five gallons of ready-mixed joint compound? 24 A I have no idea. 25 Q Do you know how much wall board--how many seams or Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 13 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 13 2 cracks are filled with one five-gallon bucket of 3 ready-mixed joint compound? 4 A I would think it would fill a lot of seams, but I 5 don't know. 6 Q Is one five-gallon bucket of joint compound enough to 7 do an entire house? 8 A I do not know. 9 Q Ready-mixed joint compound comes premixed and ready 10 to apply. Do you understand that to be the case? 11 A Yes, sir. 12 Q And do you understand it to be the case that once you 13 open and start to use ready-mixed joint compound that 14 it starts to harden and stiffen so you have to use it 15 within a relatively short amount of time--weeks or 16 months at the greatest? 17 A I wasn't aware of that. 18 Q Does that make sense to you that ready-mixed joint 19 compound is going to start to harden or stiffen in 20 the can once you open it and expose it to air? 21 A I know that happens with paint, but I don't know 22 about joint compounds. 23 Q Do you understand that Mr. Bremer described using 24 joint compound in connection with remodeling work 25 that he was doing? Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 14 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 14 2 A Yes, sir. 3 Q And that would involve putting up drywall and coming 4 back later to tape the joints and coming back later 5 and finishing those walls? 6 A Yes. 7 Q The process of remodeling, if that takes three 8 months, just hypothetically speaking, you'd agree 9 that only a percentage of that time was spent working 10 with the joint compound, correct? 11 A Yes. 12 Q And of the percentage of the time that was spent 13 working with the joint compound, you'd agree that 14 only a smaller percentage of that time would actually 15 have been the time when there was any dust created 16 from the joint compound, correct? 17 A Yes. 18 Q There's no dust created when you take ready-mixed 19 joint compound out of the box and apply it, correct? 20 A Not that I know of. 21 Q I said out of a box--out of a bucket? 22 A Yes. 23 Q When you say that your criteria-it's a matter of 24 months of use before you can say that a product such 25 as joint compound would result in an above-background Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 15 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 15 2 accumulation of asbestos in the lung tissue, is it 3 your understanding that a single five-gallon bucket 4 of ready-mixed joint compound would result in that 5 much exposure? 6 A I don't know. 7 Q When you say it's several months that you require of 8 use, that's several months of continuous use, right? 9 A No, a couple of months would be a minimum of two 10 months, and that's cumulative. 11 Q Cumulative. So in other words, if I have a bucket of 12 joint compound and I use it over the course of two 13 months, but I only use it on three days, that's not 14 two months of use, correct? 15 A That's correct. 16 Q And you know how big a five-gallon bucket of joint 17 compound is, don't you? 18 A Yes. 19 Q You've seen five-gallon buckets before? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 Q If someone was to use that over a three-month time 22 frame and every day they would open it and they would 23 only take a small portion--maybe amounting to a half 24 cup or so-of joint compound and use that and that 25 would be the only use that day, would that three Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 16 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 16 2 months amount to the two months minimum that you 3 require? 4 A Well, each of the days needs to have a couple of 5 hours of exposure to levels above background, and the 6 way joint compounds are used and create levels above 7 background is more in the area of an industrial 8 hygienist than it would be in my area of expertise. 9 Q So in this case you're relying on the allegation or 10 the claim that the Georgia-Pacific joint compound 11 was, in fact, used for at least a couple of hours 12 each day for two months minimum, correct? 13 A Or that there was exposure to dust from that for at 14 least over a two-hour period--levels above 15 background. 16 Q And you're not in this case to say whether or not 17 those allegations or claims are true? 18 A That's correct. 19 Q And if at the end of the case the jury finds that 20 those allegations or claims are not true, that it was 21 less than two months, then your opinion would be that 22 that's not a sufficient exposure to have been a cause 23 of Mr. Bremer's mesothelioma, is that correct? 24 A That's correct. 25 Q Are you aware of the fiber type that was used in the Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 17 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 17 2 Georgia-Pacific joint compound allegedly at issue in 3 this case? 4 A Yes, sir. 5 Q And what is that fiber type? 6 A Chrysotile. 7 Q Are you aware of the results of any testing of 8 Georgia-Pacific joint compound that show amphibole 9 contaminants or amphibole levels in the joint 10 compound? 11 A I'm not aware of any testing in that regard, no. 12 Q If the evidence at trial is that Georgia-Pacific 13 joint compound has been tested and that the only 14 fiber found in the joint compound is chrysotile, 15 would you then conclude that you do not have enough 16 information to say that Mr. Bremer's mesothelioma is 17 causally related to his alleged use of Georgia- 18 Pacific joint compound? 19 A No, I wouldn't say that. 20 Q Hypothetically, if the only fiber in Georgia-Pacific 21 joint compound is chrysotile, you would agree with me 22 that the joint compound manufactured and sold by 23 Georgia-Pacific was not a cause of Mr. Bremer's 24 mesothelioma, correct? 25 A I would agree that I would not be able to say to a Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 18 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 18 2 reasonable degree of medical certainty that it was a 3 contributor. 4 Q And you understand that that's the requirement that 5 you have to follow in testimony in court, correct? 6 A That's my understanding of the burden of proof and 7 the level of certainty that I, as an expert, have to 8 use, yes. 9 Mr. Radcliffe: May I see the Exhibit No. 5 10 materials right there. 11 [Witness Hands Paperwriting to Counsel] 12 Q In your review of Dr. Crapo's report, did you form 13 any criticisms of any of the statements that he made 14 in here? 15 A I'd have to look back at it specifically to see if 16 there was anything that I disagreed with, other than 17 his conclusion. 18 Q Dr. Crapo states that Mr. Bremer had a history of 19 mild obstructive lung disease most likely related to 20 his history of significant smoking. Do you agree 21 that Mr. Bremer has a significant smoking history? 22 A That's my recollection. 23 Q Do you agree that Mr. Bremer has a history of mild 24 obstructive lung disease? 25 A That's my recollection from the medical records, yes. Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 19 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 19 2 Q Do you also agree that his mild obstructive lung 3 disease is most likely related to his smoking 4 history? 5 A Yes, sir. 6 Q Do you agree that the most common cause for malignant 7 mesothelioma in men is exposure to thermal insulation 8 type products that contain amphibole forms of 9 asbestos? 10 A Yes, sir. 11 Q Do you agree that chrysotile asbestos has a much 12 lower propensity to contribute to the causation of 13 mesothelioma and requires exposure levels far in 14 excess of that described by Mr. Bremer in order to be 15 a potential contributor to mesothelioma? 16 A I agree with the first half, but not the second half. 17 Q Do you agree that--have you read the report by Dr. 18 Hodgson--the article? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Dr. Hodgson does a review. It's a review of the 21 literature on the propensity or potential of 22 amphiboles versus chrysotile caused mesothelioma, is 23 that true? 24 A Yes. 25 Q And Dr. Hodgson concludesthat based on the Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 20 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 20 2 literature he's reviewed crocidolite is 500 times 3 more potent in causing mesothelioma than is 4 chrysotile and amosite is 100 times more potent in 5 causing mesothelioma than is chrysotile, is that 6 correct? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Do you agree with those numbers? 9 A I have some trouble with those numbers. The area 10 where I have trouble with those numbers is that 11 there's some good studies out of Canada that have 12 been done by Dr. McDonald--Corbett McDonald and his 13 group--that indicate that there's about a 300-fold 14 increased risk of mesothelioma in chrysotile miners 15 and millers who are exposed to 1000 to 1,500 fiber 16 per cc years. And there's good data out of Wittenoom 17 in western Australia indicating that there's a 18 fourfold increased risk at about half a fiber per cc 19 year. If you do the cross multiplication math there, 20 what you get is that crocidolite is about 25 to 40 21 times as potent as chrysotile, rather than 500 times 22 that Hodgson calculates. 23 Q But doesn't the data from McDonald suggest that there 24 is no risk at the lower levels of exposure in the 25 chrysotile miners? I think it's the 300 fiber cc Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 21 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page21 2 years and lower. 3 A I would say that there was an undetectable risk. I 4 don't think that it indicates that there is no risk. 5 Q Does that, to you, imply that there is a threshold of 6 exposure to chrysotile that you must have surpassed 7 before you have a significantly increased risk for 8 the development of mesothelioma as a result of 9 exposure to chrysotile? 10 A That's probably true. 11 Q Would you put that level at 300 fibers per cc or some 12 other level? 13 A Well, if you extrapolate down from those numbers 14 that--with a linear level those numbers that I just 15 gave you, you get that a twofold increased risk would 16 occur at about seven to ten fiber per cc years for 17 chrysotile. 18 Q Is that where you would put the significant level at 19 a twofold increased risk--two times? 20 A One could make an argument for that number 21 considering that the background rate is one to two 22 per million population per year. So that shows 23 there's considerable uncertainty and--where the 24 background is over a twofold value. 25 Q So is it fair to say that until you get a two times Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 22 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 22 2 increased risk, it's just as likely that a 3 mesothelioma was background idiopathic as it is that 4 it was related to exposure to asbestos? 5 A For a disease that rare I think you can make a good 6 argument to that effect. 7 Q Do you agree with that argument? 8 A Well, I'll put it this way: If the increased risk in 9 mesothelioma had never gotten more than twofold above 10 background, then the discovery of the association 11 between asbestos and mesothelioma would never have 12 been made, epidemiologically. 13 Q The incidence of mesothelioma in the cohort of people 14 studied by McDonald--the miners and millers in 15 Canada--is around .03 percent, is that correct? 16 A The incidence of mesothelioma? 17 Q Yes. 18 A For the whole group it's a half a percent-0.5 19 percent. 20 Q 0.5 percent? 21 A Right. 22 Q And the published medical and scientific data 23 supports the conclusion that the incidence of 24 mesothelioma in chrysotile or predominantly 25 chrysotile exposed populations is about .5 percent, Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 23 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 23 2 is that correct? 3 A It was miners and millers, yes, that's right. 4 Q For other studies, as well? 5 A I think it depends on the study. For some you find 6 zero percent. 7 Q The incidence of mesothelioma in amphibole exposed 8 populations as apercentage of deaths ranges from 5 9 to 10 percent, is that correct? 10 A I don't know what the lower limit is. I know that 11 data is published in Churg's book. For insulators 12 it's up to about 8 percent.In Selikoffs work for 13 the people who made the Kent filtercigarettes out of 14 crocidolite it was up to 18 percent. 15 Q My next question was that the incidence of 16 mesothelioma as a percentage of deaths for 17 crocidolite-exposed populations ranges from 5 to 18 18 percent, is that correct? 19 A I don't know what the lower limit is, but the 18 20 percent is the upper, yes. 21 Q People who have mesotheliomas that can be related to 22 exposure to chrysotile dust have on average much 23 higher levels of fiber in their lung tissue than do 24 people who have mesotheliomas as a result of exposure 25 to amphibole fibers, is that correct? Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 24 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 24 2 A Is that in terms of fiber number or fiber mass? 3 Q Fiber number. 4 A Yes. 5 Q And it's often an order of magnitude--it's often two 6 orders of magnitude higher in terms of fiber number 7 for the chrysotile-related mesotheliomas versus the 8 amphibole-related mesotheliomas, is that correct? 9 A For the miners and millers compared to--with 10 mesothelioma compared to amphibole exposed 11 individuals with mesothelioma, that is correct, yes. 12 Q Do you agree--well, you told us that a person who has 13 a half a fiber year cumulative exposure to 14 crocidolite from Wittenoom has a four times increased 15 risk for the development of mesothelioma, is that 16 correct? 17 A I think that's some of the data that's come out of 18 the Wittenoom study, from de Klerk and those guys. 19 Q And a fiber year is an exposure to one fiber per cc 20 in the air on average for five days a week 50 weeks a 21 year, correct? 22 A Yes. 23 Q So a person can be exposed to ten fibers per cc in 24 the air for one-tenth of a year and that will equal 25 one fiber year, correct? Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 25 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 25 2 A Yes. 3 Q Ora person could be exposed to one fiber per cc of 4 air for one year and that equals one fiber year? 5 A Yes. 6 Q Ora person could be exposed to one-tenth of a fiber 7 per cc in the air for ten years and that would equal 8 one fiber a year? 9 A Correct. 10 Q Very low levels of exposure to amphibole asbestos 11 have been causally associated with mesotheliomas, is 12 that correct? 13 A Yes. 14 Q What percentage of mesotheliomas in men do you 15 believe to be idiopathic? 16 A Well, for pleural mesotheliomas in men, it's probably 17 less than 10 percent. 18 Q What about the peritoneal mesotheliomas? 19 A Maybe as high as 20 percent. 20 Q Is that based on your data, or is that based on 21 published data? 22 A That's based on my own data and experience, and I 23 think there is some data in the literature to support 24 that, but there's--there's not a lot of data in the 25 literature in that regard. Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 26 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 26 2 Q Do you think that your data is biased in any way due 3 to the fact that the majority of your cases come from 4 the litigation process? 5 A There may be some medical/legal bias there, although 6 as indicated in our recently accepted article for 7 publication, the types of exposures that we find 8 associated with mesothelioma in the United States are 9 very similar to what they find in Australia where 10 they would collect information on all the cases and 11 don't have the medical/legal bias. 12 Q Where is that information from Australia published? 13 A They publish biennially a registry of the 14 mesothelioma cases. I think Jim Leigh publishes that 15 out of Sydney. 16 Q Did you review the depositions of Mary Jo Collins, 17 Pamela Gentner, and Patti Ann Bremer? 18 A I reviewed selected parts of those, yes. 19 Q Was there any information about alleged exposures in 20 any of those depositions? 21 A Yes. 22 Q What information about exposures--alleged exposures-- 23 did you find in those depositions? 24 A There was information about several different 25 residences that Mr. Bremer worked on, including one Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 27 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 27 2 in Rock City, another in a place that started with a 3 D--I forgot the name of it--and then one or two 4 others that were mentioned. 5 And those depositions included some information 6 about the period of time over which that work was 7 done, the extensiveness of the renovations, and there 8 was some identification of Georgia-Pacific compound 9 as being used in at least one and maybe more of those 10 construction or renovation sites. 11 Q In reaching your conclusion that Mr. Bremer has an 12 asbestos-related mesothelioma, are you relying only 13 on the alleged Georgia-Pacific exposures, or are you 14 relying on all of the exposures? 15 A All of the exposures. 16 Q I see that you were provided some information here 17 about some of the Sears products. Did you see that 18 any of those products contained asbestos? 19 A My understanding is that that is an area of 20 disagreement in this lawsuit, and I don't have any 21 specific information myself in that regard. 22 Q If the evidence--if there's evidence produced to your 23 satisfaction that the Sears products did not contain 24 asbestos, would you, then, conclude still that Mr. 25 Bremer had an asbestos-related mesothelioma? Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 28 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 28 2 A Based on the information I was asked to assume when I 3 wrote my December 27 report, the answer would be yes. 4 Q And what information--excluding the Sears exposures, 5 what information is there that you were asked to rely 6 upon that permits you to say it's still an asbestos- 7 related mesothelioma? 8 A The Georgia-Pacific product use was probably three 9 months--that part and based on the description of the 10 work that was done. 11 Q And by that three months, you interpret that to mean 12 exposures for at least a couple of hours every day to 13 dust from a Georgia-Pacific product, is that correct? 14 A For a total of a couple of months, yes, sir. 15 Q And you're also assuming that the dust from the 16 Georgia-Pacific product was contaminated at some 17 level with an amphibole fiber, is that correct? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q Is there a minimum contamination level of amphibole 20 fiber that you require in order to determine that a 21 chrysotile-containing product was, in fact, a cause 22 of a mesothelioma? 23 A The short answer to that is no. The long answer to 24 that is that there are studies that have looked at 25 the range of contamination of Chinese chrysotile by Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 29 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 29 2 Dr. Tossavainen and have shown anywhere from 20 parts 3 per million by weight up to 3,000 parts per million 4 by weight, and by analyzing the lung tissue of the 5 Chinese workers who use that chrysotile, he found the 6 same ratios of tremolite to chrysotile as he finds in 7 Canadian chrysotile workers' lungs. So those levels 8 of contamination likely apply to the variation you 9 see in Canadian chrysotile, as well. 10 Q What's the half-life of chrysotile in lung tissue? 11 A It's been estimated that for humans it's around three 12 months. 13 Q What's the half-life of tremolite in lung tissue? 14 A It should be the same as for commercial amphibole 15 fibers of similar length and dimensional 16 characteristics, which is 10 to 20 years. 17 Q You agree that the term "asbestos" is a commercial 18 description used to describe the three types of fiber 19 that were used commercially in the past, is that 20 correct? 21 A The three commercially used fibers are included in 22 them--and athopolite [phonetic], too, yes--are 23 included under the term of asbestos. I understand 24 that, yes. 25 Q From a mineralogical standpoint, it's probably more Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 30 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 30 2 appropriate to refer to the different fibers by their 3 specific names rather than to clump them all together 4 and refer to them as asbestos, is that correct? 5 A I would defer to a mineralogist like Art Langer on 6 that question. 7 Q Getting back to the studies about the Chinese 8 chrysotile, 3,000 parts per million is 3 fibers out 9 of every thousand, correct? 10 A That's by weight. And since the tremolite fibers are 11 about three times the diameter of chrysotile fibers, 12 their weight would be about--on each equal length 13 basis would be about ten times as much. 14 So whatever the part per million by weight, 15 you'd have to divide that by ten to get it in terms 16 of parts per million by number. In other words, 20 17 parts per million by weight would probably be 2 parts 18 per million by number. 19 Q So the Chinese studies--the lower level you found was 20 20 parts per million--they found--not you, but they 21 found--was 20 parts per million. The upper level was 22 3,000 parts per million by weight, correct? 23 A 3,100 parts per million, yes, sir, by weight. 24 Q So that would, in terms of fiber counts on equal 25 length fibers, be anywhere from 2 to 310-- Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 31 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 31 2 A Approximately. 3 Q --fibers per million? 4 A Approximately, yes, sir. 5 Q Does that hold true for the UICC chrysotile samples? 6 A It should because it's derived from the--well, the 7 UICC-A, at least, which is derived from Canadian 8 chrysotile. 9 Q Is the geology of the Canadian chrysotile deposits 10 the same as the geology of the Chinese chrysotile 11 deposits? 12 A That's my understanding, yes, sir. 13 Q What's the basis of that understanding? 14 A Just what I know about the--reading from the 15 Tossavainen article. 16 Q When was the Tossavainen article published? 17 A 2001. I think it was in the Annuals of Occupational 18 Hygiene. 19 Mr. Larson: How do you spell that? 20 Witness: T-o-s-s-a-v-a-i-n-e-n. He was also at 21 the Helsinki conference. 22 Mr. Radcliffe: All right, I don't think I have 23 any other questions for you right now. 24 Witness: I might have had that reversed. The 25 UICC-A might have been Rhodesian, the UICC-B Canadian Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 32 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 32 2 chrysotile. 3 Mr. Radcliffe: I don't have any questions at 4 this time. 5 Mr. Larson: Do you want a ten-minute break 6 before we go on? 7 Witness: Sure. 8 [Recess 1:50 p.m. - 1:57 p.m.] 9 Mr. Larson: Back on the record. 10 Direct Examination by Mr. Larson: 1:57 p.m. 11 Q Doctor, my name is Chris Larson. I'm here 12 representing Union Carbide. I want to ask you a 13 couple of background questions first. When were you 14 first contacted about this case? 15 A Well, let's see, my report is dated December 20, 16 2001. I guess you have the files. 17 [Counsel Hands Paperwriting to Witness] 18 A I have a cover letter dated November 15, 2001. I 19 believe that's the earliest communication in my file. 20 Q And what were asked to do at that time? 21 A Okay. 22 Mr. Penn: Actually, Chris, for the record, 23 there should be a letter in here back in May, but I-- 24 Witness: I missed that. 25 [Witness Peruses Document] Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 33 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 33 2 A It really doesn't give a lot of direction. This last 3 paragraph says, "I'm currently under a time 4 constraint to provide your report by month's end, 5 which I do not believe is realistic. Please call me 6 upon receipt of these materials to discuss time 7 frames and additional items. Please do not generate 8 a report until we have spoken. You can reach me at 9 the above number on my cellular phone. As always, 10 thank you for your attention in this matter." 11 Q So you were asked to review medical records and-- 12 A Pathology material. 13 Q --pathology material in mid-November, anyway, and the 14 idea was to have an opinion by the end of the month? 15 A Yes. 16 Q And the question was asked of you either by phone or 17 otherwise by plaintiffs' counsel if you could relate 18 this individual's mesothelioma to asbestos exposure? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Did he ask that you relate it to any particular 21 company's asbestos or asbestos products? 22 A We discussed exposures to joint compound in general 23 and also with respect to joint compounds made by 24 Sears and by Georgia-Pacific. 25 Q And do I assume that initially, at least, you didn't Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 34 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 34 2 have an opinion based upon the medical records on 3 causation whether or not this particular individual's 4 mesothelioma was caused by asbestos? 5 A I did not have an opinion about causation based on 6 the medical records alone, that's correct. 7 Q You needed more than that? 8 A Yes, sir. 9 Q And the first that you published any kind of an 10 opinion concerning causation was the December 27, 11 2001, letter you sent to Mr. Penn, is that right? 12 A Yes, sir. 13 Q What specifically, in addition to the medical 14 records, did you review in order to be able to make a 15 correlation that you weren't able to make earlier 16 based on medical records alone? 17 A Well, in the package that I received with the medical 18 records was information about the asbestos exposure 19 and cover letter from Mr. Penn's office. And I 20 received a specific hypothetical about exposure which 21 was incorporated in my December 27 report. And based 22 on that hypothetical, I gave my conclusion about 23 asbestos causation. 24 Q Can you tell me what exactly is your assumption? 25 What assumptions did you make based upon the Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 35 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 35 2 information you've been provided by plaintiffs' 3 counsel about Mr. Bremer's exposure to asbestos that 4 allowed you to make the correlation that you make in 5 that report? 6 A Okay. The assumptions are included in my report and 7 there are some that are out of my report. So I'll 8 deal with those one at a time. First, it is my 9 understanding that Mr. Bremer remodeled eight homes 10 from approximately 1960 through 1971 where joint 11 compounds and patching plasters were used. 12 Mr. Bremer recalls using five gallons of 13 Georgia-Pacific joint compound in the late 1960s. In 14 addition, Ms. Bremer recalls the product being used 15 by professional drywallers at the Rock City, 16 Illinois, address in 1970 and Mr. Bremer sweeping up 17 after its use. This joint compound contained up to 5 18 percent chrysotile asbestos. 19 Further Mr. Bremer used Sears brand joint 20 compounds and patching plasters in his remodeling 21 work. Exposure testimonies: sanding, sweeping, 22 cleaning for the entire eight properties totaled 23 approximately one year. 24 The Sears product was used the majority of the 25 time, and the Georgia-Pacific product use was Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 36 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 36 2 probably three months. There is no other known 3 exposure to asbestos. 4 In addition to the information that's in that 5 paragraph. I'm assuming that, one, the products 6 contained at least 1 percent asbestos; number two, 7 that at least some of the fibers are five microns or 8 greater in length; number three, that the use of the 9 products created dust levels that are substantially 10 above background; number four, that that dust level 11 that were above background were in the breathing zone 12 of Mr. Bremer; and number five, that the duration of 13 exposure was at least a couple of months. 14 Q Now, is that a test that you applied to any 15 particular manufacturer's product to determine 16 whether or not that manufacturer's product could have 17 been a cause of an individual's mesothelioma? 18 A A cause or contributing factor, yes, sir. 19 Q So in other words, if one particular company's 20 product was not used for more than a couple of weeks, 21 you would exonerate that company's product from being 22 a cause or a substantial factor in the development of 23 mesothelioma? 24 A I would be unable to say to a reasonable degree of 25 medical certainty that that exposure was a Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 37 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 37 2 substantial contributing factor. 3 Q If one particular company's product contained less 4 than 1 percent asbestos, you would similarly be 5 unable to say that that company's product was a 6 substantial contributing cause in the development of 7 mesothelioma in an individual? 8 A That's correct. 9 Q If one particular company's product contained 10 asbestos that was five microns or less in length, 11 again, you would exonerate that particular company' 12 product from being a substantial contributing cause, 13 correct? 14 A If the fibers were all less than five microns, that's 15 correct, yes. 16 Q And if an individual's product was not in the 17 breathing zone of the worker or the individual 18 claiming injury, similarly you'd exonerate that 19 company's product? 20 A Yes. 21 Q So you have to meet every single one of those tests 22 and it has to be true for any particular company's 23 product to be considered a substantial contributing 24 cause, in your estimation? 25 A That's correct. Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 38 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 38 2 Q And the failure of any one of those in your 3 estimation based on the tests that you have just 4 described is enough to exonerate that company from 5 blame or at least from being a substantial 6 contributing cause of a mesothelioma? 7 A The lack of any one would either allow me to 8 exonerate a particular company's product or be unable 9 to say to a reasonable degree of medical certainty 10 that it was a contributing factor. 11 Q Are you familiar with a company called Union Carbide 12 Corporation? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Are you aware of any asbestos-containing products 15 that that company ever manufactured? 16 A Yes. 17 Q What products are you familiar with that Union 18 Carbide ever made that contained asbestos? 19 A Joint compound. 20 Q Do you believe there was a product that was just 21 called Union Carbide joint compound on the market? 22 A I have no idea what it was called. 23 Q Okay, but you believe that they manufactured a 24 product that contained asbestos, as opposedto them 25 supplying asbestos fibers to other companies that Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 39 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 39 2 manufactured products? 3 A I think it's the latter--they supplied the fiber. 4 Q So you're not saying Union Carbide put a product out 5 there that you could buy at the store called Union 6 Carbide joint compound? 7 A No. 8 Q But you believe that they supplied fiber to other 9 companies that put their fiber in the products that 10 they manufactured? 11 A Yes, sir. 12 Q And do you know what companies purchased asbestos 13 fiber from Union Carbide? 14 A The only one I know of is Georgia-Pacific. There may 15 be others, but that's the one I'm familiar with. 16 Q And where did you get that information? Was that 17 also supplied to you by plaintiffs' counsel in this 18 case or somewhere else? 19 A Both. 20 Q Where is the somewhere else, then? 21 A Well, I consulted with lawyers for Georgia-Pacific 22 and possibly with lawyers for Union Carbide. I'm not 23 sure who they represented at the time I talked to 24 them. 25 Q We switch around sometimes. You never know from one Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 40 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 40 2 day to the next. Are you familiar with the type of 3 fiber that Union Carbide supplied--allegedly 4 supplied--to Georgia-Pacific? 5 A Yes. 6 Q And what kind of fiber was that? 7 A It was chrysotile fiber. 8 Q And do you know where that chrysotile fiber came 9 from? 10 A Yes. 11 Q Where? 12 A The Calidria mine or Calidria chrysotile in 13 California. 14 Q Would you agree withthe statement that chrysotile 15 fiber coming out of the Calidria mine in California, 16 otherwise-I'll use the term Calidria asbestos-did 17 not contain any contaminants, such as tremolite or 18 others? 19 A To my knowledge, it's not known to contain tremolite 20 as a contaminant. 21 Q Would you agree with the statement that based upon a 22 reasonable degree of medical certaintyan individual 23 diagnosed with mesothelioma whose only known exposure 24 was to Calidria asbestos--that in such an individual 25 there is no causal connection or you can't see based Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 41 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 41 2 upon a reasonable degree of medical certainty that 3 the Calidria asbestos was a substantial contributing 4 factor in the development in that man's mesothelioma? 5 Mr. Penn: Object to the form. 6 Mr. Larson: That's not clear. 7 Q Would you agree that exposure to Calidria asbestos-- 8 Calidria chrysotile asbestos--is not a substantial 9 contributing factor in the development of 10 mesothelioma? 11 A I would say that based on the information that I have 12 currently available and what's presently in the 13 literature there is insufficient information for me 14 to say that Calidria chrysotile by itself can cause 15 mesothelioma in humans. 16 Q Now, do you remember just a few minutes ago where I 17 was asking you whether you would exonerate a 18 particular company's product if it didn't meet 19 certain of your criteria? We were talking about that 20 just a couple of minutes ago? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Similarly, if, in fact, the only fiber supplied by 23 Union Carbide to Georgia-Pacific was Calidria 24 chrysotile asbestos fiber, would you exonerate Union 25 Carbide as being a substantial contributing factor in Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 42 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 42 2 Mr. Bremer's mesothelioma? 3 A Based on information I currently have available, 4 including what little information there is in the 5 medical literature, I would be unable to say at the 6 present time that exposure to a product containing 7 Calidria chrysotile was a substantial contributing 8 factor in a mesothelioma in Mr. Bremer's case. 9 Q And if you agree with my assumption that I've given 10 you, that the only asbestos fiber supplied by Union 11 Carbide Corporation were Calidria asbestos fibers, 12 you would exonerate Union Carbide as being a 13 substantial contributing cause in Mr.Bremer's 14 mesothelioma? 15 A Based on the information I currently have available, 16 that would be correct. 17 Q This case is going to be going to trial, we believe, 18 March 4 of this year, which is a little more than a 19 month away. Do you have any anticipation that you're 20 going to be either researching or getting additional 21 information between now andthenthat would change 22 that opinion? 23 A It's possible. 24 Q Okay. But you don't have any current plans, or do 25 you? Are you doing some research right now, or are Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 43 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 43 2 you investigating? 3 A I'm not, but it's possible that the plaintiffs' 4 attorney may send me additional documents: for 5 example, if they receive internal company documents 6 that I'm not currently privy to, it might change my 7 opinion. And I'll be happy to review that. 8 Q But if we were at trial today, your opinion would be 9 that Union Carbide--the supply of Union Carbide 10 Calidria fiber to Georgia-Pacific is not a 11 substantial contributing factor for Mr. Bremer's 12 mesothelioma? 13 A Based on information I have today, that's correct. 14 Q Do you have any opinions--is that opinion based 15 because there's no contamination in the Calidria 16 asbestos or because it's less than five microns in 17 length or both? 18 A Both of those are important factors in determining 19 pathogenicity, and to the degree that they apply to 20 Calidria chrysotile, then they would be important 21 factors in my opinion about that. 22 Q Do you have an opinion or any information as to 23 whether the Calidria chrysotile is less than five 24 microns in length based on what you reviewed? 25 A My understanding is I think that the vast majority of Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 44 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 44 2 the fibers are less than five microns in length, but 3 I don't necessarily believe 100 percent of them are. 4 Q Is that the topic the Ugran article touched upon? 5 A That's one of the topics, yes. 6 Q Have you had a chance to review that article? 7 A Yes, wherever it is. I don't see it right now. 8 Mr. Penn: Here it is. 9 Witness: Okay. 10 Q Are there any particular portions of that article 11 with which, as you sit here today, you know you 12 disagree? 13 A No. 14 Q You've testified before that you don't believe that 15 smoking is a causative factor in the development of 16 mesothelioma, correct? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Would you agree that cigarette smoking over a 19 prolonged period of time does have the capacity to at 20 least diminish the lungs' natural defense mechanisms 21 that would otherwise, perhaps, eliminate irritants, 22 like dusts and fibers from the lungs? 23 A Yes. 24 Q So, in essence, an individual who has smoked 25 cigarettes for 20 years, although that smoking in and Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 45 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 45 2 of itself may not be a causation or a cause and 3 effect in the development of disease, it certainly 4 does diminish that person's lungs' capacity to 5 prevent disease from occurring? 6 A Which disease? 7 Q Mesothelioma. 8 A Not necessarily. 9 Q Would you agree that a person's chances of developing 10 mesothelioma decrease with the--in direct proportion 11 to the diminished amount of asbestos fiber in that 12 individual's lungs? 13 A I think that the person's risk of mesothelioma 14 increases in proportion to the number of fibers that 15 make their way to the pleural. 16 Q Okay. And if smoking-well, strike that. Do the 17 lungs have any kind of defense mechanism by which 18 they can eliminate irritants that have been inhaled, 19 such as asbestos? 20 A Sure. 21 QAnd would you agreethat cigarette smoking can 22 prevent those defense mechanisms from working to 23 their full capacity to eliminate irritants like 24 asbestos fibers in the lungs? 25 A Sure. Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 46 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 46 2 Q Okay. So an individual who smokes will have a higher 3 incidence of developing disease, such as 4 mesothelioma, than another individual who doesn't 5 smoke, assuming that they both have equal exposures 6 to asbestos? 7 A No, I don't agree with that. 8 Q Why not? 9 A The reason is smoking is a double-edged sword. Not 10 only does it interfere with mucociliary escalator 11 clearance, but it also decreases the diameter of the 12 bronchi, increases the thickness of the mucous layer, 13 which, in turn, would decrease the percentage of 14 fibers which make it to the most peripheral part of 15 the lungs where the pleural is located. 16 So based on the two conflicting mechanisms, 17 cigarettes could either be protective or they could 18 be harmful as far as mesothelioma is concerned. And 19 since the epidemiology shows that there is no 20 increased incidence of mesothelioma based on smoking 21 habits, then those two mechanisms apparently cancel 22 out and it's a wash. 23 Q So you're saying there's some element of cigarette 24 smoking that actually can help prevent mesotheliomas 25 from occurring? Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 47 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 47 2 A Theoretically it could, yes. 3 Q If you were to do digestion studies in a given case 4 and there was no prevalence of asbestos fibers in the 5 lung greater than background levels, would I assume, 6 then, that you would not attribute asbestos as a 7 causative factor in that individual's mesothelioma? 8 A That's correct. 9 Q All right. And in this case you believe that Mr. 10 Bremer actually had exposure greater than background 11 levels? 12 A Based on the hypothetical I was asked to assume, yes. 13 Q Did your hypothetical also include any exposure Mr. 14 Bremer had in the work place at Honeywell Microswitch 15 from 1957 to 1988? 16 A I don't believe so. 17 Q So the only exposure you're considering in that 18 hypothetical are fromhome remodeling and houses he 19 either owned or rented out? 20 A Well, the exposures it says are to eight homes-- 21 remodeled eight homes, and it said there's no other 22 known exposure to asbestos. So based on those two 23 statements, I would assume that to be the case. 24 Q Do you know how extensively he remodeled any of those 25 eight homes? Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 48 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 48 2 A The only information I have in that regard is from 3 the depositions of the daughters where they described 4 a couple of the homes as simply being gutted and was 5 completely redone. 6 Q What years of exposure are you considering in your 7 hypothetical of Mr. Bremer's exposure to asbestos in 8 joint compounds--during what years? 9 A The total exposure went from 1960 through 1971. 10 Q Do you agree-and I'll tell you right now I'm reading 11 from the conclusions of William Dyson's report that 12 you have in your materials. Do you agree that Mr. 13 Bremer's cumulative lifetime asbestos exposure dose 14 was significantly less than the lowest doses found in 15 epidemiological studies found to be associated with 16 mesothelioma? 17 A I presume he's talking about chrysotile mesotheliomas 18 and I presume he's talking about the studies from the 19 Canadian chrysotile miners and millers in that 20 regard. And if that's the case,then I agree with 21 that. 22 Q You do agree with that? 23 A If that's--if what I'm presuming to be the case is 24 correct, I agree with that. 25 Q Do you agree that Mr. Bremer's mesothelioma should be Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 49 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 49 2 considered idiopathic? 3 A No. 4 Q Could it be idiopathic, in your opinion? 5 A If the assumptions that I'm working with are 6 incorrect, then it could be, yes. 7 Q Even if the assumptions that you're working with are 8 not incorrect, even if the assumptions you're basing 9 your opinions on turn out to be borne out by the 10 facts in this case when presented to the jury and the 11 evidence, isn't there still some percent chance that 12 Mr. Bremer's mesothelioma is an idiopathic 13 mesothelioma, given the low level of exposures in 14 this case? 15 A I think that the way this argument typically goes is 16 that even in a person who is exposed to a toxic 17 product that's known to cause a disease, there's 18 still a finite probability that they would have 19 gotten the disease had they not had that exposure 20 just because it occurs in a background population. 21 And certainly I'd have to acknowledge that that's a 22 possibility. 23 But if you want to assume that the individual 24 has exposures that result in asbestos content in the 25 lung that are greater than background, then I would Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 50 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 50 2 say more likely than not the asbestos was a causative 3 factor in spite of that possibility. 4 Q Did your hypothetical information or the assumptions 5 that you were asked to make include the fact that the 6 work in Rock City at the Rock City farmhouse was not 7 done directly by Mr. Bremer, but was performed by an 8 outside worker that came in and did the drywalling or 9 work that was done in that house? 10 Mr. Penn: Let me object. I think that 11 mischaracterizes the totality of the testimony in 12 this case. 13 A Yeah, that was my understanding is that there is some 14 of the evidence that indicates that at the Rock City 15 dwelling that Mr. Bremer did mainly sweep ups, but 16 there is a recollection, I think, on part of at least 17 two of the daughters that he actually did some of the 18 work there. So I understand that that's contested. 19 Q I have a sneaking suspicion in this case that when we 20 actually get to trial and we're listening to the 21 evidence we're going to come down to figuring out day 22 by day just exactly how much time Mr. Bremer actually 23 spent working around any insulation products at all 24 and that's why I'm trying to be so specific here. 25 When you have a conclusion or a test that Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 51 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 51 2 includes this notion that he worked around a 3 particular company's product at least two months, are 4 we talking about daily for two months? You said it's 5 cumulative, but I'm not sure I understand. 6 A I think what I said before is that to get a couple of 7 months you basically need in terms of workdays-- 8 that's five days a week, four weeks a month--that's 9 40 workdays with at least a couple of hours of 10 exposure of breathing excess levels of dust from that 11 product on each of those days. 12 Q So at least a couple of hours for 40 days? 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q That's at least 80hours, right? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q So if the evidence ends up being that you can't 17 continually use a five-gallon bucket of joint 18 compound for 80 hours--if those who actually work in 19 the trade will say a five-gallon bucket of continual 20 use only lasts a few hours, not anywhere close to 80 21 hours, would you exonerate that five-gallon bucket of 22 a ready-mixed joint compound being a substantial 23 contributing factor in Mr. Bremer's mesothelioma? 24 A I mean, I don't know about that, because I don't have 25 any knowledge about how many hours you can use a Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 52 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 52 2 five-gallon bucket. But if you have--I mean, my 3 criteria are for cumulative exposures, not 4 necessarily--you know, it does not have to 5 consecutive. It's cumulative exposures. 6 Q Well, we said two hours a day, working with the 7 product for two hours a day, right? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Forty days? 10 A Well, let's get back to working around the product. 11 It's breathing in excessive dust levels, which 12 includes sanding, sweeping up, anything else that 13 would create excessive dust levels from use of the 14 product. 15 Q And actually the application of the product wouldn't 16 be included at all, would it, because of the wet 17 product? 18 A If an industrial hygienist tells me that that does 19 not create levels above background, then certainly I 20 would not count that as time in. 21 Q Would you agree that this is about as borderline a 22 case as you come under the tests that you've 23 announced here in terms of trying to make a relation 24 between an individual's exposure and mesothelioma? I 25 mean, this is on the lower end of how far you can go Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 53 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 53 2 in expressing an opinion on this? 3 A I agree it's a difficult case. I think it is 4 borderline. I have seen cases with lesser exposures, 5 and I've seen cases with much lesser exposures where 6 I didn't think it was related. 7 Q Right. But you haven't seen a lot of cases of much 8 lesser exposure when you said it was related? 9 A Correct. 10 Mr. Larson: That's all the questions I have. 11 Thank you very much. 12 Mr. Bouch: I've got eight questions. 13 Direct Examination by Mr. Bouch: 2:29 p.m. 14 Q Doctor, you've looked at cases and materials supplied 15 to you by gasket packing companies in the past, 16 haven't you? 17 A Yes, sir. 18 Q And you have consulted with those companies? 19 A That's correct. 20 Q And you've reviewed industrial hygienist material 21 regarding fibers released by packing in gaskets? 22 A Yes. 23 Q And you're familiar with the OSHA regulations 24 concerning gasket packing use? 25 A Yes. Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 54 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 54 2 Q And you're familiar with the EPA ban on the use of 3 asbestos products? 4 A Yes. 5 Q You're aware that EPA has exempted gaskets and 6 packing material from that ban? 7 A Yes. 8 Q And you've seen studies of professional industrial 9 hygienists concerning fibers released from packing 10 and gaskets that are below the OSHA permissible 11 exposure level? 12 A That's correct. 13 Q Assuming that--those studies are accurate, is it your 14 current belief that exposure to gaskets and packing 15 material are not a substantial contributing cause to 16 mesothelioma? 17 A Yes, sir. 18 Q I do have one more. 19 A Was that eight? 20 Q That was my eight, but I do have one more. What was 21 Mr. Bremer's day job? 22 A Day job? 23 Q Yes. 24 A It was working at a plant. What was the name of it.? 25 I've forgotten the name of it, and I don't know what Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 55 1 Dr. Roggli Direct Page 55 2 he did there. 3 Q You have previously indicated that throughout your 4 extensive experience in collecting your own data that 5 you have broken down the likely occupations of which 6 individuals in those occupations would be at a 7 greater risk of mesothelioma? 8 A Yes, sir. 9 Q Does Mr. Bremer fall in those occupations? 10 A One of the big groups is construction work, 11 carpenter, and, in fact, that's--I think that's the 12 number one as far as the numbers of mesothelioma 13 cases from the Australian mesothelioma surveillance 14 group. And so he would fit into that group of 15 construction work. 16 Q But it is my understanding in your prior testimony 17 that that occupation is their livelihood, their full- 18 time occupation for a period of time? 19 A In general, that's true, yes, sir. 20 Q In the hypothetical given you on Mr. Bremer, this was 21 in addition to his full-time occupation? 22 A That is correct. 23 Mr. Bouch: That's all my questions. Thank you. 24 Mr. Penn: I just have a couple of follow up. 25 Cross-Examination by Mr. Penn: 2:31 p.m. Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 56 1 Dr. Roggli Cross Page 56 2 Q I just want to clear--it's not the volume of the 3 joint compound we're concerned with. We're concerned 4 with the time he's exposed to dust created from the 5 joint compounds, is that true? 6 A Yes, sir. 7 Q So if you assume Mr. Bremer testified that it took 8 him three to four applications with sanding to make a 9 wall look, quote, perfect, each time he sanded we 10 would have to consider that-he, himself, sanded, we 11 would have to consider that in the time frame of 12 cumulative exposure? 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q And if you would assume further that an industrial 15 hygienist tells us the dust lingers in the air that 16 he's now created for awhile, we--it's not just the 17 act of sanding. We would also include that in the 18 time frame, correct? 19 A Yes, sir. 20 Q We would also include in that time he spent sweeping 21 up where dust was created from the materials sanded? 22 A That's correct. 23 Q And if he spent time cleaning up after others who 24 used, if the testimony is, Georgia-Pacific joint 25 compound, we would also include that, correct? Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 57 1 Dr. Roggli Cross Page 57 2 Mr. Radcliffe: Object to the form. 3 A Yes. 4 Q Doctor, when you created your report on the 27th, had 5 you had the opportunity to review the deposition 6 transcripts of the daughters? 7 A No. 8 Q Has reviewing thatmaterial influenced your opinions 9 in any way? 10 A Only to the extent that it indicates that perhaps 11 that the work at the Rock City dwelling was not 12 entirely just a sweeping up after use. 13 Q And if the testimony at trial is that exposure to the 14 Georgia-Pacific joint compound, without the Sears 15 exposure, is a couple of months based on your 16 criteria, is it still your opinion that that is a 17 causal connection between Mr. Bremer's disease? 18 Mr. Radcliffe: Object to the form. 19 A Yes. 20 Q Other than the corporate documents from Union Carbide 21 you may want to see, is there anything else that 22 you're aware of that you would want to see regarding 23 the Calidria asbestos- 24 Mr. Larson: Object to the form. 25 Mr. Penn: I haven't finished it. Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 58 1 Dr. Roggli Cross Page 58 2 Q Is there anything else you would want to see which 3 may influence your opinion one way or another as to 4 whether or not the Calidria chrysotile asbestos had 5 any causative effect in the development of the 6 mesothelioma? 7 A One thing I would like to see is that I know Dr. Art 8 Langer--my understanding is that he has given a 9 deposition in which he comments about Calidria and 10 how it differs from usual chrysotile and that its 11 milling procedure is different, and I would be 12 interested in knowing more about Dr. Langer's 13 opinions in that regard. 14 Mr. Penn: I don't have any other questions. 15 Thank you. 16 Mr. Larson: Let me just ask one more question. 17 Redirect Examination by Mr. Larson: 2:34 p.m. 18 Q I'd like you to assume for the moment that regardless 19 of the origin of the Union Carbide chrysotile, if you 20 assume for the moment that Union Carbide's chrysotile 21 never found its way into Georgia-Pacific products in 22 the Rock City, Illinois, area before October of 1970, 23 would you exonerate Union Carbide as being a 24 substantial contributing cause of this man's 25 mesothelioma? Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 59 1 Dr. Roggli Redirect Page 59 2 Mr. Penn: I will object. It's an incomplete 3 hypothetical. 4 A I think it depends on how much exposure, then, there 5 was between 1970 and 1971. 6 Q Between October of 1970 and 1971? 7 A Yes. I'd have to determine about what that total 8 cumulative exposure was. 9 Q And that's information you don't have? 10 A That's correct. 11 Q But you'd need at least two months of cumulative 12 exposure after October of 1970? 13 A Making your hypothetical, that's correct, yes, sir. 14 Mr. Larson: Okay, thank you. 15 Recross-Examination by Mr. Penn: 2:36 p.m. 16 Q If you assume or if it's shown at trial that the 17 Union Carbide--that after October of 1970 there was 18 more than two months' use, you just don't have an 19 opinion yet because you don't have complete 20 information regarding Union Carbide? 21 A Correct. 22 [Witness Dismissed 2:36 p.m.] 23 24 Reading and Signing Waived 25 Roggli, Victor, M.D. 2002/01/22 page 60 1 CERTIFICATE Page 60 2 I, F. M. Harvey, notary public/court reporter, do 3 hereby certify that Victor Roggli, M.D., was duly sworn by 4 me prior to the taking of the foregoing deposition, that 5 said deposition was taken and transcribed by me or under my 6 supervision, and that the foregoing 59 pages constitute a 7 true and accurate transcript of the testimony of the 8 witness. 9 I do further certify that the persons were present as 10 stated in the Appearances. 11 I do further certify that I am not of counsel, for, 12 or in the employment of either of the parties to this 13 action, nor am I interested in the results of this action. 14 In witness whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my 15 name this twenty-ninth day of January, 2002. 16 17 Notary Public 18 Fred Harvey 19 Raleigh Reporting Service 20 Post Office Box 25186 21 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 22 (919) 834-8777 23 My Commission Expires: 24 February 14, 2002 25 26