Document xnD8pkXqabx5zj8vOoD0GyaJ

EDWARD M. GREEN MICHAEL R. MCGDWN MITCHELL A. TOUPB DAVID L. TOLIN R. LYN STEVENS JOHN R. DOLEZAL E. HART GREEN NICHOLAS B. BALDO ZDNA JONES MICHAEL R. WALZEL S ADAM TERRELL STEVEN R. THOMAS MICHAEL K. ROSE ELLEN G. LAMAR WELLER & GREEN, L. ATTORNEYS AT LAW FIFTH FLOOR PETROLEUM TDWER 5SO FANNIN STREET BEAUMONT, TEXAS 77701 September 28. 1993 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 350 BEAUMONT, TEXAS 77704-0350 TELEPHONE: <40) 35-0101 TELECOPIER; (AOV) B3S-S7SO GEORGE A. WELLER (1V11-ISSS) `UCCHSKB IN TEXAS A LOUISIANA MU ecsnnto SCSSSNAL HUUIY TBIAL LAW AMO (ML TSIAL LAW Ms. Laura Shely HAYS, MCCONN, PRICE & PICKERING 400 Citicorp Center Houston, TX 77002 Certified Mail - RRR #P-678 730 295 Re: Cause No. A-127,321 Rosie Lee Richard, et al -vsThe Ethyl Corporation, et al Dear Laura: Enclosed for your review please find a report from Hari H. Dayai, Ph.D., F.A.C.E. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, BAT:twb Enclosure B. Adam Terrell cc: , Mr. John G. Bissell STRONG. PIPKIN, NELSON & BISSELL San Jacinto Building -- 14th FI. 595/3$ens Street Beaumont, TX 77701 VC.4471 THU 13:10 IO:UTMB DEPT OP PT1ACH TEL NO.FAX <^09) 772-5272 B760 Pa2 An EpidemtolQQic Report for Richard Vs. Ethyl Com. al No. A-127,321 m the 58th Judtotal District Court of Jefferson County, Texas Prepared ton Reich & Bfnstook Attorneys at Law By: Had H. Doyal, Ph.D., FAC.E Professor / 1 VC4472 3p-*>*33 TMIJ 15.10 DPI IK OMiOi :eu :> uri'iJ rm-\m b760 P93 My name is Hart H. Oayai. I am a Professor of Epidemiology and Blostatistlct In the Department of Preventive Medicine and Community Health at tha University of Texas Medical Branch al Galveston, Texas. My major research interest is in the area of Environmental Bpidemiolooy. I am a Fallow of tha American College of Epidemiology. The opinions expressed here represent my beat professional judgment based on available facts. However, these opinions do not reflect the opinions of my employer, the University of Texas Medical Branoh at Gahreeton. 1 have reviewed the document* provided to me by the law firm of Reich and Blnstoefc Inofudlng medical records and personnel flies of Mr. Richard, defendant's answers to several plaintiffs interrogatories and request lor production of documents, report by Dr. Marcus, a toxiooiogiet, and the report by Mr. Parker, an industrial hygienist. In addition, (have relied extensively on the published papers and reports in the epidemiological, medical, and loxicologloal literature, t have also rolled on the literature on epidemiologio methods, particularly as they apply to exposure assessment in occupational and environmental epidemiology. The final opinion represents a synthesis of all this Information. The facts In this case pertain to Mr. Richard, who in April, 1986, at the age of 68 presented with symptoms of severe abdominal pain, was diagnosed as having adenocarcinoma of the pancreas with fiver metastasis, and who tied In July, 1888, from the disease. The brief interval between diagnosis end death is consistent with the generally poor prognosis Associated with panoreatlo cancer. Mr. Richards relevant eodoi history Inofudod smoking one to two packs per day for a tolai of fifty to Shdy peok years and heavy drinking which he quit at some point In time prior to tha diagnosis. Previous and ooneurrent medical conditions Included depression, anxiety, hemorrhoids, meaaias, mumps, rheumatic fever, and pdn/tendamase of tasttdae. Ml Richard's medical history did not Include diabetes meilitus. HU father tied of twain tumoc His mother had a hfstory of drabetea melftus. Mr. Richard's work history shews that he started working at ethyl Corp, as maintenance laborer in January, 1969. He worked at Ethyl until May, 1988, whan, following hie diagnosis of pancreotio cancer, he was placed on extended disability. During his ssventeen years of work at Ethyl, Mr. Richard worked for moat of the time ae a machinist. Before joining Ethyl, Ml Riohaid worked for abrtoon years as a construction laborer. According to tha report of ths Industrial hygienist, Mr. Parker, tha employment records of Mr. Richard do not provide a complete picture of al the placet he worked durir Ms employment at Ethyl, nor do they provide a dear picture of an the tasks he performed during nta employment There are also no clear raoorde of oil the chemicals to which Mr. Richard was exposed white working at Ethyl Ethyl's industrial hygiene practices were inadequate in that there was no attempt to quantify Mr.. 2 i U > 15:20 fD:uTh*P r^pi ,t 'L MC:Pa> lH! /72-<3a72 c^fio eg,) Richard'* exposure level to the many hazardous chemicals present In hie work environment. However, based on where Mr. Rlohard worked end his coworker's deposition, it would appear that ha worked m dose proximity to a number of hazardous chemicals, including ethylene dichloride, tetraethyl lead (TEL), Ortho* tofuidine, and vinyl chloride. Moreover, per Mr. Parker's report, based on established odor thresholds for the chemicals present in Mr. Richard's work snvironment, It Is quite apparent that he was most likely unknowingly exposed to these ohamioala at a level well above the OSHA standards. 1b sum up, the job tftle of machinist oomblned wtth the evidence of preaence of hazardous ohomioals In the work environment provide sufficient grounds to impute long term on*the*Job chemical exposure to Mr. Richard during his seventeen years of employment at Ethyl. This is not the most direct and quantifiable measure of exposure. However, the Information on whioh to base purely quantitative measure Is rarely available in environmental and occupational epidemiologic Investigations, in fact, that Is why the method of job-coeupaUon matrix is a fslriy well*aooepted way of determining long-term envtronmental/oooupational exposure to chemicals (for a foil discussion, see the reoent book, Principles of exposure Measurement In Epidemiology, Armstrong et al, Oxford Medical Publications). Hence, eooordfng to aooeptable state-of-the-art methodology, Mr. Rlohard had long-term exposure to hazardous chemicals while working as a machinist for seventeen years as Ethyl A review of the literature on panoramic oanoer provides these findings. The epidemlologie literature establishes cigarette smoking and diabetes moUftus as risk factors. Associations with aioonoi intake are Inooneistsnt across the ntarature; a lew studies show positive effect (drinkers having a higher risk), the majority of studies show no effect (drinkers and non-drinkers having the earn* risk), and, A few studies published in leading journals even show drinkers to have a protective affect (drinkers having a lower risk than non-drinkers). Similarly, the association of ponoreaUe cancer rlek with ooffee consumption Is Inconclusive. Many epidemiologic studies have examined the role of diet In panoreafio cancer, and eome hove found high consumption of meat to be a risk factor, whereas frequent Ingestion of fruits and vegetables appear to afford protection. The iherature on pancreatic cancer also extends to tho examination of familial nek factors and exposure to chemicals In occupational settings. On the familial factor, a leading study oonciuocd that pancreatic canoer shows no evidence of clustering with other eanoers In the family. The evteonoe In the iterators on chemical exposures and pancrootio canoor risk is derived from both the animal studies and epidemlologio studies. A large number of chemloals hove been shown to Induce pancreatic tumors In animal models. Several epldamlotogfo studies, using different study designs, hove demonstrated an elevated risk among Individuals in certain Job/Industry categories with potential exposure to hazardous chemloals. One study showed that, after adjustmem for smoking and dietary patterns, those with long-term employment In machine repairs or as mechanics had an odds ratio of 2.5 for pancreatic oanoer. 3 i SEP-23- S3 ruu IS;21 tD'-UTtiB DEPT OP Fi-*CH 'S'- C;FSX <-409> 772-5272 8?60 pgg Now, let us examine the specifics of Mr. Richard's case In view of the scientific and medical date on pancreatic cancer. His pas! aloohol Intake would not have put him at high risk of developing the disease. He did not have debates himself; hie mother* diabetes does not appear to be of any relevance. Although his father died of brain cancer, this should not influence Mr. Richard's chances of developing pancreatic eanoer os pancreatic cancer shows no evidence of clustering with other cancers in the family. Mr. Richard's smoking history would put him at rtsk of developing pancreatic cancer. Mr. Richard's occupational exposure to hazardous chemfcais while working as a machinist at Ethyl also put him at high risk for the disease. Whenever multiple dak factors are involved in the causation, the (saue of risk enhancement or synergiam becomes otltfoally important- The occupational exposure to ohemieals at Ethyl not only by Itself Increased the risk of pancreatic cancer, but also enhanced the rtsk associated with smoking. Based on reasonable sotentlflo probability, therefore. It la my opinion that while Mr. Richard's smoking may have contributed to the risk, hts prolonged on-the-job exposure to a variety of hazardous ensmicals at ethyl Corp.., a* t single risk factor, as well as, a risk enhanoer, was a significant factor In the development of hte pancreatic caneat Respectfully Submitted, Had H. Dayal, Ph.D., FAC.fc Professor 4 l VC4475