Mesothelioma Deposition

464
1 VIRGINIA:
2 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS
3
4 ORA J. KING, Executor of the )
5 Estate of JAMES L. KING, ) AT LAW NO.
6 Deceased, ) 38504AF
7 Plaintiff, )
8 v. )
9 JOHN CRANE, INC., )
10 Defendant. )
11
12
13 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
14 VOLUME III
15 Newport News, Virginia
16 November 9, 2007
17 BEFORE:
18 THE HONORABLE AUNDRIA D. FOSTER, Judge, and a
19 Jury.
20
21 -------------------------------------
22 TAYLOE ASSOCIATES, INC.
23 Registered Professional Reporters
24 Telephone: (757) 461-1984
25 Norfolk, Virginia

465
1 Appearances:
2 On behalf of the Plaintiff:
3 PATTEN, WORNOM, HATTEN & DIAMONSTEIN, LC
4 J. CONARD METCALF, ESQUIRE
5 HUGH B. McCORMICK, III, ESQUIRE
6 WILLIAM W.C. HARTY, ESQUIRE
7 12350 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 300
8 Newport News, Virginia 23602
9 (757) 223-4544
10
11 On behalf of the Defendant:
12 WALLACE PLEDGER, LLC
13 ARCHIBALD WALLACE, III, ESQUIRE
14 PATRICIA J. BUGG, ESQUIRE
15 7100 Forest Avenue
16 Richmond, Virginia 23226
17 (804) 282-8300
18 and
19 OCONNELL, TIVIN, MILLER & BURNS, LLC
20 DANIEL J. OCONNELL, ESQUIRE
21 645 Tollgate Road, Suite 220
22 Elgin, Illinois 60123
23 (847) 741-4603
24
25

466
1 I N D E X
2
3 ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF: DIRECT CROSS ReD ReX
4 B. Castleman, PhD 485 567 611 --
5 B. Castleman, PhD (voir dire) 496
6
7
8 E X H I B I T S
9 ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:
10 No. Recd
11 16 511
12 17 565
13 18 565
14 19 565
15 20 566
16 21 566
17 22 566
18
19 ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT:
20 No. Recd
21 1 605
22
23
24
25

467
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 THE COURT: Good morning.
3 MR. McCORMICK: Good morning, Your Honor.
4 MR. METCALF: Good morning, Your Honor.
5 MR. WALLACE: Good morning.
6 MS. BUGG: Good morning, Your Honor.
7 THE COURT: Mr. McCormick, I understand
8 you have a matter you wish to take up with the Court
9 before we call out the jurors?
10 MR. McCORMICK: I do, Your Honor. And
11 this has to do with -- Your Honor, Dr. Castleman is in
12 the courtroom. Maybe we should ask him to --
13 THE COURT: All right. Dr. Castleman, if
14 youll come up and be sworn and well have you
15 separated, sir.
16 (The witness was sworn.)
17 MR. McCORMICK: Your Honor, may Ms. King
18 come up as well?
19 THE COURT: Yes.
20 If you will go with the bailiff, please,
21 until were ready for your testimony.
22 (Dr. Castleman left the courtroom.)
23 MR. McCORMICK: Your Honor, I think that
24 this really falls under the heading of innocent
25 naivety, and I dont think it really amounts to much,

468
1 but I wanted to bring it to the Courts attention for
2 purposes of full disclosure.
3 Last night when I was -- I had left the
4 court and was driving back to the office and a phone
5 call came in on my cell phone, an unknown phone
6 number. I knew it was a cell number just because of
7 the prefix and there was -- the gentleman on the other
8 end of the line just said, hello, Hugh. How are you
9 doing?
10 Im doing fine.
11 And I recognized the voice so it wasnt
12 troubling, but I couldnt put a face with the voice.
13 The next question was, how is your trial
14 going?
15 And I said, who is calling, please? He
16 said, oh, this is Darren.
17 Well, Darren is somebody that I have a
18 casual acquaintance with. Hes a gentleman who works
19 at a car dealership that Ive done a fair amount of
20 business with over the years.
21 And I said, Darren, how do you know I
22 have a trial going on?
23 And he said, well, my wife is on the
24 jury. Shes the lady who had issues with hardship
25 yesterday.

469
1 And I stopped the phone call at that
2 point and I said, Darren, please dont call me again.
3 This is an inappropriate call. You shouldnt have
4 made this. And I hung up the phone.
5 And thats really where it ended, Your
6 Honor. I went back and looked at Ms. Shackelfords
7 questionnaire and clearly it references her spouses
8 employment as a service advisor, service manager,
9 parts manager. Thats clearly what her husband does.
10 Thats what I know he does, but I -- she didnt
11 identify his employer, so I had no earthly idea who it
12 was.
13 Furthermore, Ive known this gentleman
14 for a couple, three years. Hes not -- you know, hes
15 an acquaintance Ive spoken to at the dealership. I
16 dont know where he lives. I didnt know he was
17 married. Ive never met his wife. And candidly until
18 I put two and two together, I didnt even recognize
19 the last name.
20 So I really dont think that this is a
21 problem, but I thought it appropriate to bring it to
22 the Courts attention immediately and thats why I
23 called Ms. Davis and left a message on her machine
24 this morning at 7:30.
25 THE COURT: Yes, sir. All right.

470
1 MR. WALLACE: Your Honor, the
2 information -- I appreciate Mr. McCormick divulging it
3 and sharing it and I understand the innocence of it.
4 Im troubled that a manager of a car dealership or
5 someone in the car dealership would call him at night
6 to say how is the trial going? That seems so out of
7 line. Obviously the wife has been talking to the
8 husband, Im in this trial and guess whos in it and
9 this type of thing.
10 To the extent of what it is, I dont
11 know. It might be appropriate to ask her, it might be
12 appropriate to admonish her again privately if we keep
13 her, but it certainly is troublesome to me.
14 And its not Mr. McCormicks fault. Im
15 not fussing there. Im just having reservation about
16 the juror. Perhaps the way to cure it is bring her in
17 by herself and just talk to her about it.
18 MR. McCORMICK: Your Honor, to put a few
19 things in perspective, I thought about this all night
20 because it was troublesome to me, and I couched my
21 comments in terms of it being innocent and naivety,
22 and I think it probably is. The --
23 THE COURT: When was the last time you
24 had spoken to this gentleman?
25 MR. McCORMICK: I was thinking about that

471
1 this morning, Your Honor. When I took -- when I drove
2 to Dr. Castlemans deposition in Washington, which was
3 back in September, I believe, a service light came on
4 in my car. I took the car in a day or two later, so
5 that would have been the end of September. There was
6 one part they needed to get that was about three to
7 four days later. I had -- they had given me a loaner
8 car while my car was in there and I had an accident
9 and unfortunately totaled the loaner car, so I was
10 persona non grata.
11 So anyway, I think that was probably
12 September -- the end of September. I was up waiting
13 because this part was a five-minute fix and I was just
14 standing around and we got -- her husband and I got to
15 talking at that point, and he said, what type of law
16 do you practice?
17 And I said, well, this is what I do. And
18 so I think probably -- Im just thinking this, but my
19 perception is I got the phone call and I went back and
20 checked my phone, it was 5:32. It wasnt nine oclock
21 at night. It was 5:30 in the afternoon. I suspect
22 Ms. Shackelford probably called her husband on the way
23 home and said, well, Im done for the day, and he was
24 probably still at work because they work until
25 six oclock.

472
1 I think probably the only phone number
2 they have up there is my cell phone. Im one of these
3 people who gives that number out as opposed to any
4 other number because people cant reach me on land
5 lines.
6 THE COURT: It takes an awful lot to call
7 someone out of the blue and ask them, how is the trial
8 going? Thats unusual to me. I mean, even if he knew
9 you -- Im just wondering out loud, you know, for
10 the -- but to you does he seem like a forward person?
11 I mean, it really seems presumptuous.
12 MR. McCORMICK: Friendly and outgoing and
13 perhaps not the most intelligent person.
14 THE COURT: Okay.
15 MR. McCORMICK: Certainly by his actions
16 last night, that would be borne true.
17 THE COURT: Well, all right. Lets bring
18 Ms. Shackelford out and I will let counsel ask her any
19 questions that you feel would be appropriate to see if
20 theres anything to this.
21 MR. McCORMICK: Your Honor, our other
22 option at this point is to -- we do have two
23 alternates -- just to excuse her from service. Wed
24 be riding a little blind, but wed still have one
25 alternate left and thats certainly -- that would do

473
1 away with any concerns or --
2 THE COURT: Whats your preference,
3 Mr. Wallace?
4 MR. WALLACE: I think we ought to hear
5 from Ms. Shackelford, Your Honor. And if I might say
6 something, I dont want to be the heavy -- asking her
7 questions where she will turn against me because Im
8 pulling her out.
9 THE COURT: No. Im going to tell her
10 that because of her husbands phone call to
11 Mr. McCormick, which was improper, that we have some
12 concerns and that its only fair that you and/or
13 Mr. McCormick have an opportunity to question her to
14 clear up any questions you might have.
15 I also want on the record -- and I want
16 you to be -- I dont want you to have any reservations
17 whatsoever. I mean, if you think youre going to have
18 some reservations, I will gladly do what Mr. McCormick
19 has suggested and that is just to excuse her, to tell
20 her that, you know, the phone call was inappropriate
21 and we think at this point it would be inappropriate
22 for her to continue to serve and let her go.
23 MR. McCORMICK: Your Honor, I think that
24 probably is the best course of action because this
25 elephant is going to be here for the rest of this

474
1 trial, and I dont know how to undo that.
2 THE COURT: Mr. Wallace.
3 MR. WALLACE: I still would like to hear
4 from her, Your Honor.
5 THE COURT: Well, do you want to question
6 her? You want to know what she thinks, but you --
7 MR. WALLACE: Your Honor, I want you to
8 be the heavy hand.
9 THE COURT: I dont mind doing that. But
10 I can ask some questions, but from your point of
11 view -- I mean, if you want to write out some
12 questions, Id be glad to ask her.
13 MR. WALLACE: Why dont we do it this
14 way, if the Court agrees, bring her in, you talk to
15 her, advise her of the situation, ask her questions,
16 and then give us an opportunity if we want to ask any
17 additional questions.
18 Is that something that might work?
19 THE COURT: Well, are you opposed to just
20 releasing her?
21 MR. WALLACE: I dont know. I need to
22 hear more about it than that. She was a juror that I
23 felt comfortable with from the moment of selection. I
24 did not know this background. Frankly --
25 MR. McCORMICK: Nor did we.

475
1 MR. WALLACE: -- I probably would have
2 been more curious about it in the voir dire. I feel
3 like with her background and her education, she would
4 be good for this jury.
5 THE COURT: Yeah, shes the same juror
6 that called after hours and said that it was a
7 hardship and she didnt realize that it was going to
8 be two weeks. And I dont know how many times we said
9 it over the course of the mornings proceedings that
10 this was going to be an extended trial and ask her and
11 ask her and then the next day she has an issue and
12 then she comes in and says, no; well, never mind.
13 Ill just work on Saturdays.
14 So I dont know where she is, what shes
15 thinking about really.
16 MR. McCORMICK: And, Your Honor, this
17 background -- I mean, here is her questionnaire.
18 MR. WALLACE: I have it right here.
19 MR. McCORMICK: I mean, Your Honor, if I
20 might, it lists her husbands occupation. I had no
21 earthly idea --
22 MR. WALLACE: Im not impugning anything
23 to Mr. McCormick. I think hes been very forthright
24 in sharing this with us today. These things happen
25 sometimes. You dont know whats going to happen.

476
1 MR. McCORMICK: Its unfortunate, Your
2 Honor. Ive lived in this town 34 years and Ive got
3 a namesake as well, so unfortunately theres a lot of
4 people that I run into.
5 THE COURT: All right. She has been
6 associated -- are you all doing the will? Is she the
7 one you were doing the will for?
8 MR. McCORMICK: No, maam.
9 MR. WALLACE: Shes gone.
10 MR. McCORMICK: I dont know --
11 THE COURT: Read your first page. Read
12 the -- what is that?
13 MR. McCORMICK: I dont know, Your Honor.
14 I have no earthly idea what her response was to that.
15 She says she knows someone that works with Patten,
16 Wornom, does not know any of the attorneys associated
17 with the trial.
18 THE COURT: Okay. Let me see my notes.
19 Do we have the transcript from Monday?
20 MR. WALLACE: Were pulling it now. I
21 think she was the one that had a will pending.
22 MR. McCORMICK: She wasnt. That was --
23 MR. WALLACE: That was the lady I thought
24 that was removed.
25 MR. McCORMICK: You did, you removed her.

477
1 She was the teacher from Norfolk.
2 MR. WALLACE: I know I made a conscious
3 effort to strike her because of that issue. We have
4 it here.
5 (There was a pause in the proceedings.)
6 MR. McCORMICK: Your Honor, I didnt
7 throw my notes away, but I can visualize them sitting
8 in the conference room at my office.
9 (There was a pause in the proceedings.)
10 THE COURT: Well, if you have some
11 questions you want me to ask her, Mr. Wallace, jot
12 them down. Ill ask them for you.
13 MR. WALLACE: All right.
14 THE COURT: Bring her out so we can
15 listen to what she has to say.
16 And then hand up any questions you want
17 me to ask her.
18 MR. McCORMICK: Your Honor, I wont have
19 any questions for her. My position is she should be
20 excused.
21 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
22 (Juror Shackelford entered the
23 courtroom.)
24 THE COURT: Good morning,
25 Ms. Shackelford. How are you this morning?

478
1 JUROR SHACKELFORD: Good. Thank you.
2 THE COURT: We called you out before we
3 started this morning because I wanted to know if you
4 were aware that your husband had called one of the
5 attorneys in this matter last evening?
6 JUROR SHACKELFORD: No, maam, I did not.
7 THE COURT: He did not share that with
8 you?
9 JUROR SHACKELFORD: No, maam.
10 THE COURT: What is your husbands name?
11 JUROR SHACKELFORD: James Darren
12 Shackelford.
13 THE COURT: Where does he work?
14 JUROR SHACKELFORD: Auto Haus, H-a-u-s.
15 THE COURT: Auto Haus?
16 JUROR SHACKELFORD: Its German.
17 THE COURT: Do you have any reason to
18 believe that he knows Mr. McCormick?
19 JUROR SHACKELFORD: That he knows him?
20 Through his job.
21 THE COURT: You know that he knows him
22 through his job?
23 JUROR SHACKELFORD: Yes, maam.
24 THE COURT: How do you know that?
25 JUROR SHACKELFORD: I think he referred

479
1 us for our will when we had our will drawn there.
2 THE COURT: Okay. Who referred you?
3 JUROR SHACKELFORD: Mr. McCormick.
4 THE COURT: Referred you to?
5 JUROR SHACKELFORD: To the company.
6 Darren, my husband, knows Mr. McCormick through his
7 work, Auto Haus.
8 THE COURT: Right, yes.
9 JUROR SHACKELFORD: Through that we made
10 the connection to make our will there at his firm.
11 THE COURT: So did you make a will at
12 Patten, Wornom, Hatten & Diamonstein?
13 JUROR SHACKELFORD: Yes, maam.
14 THE COURT: Okay. And have you talked to
15 your husband at all about your service here?
16 JUROR SHACKELFORD: No, maam.
17 THE COURT: Did you and he discuss the
18 fact that you felt initially that your service would
19 be a hardship?
20 JUROR SHACKELFORD: Did we discuss that?
21 THE COURT: Yes.
22 JUROR SHACKELFORD: Yes, maam.
23 THE COURT: Okay. And without crying,
24 did you come to the decision on your own that you
25 could continue to work, or was there some disagreement

480
1 between you and your husband about that?
2 JUROR SHACKELFORD: That was my decision.
3 He didnt know that I was going to decide to continue
4 on with the jury duty.
5 THE COURT: He thought you were going to
6 ask to be excused?
7 JUROR SHACKELFORD: That was a
8 possibility, yes, maam.
9 THE COURT: Okay. All right. And last
10 night when you went home he did not mention anything
11 to you that he had tried to get in touch with anyone?
12 JUROR SHACKELFORD: No, maam.
13 MR. WALLACE: May we approach, Your
14 Honor?
15 THE COURT: Yes, you may.
16 (A sidebar conference was held as
17 follows:)
18 MR. OCONNELL: Obviously I think if you
19 asked her that she obeys your admonitions every night,
20 but I just -- shes -- yeah, its just a bad feeling,
21 so I agree with Mr. McCormick.
22 MR. WALLACE: I do, too.
23 THE COURT: I understand.
24 MR. OCONNELL: Its there.
25 THE COURT: I understand.

481
1 (The sidebar conference concluded and the
2 proceedings resumed in open court as follows:)
3 THE COURT: Ms. Shackelford, we have
4 agreed that under all the circumstances, that perhaps
5 it might be best if we excused you from this
6 particular jury, and so Im going to thank you for
7 your service.
8 Do you have personal effects in the jury
9 room?
10 JUROR SHACKELFORD: Yes, maam.
11 THE COURT: All right.
12 JUROR SHACKELFORD: Your Honor, I
13 carpooled this morning with one of the jury members.
14 THE COURT: You did?
15 JUROR SHACKELFORD: Yes, maam. If I can
16 just get my phone, I can make a phone call. My cell
17 phone is in her car because I cant bring it in here.
18 THE COURT: Yes, thats true. Which
19 juror was that?
20 JUROR SHACKELFORD: Pat Valvo.
21 THE COURT: Ms. Valvo?
22 JUROR SHACKELFORD: Yes, maam.
23 THE COURT: Where did you park?
24 JUROR SHACKELFORD: In the regular
25 parking -- the one that were supposed to park in

482
1 first. Im not sure which one that is.
2 THE COURT: Okay. Can you ask Ms. Valvo
3 to send out her car keys so we can get her cell phone,
4 and if you will return Ms. Valvos keys to us.
5 THE BAILIFF: Yes, maam.
6 JUROR SHACKELFORD: Yes, maam.
7 THE COURT: I dont want you to feel
8 badly about this. Its just -- those are just things
9 that happen in life. And we dont think you
10 deliberately have done anything wrong or that your
11 husband did anything deliberately wrong, but these
12 cases are so sensitive and theres a lot at stake and
13 so we try our very best to have a jury thats composed
14 of people where there are absolutely no indications
15 that one side might feel, you know, that the other
16 side has an advantage or something because this is a
17 very important case to both sides, so Im sure you
18 realize that.
19 JUROR SHACKELFORD: Yes, maam.
20 THE COURT: So, please, dont be upset.
21 Thank you. Yes, you may be excused.
22 (Juror Shackelford left the courtroom.)
23 MR. McCORMICK: Your Honor, I had no idea
24 about the will.
25 THE COURT: She said that.

483
1 MR. McCORMICK: Your memory is better
2 than mine. I very -- he may have asked me that
3 question sometime ago that wasnt any part of the
4 conversation we had a month ago. Im sure my partners
5 are appreciative, but I dont keep track of that
6 stuff.
7 MR. WALLACE: But she wasnt the one who
8 had it pending because I would have specifically
9 struck --
10 MR. McCORMICK: No, it wasnt her.
11 THE COURT: Well, I know I have CRS and I
12 know that means cant remember stuff, but sometimes
13 it -- you know, I do remember things.
14 All right. Anything else?
15 MR. McCORMICK: (Shaking head.)
16 MR. HARTY: Your Honor, just one
17 housekeeping matter. We had -- during our argument, I
18 had mentioned a deposition transcript of George
19 McKillop from 1986. And just to supplement the
20 record, Id like to offer the portions of that
21 deposition transcript to the Court. And Ive shown it
22 to Ms. Bugg and she had no objections.
23 MS. BUGG: No objection, Your Honor.
24 THE COURT: All right. You may submit
25 it.

484
1 Is there anything further? If not --
2 MR. McCORMICK: No, Your Honor.
3 THE COURT: Bring out the jury.
4 (The jury entered the courtroom.)
5 THE BAILIFF: Eight jurors in the box.
6 THE COURT: Eight jurors in the box.
7 Does counsel waive the poll?
8 MR. METCALF: Yes, Your Honor.
9 MR. WALLACE: Yes, Your Honor.
10 MR. McCORMICK: Yes, Your Honor.
11 THE COURT: You may have a seat.
12 Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I
13 have to look around to monitor to be sure I see
14 Mr. Chapman, so good morning.
15 I hope you-all had a very pleasant
16 evening. And we are ready to get started this morning
17 and we will begin by having plaintiffs counsel to
18 continue with their case.
19 Mr. Metcalf.
20 MR. METCALF: Yes, Your Honor. At this
21 time wed like to call Barry Castleman as our next
22 witness.
23 BARRY I. CASTLEMAN, PhD, called as a
24 witness, having been first duly sworn, was examined
25 and testified as follows:

485
1 DIRECT EXAMINATION
2 BY MR. METCALF:
3 Q. Settled in, sir?
4 A. I think so.
5 Q. Okay. Would you, please, introduce
6 yourself to the folks on the jury?
7 A. My name is Barry Castleman. I live in
8 Maryland suburbs, in Washington, DC.
9 Q. Dr. Castleman, do you have an occupation
10 or profession?
11 A. Yes. My field is toxic substances
12 control. Im trained in engineering and public
13 health.
14 Q. Could you tell us about the kinds of
15 things that you do now in your field -- can you say it
16 again?
17 A. Engineering and public health is the
18 background.
19 Q. But you said --
20 A. Toxic substances.
21 Q. Okay.
22 A. Well, I deal in the area of public
23 information and regulation primarily of hazard --
24 industrial hazards involving toxic substances in
25 industry, toxic substances and products that are used

486
1 by consumers.
2 Q. How long have you been doing that work?
3 A. About 35 years.
4 Q. Have you ever written and published any
5 articles about asbestos?
6 A. Yes. Asbestos is featured centrally in
7 my work since 1970, and Ive published about 60 or 70
8 articles, editorials, chapters in books, scientific
9 literature about asbestos and public health hazards.
10 The articles havent been solely about asbestos, but
11 its figured in probably over 50 of these articles in
12 a major way.
13 Q. When did you first publish an article
14 about asbestos?
15 A. I wrote a report called Asbestos and You
16 published by the Center for Science and Public
17 Interest in 1973 which was introduced at a senate
18 hearing where I testified.
19 Q. Have you testified more than just that
20 one time in front of a Congressional committee
21 hearings?
22 A. Yes. Theres been other occasions over
23 the years. In this past year I testified at two
24 senate hearings on a piece of legislation called, To
25 Ban Asbestos in America Act.

487
1 Q. About how many times have you testified
2 in front of Congress at Congressional hearings?
3 A. Oh, maybe about four other occasions
4 prior to that. And theres been some written
5 statements Ive also filed for the record in
6 connection with some other senate hearings.
7 Q. Can you give us sort of an idea of the
8 scope of your activities that you have been doing over
9 the past years in your field in which you worked in?
10 A. Well, I started out as an independent
11 consultant in 1975 after having worked in the chemical
12 industry and as a public health official, and I worked
13 with environmental groups at first and we would try to
14 prevail on federal government agencies to regulate
15 different aspects of asbestos exposure, asbestos
16 contamination, table salt asbestos use in manufacturer
17 of intravenous drugs and the contamination of
18 penicillin and drugs like that, asbestos cement pipes
19 in the drinking water, supplies, and asbestos in such
20 consumer products as drywall patching compounds,
21 spackling, joint, or taping compounds. And so these
22 are among the kinds of issues that I got involved in
23 trying to bring about government regulation in the
24 1970s.
25 I was also hired by governmental agencies

488
1 as well, federal agencies, including the White House
2 Council on Environmental Quality, the Environmental
3 Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health
4 Administration, Federal Trade Commission, Consumer
5 Product Safety Commission, and the US Department of
6 Justice.
7 Q. What were you doing for the US Department
8 of Justice?
9 A. In its case -- this was actually a legal
10 case that went to the court -- the US Court of Claims
11 across the street from the White House, and the
12 plaintiff was Johns Manville Corporation and they were
13 suing the government claiming that the government was
14 partly responsible for work developing asbestos
15 disease from exposure to asbestos insulation and other
16 products during World War II. And so it was an issue
17 in this case of did Johns Manville know stuff they
18 didnt share with the government? Did the government
19 know stuff they didnt share with Johns Manville? And
20 who knew more about the hazards of asbestos?
21 So this was one of the issues considered
22 by the court, and I was asked by the government to be
23 an expert witness in the presentation of the
24 governments case on that point.
25 Q. I take it you had occasion over the years

489
1 then to -- not only in the Court of Claims for the
2 Justice Department, but to come in other courts and
3 testify?
4 A. Yes. About 25 years starting in 1979 I
5 averaged about one trial a month somewhere in the
6 United States and Australia. They understand me very
7 well thanks to Hollywood; I have a little more
8 difficulty with their accents.
9 Q. Still cant remember if its a lizard or
10 a gecko or what that is.
11 Now, Dr. Castleman, in addition to, you
12 know, your work with government agencies and coming to
13 court from time to time for the justice department and
14 for these environmental organizations, are there other
15 activities in which you engage?
16 A. Well, Ive also worked for international
17 bodies, the World Resources Institute at Washington,
18 International Labor Organization, in Geneva, the
19 European Union in the case that went to the World
20 Trade Organization where Canada tried to challenge the
21 ban on asbestos by France 10 years ago, and so the
22 World Trade Organization had to determine whether
23 banning asbestos was an unfair trade practice or
24 whether it was justified under the world trade
25 agreement, and so I was hired as a scientific advisor

490
1 by the European Union to determine the French ban, and
2 we did prevail in that case.
3 Q. Dr. Castleman, can you give us a
4 thumbnail sketch of your educational background that
5 you had to become what you do today?
6 A. Well, I had original training in chemical
7 engineering at Johns Hopkins University, graduated in
8 1968. I went to work for the chemical industry for a
9 while and came back to Johns Hopkins in environmental
10 engineering and was trained in air pollution control
11 in 1970 to 1971. Thats where I became interested in
12 asbestos and wrote my masters thesis about the health
13 effects of asbestos. I was quite amazed at the ways
14 that asbestos was being used at the time given what
15 was known in the medical literature about its dangers.
16 And then I was -- then I came back to
17 school about 10 years later in the early 80s and got
18 a doctorate from the Johns Hopkins School of Public
19 Health and wrote my doctorate thesis about what we
20 called asbestos and historical case study of corporate
21 response to industrial health hazard. So there I
22 looked at this as basically a case study of public
23 health failure to prevent the disease.
24 Q. What kind of courses did you have to take
25 at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health to get your

491
1 doctorate degree?
2 A. I had to take about two years of
3 coursework in such things as physiology, toxicology,
4 epidemiology, bio statistics, as well as occupational
5 and environmental health policy courses.
6 Q. In your work is it necessary for you to
7 be able to read and interpret scientific medical
8 literature about asbestos diseases?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Why is that?
11 A. Well, because its a multidisciplinary
12 field, public health. But in choosing your targets of
13 maximum opportunity, you have to be able to compare
14 the different types of problems to each other, so you
15 can use limited public health resources to address the
16 most serious ones, and that means you need to have a
17 kind of independent, logical, scientific way of
18 assessing which problems are more serious than others
19 based on the dangers of the material involved, the
20 numbers of people exposed, and the availability of,
21 say, safer substitute materials, things like that. So
22 you get into issues of things having to do with
23 medicine and technology and trying to address these
24 problems.
25 Q. Does the field of public health in which

492
1 you work, Dr. Castleman, deal at all with strategies
2 for disease prevention?
3 A. Sure. I mean, the main methods of
4 prevention are information, laws, and regulations, and
5 other things, information regulation and compensation.
6 Information at every level, from the level of medical
7 articles about occupational diseases caused by
8 different materials, to public information,
9 information thats provided by the government or by
10 manufacturers of products about the drug side effects,
11 about the dangers associated with use of products that
12 are not obvious dangers to the consumer, but which the
13 consumer needs to be warned about so that precautions
14 can be taken.
15 In addition, information regulation. We
16 understand the need for regulation as a way of
17 protecting the food supply, keeping hucksters from
18 selling all kinds of garbage drugs to the public, so
19 we need to have government regulation of things
20 relating to public health, foods, drugs, occupational
21 exposure, toxic substances, pollution of the
22 environment with industrial wastes, and things like
23 that.
24 And this is a way of leveling the playing
25 field so that the more rapacious industries dont have

493
1 an advantage over their more responsible competitors
2 who spend some money protecting workers from dusts in
3 manufacturing processes and so on.
4 And then compensation also plays a role
5 in prevention because, for example, with the drug
6 companies they are more worried about lawsuits than
7 the Food and Drug Administration. As they start to
8 get reports of adverse side effects from drugs that
9 are introduced and they realize that if they dont own
10 up about this in a public way, there are going to
11 be -- theres going to be a price to pay for that, and
12 that price grows as they delay letting information
13 out.
14 So compensation also has a role, a very
15 important role in prevention because this is borne in
16 mind by manufacturers who are selling products to the
17 public.
18 Q. Does the area of public health in which
19 you work, Dr. Castleman, deal at all with educating,
20 alerting, warning workers about potential hazards they
21 encounter in their work?
22 A. Yes. This is fundamental to a worker.
23 Health and safety is the communication to workers
24 about the nature of the harm that they suffer and the
25 risks they are exposed to. And this was obvious to me

494
1 from the time I started this as a 22-year-old chemical
2 engineer, and I had workers under my direction doing
3 preparation of samples of material with industrial
4 equipment that the research center for Hercules,
5 Incorporated where they would be operating on rotating
6 shifts around the clock sometimes because you dont
7 just shut down the chemical process at four oclock in
8 the afternoon if its still reacting in the reactor;
9 you have to keep on going straight through the night.
10 So I would have to write shift notes for
11 the workers and I would have to tell them these are
12 the dangers you need to avoid, these are the hazards
13 associated with the products and the by-products that
14 youre going to be exposed to, and these are the
15 effects that these materials can cause. So if you
16 start to notice certain types of effects, you should
17 understand that you may be seeing early signs of
18 poison from this material, and that should warn you
19 about what youre doing, that you need to be more
20 careful.
21 So these are the kind of things that Ive
22 always understood are absolutely essential to getting
23 workers to understand the nature of the dangers that
24 they face and the available means of protecting
25 themselves from those dangers.

495
1 Q. In the course of your work,
2 Dr. Castleman, have you gone back and reviewed the
3 history of the development of knowledge about asbestos
4 diseases in the United States, western Europe?
5 A. Yes. This was the subject of my doctoral
6 thesis at Johns Hopkins, was public health and
7 corporate history of asbestos.
8 Q. Now, youve written a book?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Do you have a copy up there?
11 A. Yes, I do.
12 Q. Can you hold that up so we can see it.
13 Good. Can you tell us about the -- how
14 that book came into being, the evolution of it.
15 A. The book was largely identical to my
16 doctoral thesis at Johns Hopkins and was published
17 first in 1984. It had two things that were added that
18 werent in the doctoral thesis, but it was largely
19 identical to the doctoral thesis. I have expanded it
20 four times since then with the emergence of newly
21 discovered information about the history of asbestos,
22 the public health history of asbestos. And so its
23 now in its fifth edition, and its twice the size of
24 my doctoral thesis. This edition was published about
25 three years ago.

496
1 MR. METCALF: Your Honor, at this time I
2 would offer Dr. Castleman as an expert in the field of
3 public health as it pertains to asbestos, asbestos
4 disease control and prevention, the history of
5 asbestos, the development of knowledge about
6 asbestos-related diseases, and corporate response to
7 industrial health hazards as it relates to asbestos.
8 MR. WALLACE: May I ask some questions
9 before we make this decision?
10 THE COURT: You may take him on voir
11 dire, yes, sir.
12 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
13 BY MR. WALLACE:
14 Q. Good morning.
15 A. Good morning.
16 Q. The book that you have written thats now
17 in its fifth edition is entitled, Asbestos: Medical
18 and Legal Aspects?
19 A. Right.
20 Q. And its your testimony that the first
21 time it was printed was 1984?
22 A. Right.
23 Q. First publishing?
24 A. Right.
25 Q. Did you have a book like this in 1973?

497
1 A. No.
2 Q. Now, it has the title, Medical and Legal
3 Aspects. Youre not an oncologist, are you?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Or a pathologist?
6 A. No, Im not a medical doctor of any
7 specialty.
8 Q. Okay.
9 A. Im not a medical doctor.
10 Q. And that would include internal medicine,
11 pulmonary medicine? Youre not a doctor of any kind?
12 A. Im not a medical doctor. My field is
13 public health, which kind of subsumes things like law
14 and medicine.
15 Q. So in writing about medical aspects,
16 youre just reporting what you found in the
17 literature?
18 A. Im basically telling the public health
19 history of asbestos based on what was in the published
20 literature and what was in the corporate documents
21 that have come to light.
22 Q. Now, this also says, Legal Aspects. Does
23 this book contain information about the legal things?
24 A. Yes. It talks about the Workers
25 Compensation laws, the history of compensation for

498
1 asbestos disease going back to the 1920s and the
2 1930s.
3 Q. But youre not a lawyer?
4 A. Thats correct.
5 Q. And you dont try cases anywhere?
6 A. Pardon?
7 Q. You dont try cases anywhere?
8 A. No, I dont practice law without a
9 license or medicine without a license.
10 Q. So when you talk about the legal aspects,
11 youre just, again, reporting what you find
12 historically in the literature?
13 A. Well, its an analysis. Its basically
14 the public health history of asbestos, which is
15 largely consisting of medical and legal components.
16 Q. Youre not a certified industrial
17 hygienist, are you?
18 A. I have training in industrial hygiene,
19 but Ive never taken a certification exam, thats
20 correct.
21 Q. I think I heard your testimony, I had a
22 few courses in that when I was going through, but I
23 dont -- havent ever been board certified in that?
24 A. Thats right. Ive had training in
25 designing industrial ventilations, for example.

499
1 Q. Are you licensed by any state as an
2 industrial hygienist?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Have you ever done any of the industrial
5 hygiene air monitoring sampling work?
6 A. No, I dont do sampling and analysis.
7 Q. You have a degree in epidemiology?
8 A. No. I have training in epidemiology, but
9 not a specialized degree in that field.
10 Q. You understand epidemiology is a big word
11 for saying were going to study a mass or a group of
12 people to see whats going on with them?
13 A. Well, I would say they are statistical
14 studies of disease and risk factors in the human
15 population.
16 Q. But youre not licensed by anybody as an
17 epidemiologist, are you?
18 A. No. I dont know if they give licenses
19 to epidemiologists for that matter, but I dont have
20 one.
21 Q. You dont hold yourself out as an expert
22 in epidemiology, do you?
23 A. Not as a specialist in epidemiology, but
24 epidemiology has certainly been essential in the arena
25 of regulation in which Ive been involved for

500
1 35 years.
2 Q. Youve never published a case report on
3 asbestos, have you?
4 A. No. Thats the sort of thing that
5 physicians do, describing cases of individual diseases
6 that they have seen.
7 Q. And youre not able to say what causes a
8 disease in a specific individual?
9 A. Well, I often have opinions about things
10 like that, but I dont testify about that. Thats
11 generally considered medical testimony in cases of
12 this kind.
13 Q. You havent prepared a written report on
14 Mr. King, have you?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Have you ever met Mr. King?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Have you ever talked with Mr. King?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Have you talked with his wife, other than
21 to say hello?
22 A. No. My testimony is about the defense,
23 not about the plaintiff.
24 Q. Youve been denied the right to testify
25 in some courts, have you not, in history?

501
1 A. Theres certainly been cases where
2 defendants have challenged the plaintiffs in
3 introducing me as a witness. And the last judge to
4 exceed to those complaints was, I think, 1989 in the
5 federal court of Chicago. The judge didnt understand
6 what public health was and said, since I didnt have a
7 medical degree, I couldnt testify about the history
8 and knowledge about the hazards of asbestos.
9 Q. And youve not been allowed to testify
10 not only in federal courts like the one in Chicago,
11 but in state courts and in courts in the territory of
12 the United States, correct?
13 A. I think there was one in St. Croix that
14 you may be referring to. That had nothing to do with
15 my qualifications. For some reason or another, the
16 judge said I couldnt testify in his trial because at
17 one point I was chatting with somebody in the
18 courtroom during the proceedings and the judge took
19 offense at that and said, you cant testify as an
20 expert in this case. It was kind of strange.
21 Q. Now, you said when you got out of college
22 in 1968 you went to work for Hercules Chemical?
23 A. Right.
24 Q. And you were there for a while?
25 A. Yes.

502
1 Q. You were fired from that job, were you
2 not?
3 A. Well, I had some disputes with the
4 company about the way they were dumping hazardous
5 wastes and calling up the local officials about the
6 wastes that were going out of the plant, and so they
7 got upset at me about that.
8 Yes, they asked me to leave a couple days
9 early, but the head of their research center assured
10 me I wasnt being fired. As far as they were
11 concerned, I had done a good job as the young
12 engineer, and they wished me well.
13 Q. But you testified before, have you not,
14 in depositions that you were fired from that job?
15 A. Well --
16 Q. You and I went over this?
17 A. Ive given a longer explanation by saying
18 I was asked to leave a couple days early, and I, in
19 fact, did leave. I was called up early in the
20 afternoon and told to be out that afternoon, but then
21 I went to see the head of the research center and he
22 told me technically I wasnt being fired. They paid
23 me for the certain days I didnt show up at the end.
24 Q. Sometime after that you ended up at the
25 Baltimore Health Department, did you not, in

503
1 1972-1973?
2 A. Right.
3 Q. Public health engineer?
4 A. Right.
5 Q. Fired from that job, were you not?
6 A. Well, I testified at a Congressional
7 hearing in 1973. I named the names of companies that
8 were selling asbestos and using it in Baltimore County
9 and contaminated asbestos and then the head of the
10 health department told me I was being -- told me I was
11 going to be fired. I told him I was going to take
12 that to federal court as my right to free speech, and
13 they reconsidered and rehired me with full back pay
14 for the five weeks that I was out. And at that point
15 I gave them two weeks notice and said, okay; now, Im
16 ready to leave. Thank you very much.
17 Q. And the next year you worked for the --
18 in 1974-75 you worked for the Maryland Public
19 Interest Group, correct?
20 A. Maryland Public Interest Research Group,
21 which was run by college students at the University of
22 Maryland.
23 Q. You were fired from that job?
24 A. I was. Thats when I decided to become
25 an independent consultant.

504
1 Q. Then you became the independent
2 consultant that you are now?
3 A. I started.
4 Q. And would you not agree that at or about
5 that same time plaintiffs lawyers who represent
6 asbestos plaintiffs came to you and asked you to do a
7 research project?
8 A. It came about a year after I became an
9 independent consultant.
10 Q. And they put up the money for it that you
11 could draw down on from time to time?
12 A. They paid me more than the environmental
13 groups that I had been working with paid me. The
14 environmental groups paid me $50 a day. The lawyers
15 paid me $50 an hour, I think.
16 Q. They set up a fund, did they not, for
17 you?
18 A. Eventually plaintiffs lawyers started to
19 organize and there were more of these personal injury
20 cases of asbestos and the plaintiffs lawyers
21 collectively would hire me sometimes to do research
22 into different types of publicly available records
23 like Workers Compensation claims around the country
24 involving the companies and workers claiming that they
25 had developed asbestos diseases back in 1950s and

505
1 60s.
2 Q. And those lawyers, those plaintiffs
3 lawyers gave you information to assist you in your
4 research?
5 A. Sure. They would often provide me with
6 documentation they obtained in legal discovery where
7 one or another company would list the names of
8 claimants, the years the claims were filed, the state
9 where the claims were made, and that made it easier to
10 then try to look up the records of the Workers
11 Compensation records that were still in existence in
12 these government offices.
13 The lawyers also provided me copies of
14 things like trade association minutes and other kinds
15 of internal corporate documents which were being
16 produced in legal discovery which started to shed
17 light on the corporate response to the hazard of
18 asbestos, just what did individual companies know and
19 do as the knowledge about the hazards of asbestos
20 grew.
21 Q. And with that information --
22 MR. McCORMICK: Your Honor, if I may --
23 MR. WALLACE: Excuse me, Your Honor.
24 This is double-teaming and I object to two lawyers on
25 the same thing. I thought this was Mr. Metcalfs

506
1 witness.
2 MR. McCORMICK: Okay.
3 MR. METCALF: I was going to wait until
4 Mr. Wallace asked his question before I objected.
5 THE COURT: All right. Go ahead.
6 MR. WALLACE: Okay.
7 BY MR. WALLACE:
8 Q. And as a result of the information given
9 to you by plaintiffs attorneys and your own review of
10 what was in the libraries that you could find out came
11 this book?
12 MR. METCALF: Your Honor, now Ill
13 object. This is no longer qualification on
14 cross-examination. It would be appropriate to wait
15 his turn.
16 MR. WALLACE: I think it does go to his
17 qualification. Maybe you want me to say this in a
18 sidebar. I think it goes to his qualification,
19 whether or not he should be qualified or not.
20 THE COURT: Well, what came out of the
21 book, what preceded the book, and how the book came
22 about, certainly some of that you can explore. I
23 dont know if challenging his qualifications is the
24 proper area to do that, so I would sustain his
25 objection at this time.

507
1 MR. WALLACE: Okay. Ill come back to
2 that then.
3 THE COURT: Youll have an opportunity to
4 do it on cross-examination.
5 BY MR. WALLACE:
6 Q. At some point in history the lawyers set
7 up a fund, did they not, for you?
8 MR. METCALF: Same objection, Your Honor.
9 Again, it has nothing to do with Dr. Castlemans
10 qualifications.
11 MR. WALLACE: Your Honor, I think it does
12 because Mr. Metcalf is one of the contributors to that
13 fund.
14 THE COURT: Lets have a sidebar.
15 (A sidebar conference was held as
16 follows:)
17 THE COURT: Where are we going with this?
18 MR. WALLACE: I think it goes to what he
19 can testify to and goes to how he should be able to
20 testify as an expert or if hes someone plaintiffs
21 have set up.
22 MR. METCALF: Your Honor, let me -- this
23 has to do with credibility, but doesnt have anything
24 to do with qualifications.
25 THE COURT: I agree. I agree. What

508
1 youre asking has to go to the weight of --
2 MR. WALLACE: I think youre right. Ill
3 go that way.
4 THE COURT: All right then. Objection
5 sustained.
6 MR. WALLACE: Thanks.
7 (The sidebar conference concluded and the
8 proceedings resumed in open court as follows:)
9 BY MR. WALLACE:
10 Q. Is the degree that you hold as a Doctor
11 of Public Health?
12 A. Its technically called a Doctor of
13 Science Degree from the Johns Hopkins School of Public
14 Health.
15 MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Your Honor. I
16 will save the rest of my questions for
17 cross-examination, but I do object to his being
18 allowed to testify to anything other than being an
19 asbestos historian because he cant comment on
20 medicine, hes not a doctor; he cant talk -- comment
21 on legal issues, hes not a lawyer; he cant talk
22 about the issues and interpret things
23 epidemiologically or industrial hygienically. Hes a
24 historian and thats the limit of it, and I would not
25 object to that. But anything else, I would object to.

509
1 Thank you.
2 THE COURT: I dont think hes been
3 offered in any of those fields.
4 MR. WALLACE: They offered him in four
5 areas, one of which was the history of asbestos.
6 THE COURT: Well --
7 MR. WALLACE: The other three were not.
8 THE COURT: Well, he was offered as an
9 expert in public health as it relates to asbestos
10 disease, control, and prevention, history of
11 development of the knowledge of asbestos, and
12 corporate response to individual hazards posed by
13 asbestos.
14 MR. WALLACE: Which three of those are
15 historical, and I think thats the limit of what he
16 can talk about. When he starts talking about medical,
17 when he starts talking about legal, I dont think he
18 can do that.
19 THE COURT: I havent seen anything
20 thats medical or legal. I havent heard those words,
21 but you are free to object if you feel questions cross
22 the line.
23 MR. WALLACE: Thank you.
24 THE COURT: You may proceed, Mr. Metcalf.
25 MR. METCALF: Thank you, Your Honor.

510
1 BY MR. METCALF:
2 Q. By the way, Dr. Castleman, does your book
3 have acknowledgments?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. For what reason do you put
6 acknowledgments in your book?
7 A. Its an appropriate courtesy for people
8 that have been of some help in preparing a book like
9 this. This is an epic story involving a huge
10 industry, affecting millions of peoples lives over a
11 period of more than a century, and its an industry
12 that operated worldwide. And I needed a lot of
13 assistance in writing and just obtaining the material
14 that it took to write this book.
15 Q. Are there any people in this courtroom
16 who are acknowledged as having contributed and helped?
17 A. Two of them.
18 Q. Who are they?
19 A. You and Mr. Wallace are both acknowledged
20 in the book.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MR. WALLACE: Ill ask him about that on
23 cross, Your Honor.
24 THE COURT: All right.
25 MR. METCALF: May I approach, Your Honor?

511
1 THE COURT: Yes, you may.
2 BY MR. METCALF:
3 Q. Dr. Castleman, Ive handed you a
4 document. Can you identify it?
5 A. This looks like a -- its a copy of a
6 brochure of John Crane, Crane Packing Company offering
7 different types of products, listing the offices,
8 warehouses, and distributors, and sort of describing
9 the company.
10 Q. And is there a date?
11 A. 1934, I think is the date.
12 MR. METCALF: I guess I better get that
13 marked with an exhibit number, so we know what it is.
14 May I approach?
15 THE COURT: Yes, you may.
16 Any objection?
17 MR. WALLACE: No, maam.
18 THE COURT: It will be received and
19 marked appropriately as plaintiffs exhibit without
20 objection.
21 (Plaintiffs Exhibit No. 16 was received
22 into evidence.)
23 BY MR. METCALF:
24 Q. Dr. Castleman, Ill return to you what
25 has now been marked Plaintiffs 16, this 1934 John

512
1 Crane document.
2 And would you turn to the last page of
3 that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. It says introduction?
6 A. Right.
7 Q. Can you just read to us the first
8 sentence on that page?
9 A. The first sentence?
10 Q. Correct.
11 A. The packing manufacturers skill must
12 keep pace with the progress in engineering and
13 industry.
14 Q. Now, what I would like to do,
15 Dr. Castleman, is for a company that wanted to keep
16 pace with the progress and engineering and industry,
17 know about its products and the effects of them, what
18 sources of information were available to such a
19 company in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s?
20 A. Okay.
21 Q. When I ask -- first I should ask you -- I
22 notice your ankle seems to have some -- giving you
23 some trouble today. I wanted to see if you could list
24 these sources of information on a flip chart.
25 Are you okay standing up?

513
1 A. Yeah, I can walk over there.
2 MR. METCALF: May I move the flip chart
3 up?
4 THE COURT: Yes, you may.
5 MR. METCALF: Thank you, Your Honor.
6 BY MR. METCALF:
7 Q. If you can step down, Dr. Castleman.
8 Ill give you a pen. Lets check and make sure
9 everybody doesnt have to see through you to see
10 whats being written here.
11 The sources of information that would
12 have been -- were available, according to your
13 research, Dr. Castleman, to a company wanting to know
14 about potential health effects affecting its product
15 or need to take precautions, what were generally these
16 sources of information, if you can list them for us?
17 A. Well, first, there were medical sources,
18 and these include the journals, journals like the
19 journal of the American Medical Association, British
20 Medical Journal, special journals like the journals of
21 Industrial Hygiene, journals that carry articles, and
22 thats like the news of the medical world, the cutting
23 edge, appears in journal articles. Thats the first
24 appearance of new information.
25 Then medical textbooks lag the journals

514
1 by a year or more because it takes longer to get a
2 textbook into print than a journal article. They may
3 be a couple years later. After the information shows
4 up in journal articles, you see it in textbooks. If
5 its about asbestos disease, it might show up in
6 textbooks on internal medicine, pathology, cancer, and
7 occupational diseases. There were also books about
8 occupational diseases going all the way back to the
9 turn of the last century and before.
10 Then there were abstract publications as
11 well. There were two published in the United States.
12 Abstracts are summaries of articles that have been
13 published. So if an article gets published in a
14 German medical journal, then it might appear later in
15 an abstracting publication. So the original journal
16 article might be 20 pages in the German pathology
17 journal and the abstract will be a two-paragraph
18 summary thats in English summary of the highlights of
19 that article published within a years time usually of
20 the original article.
21 And there were abstracting publications
22 called the Journal of Industrial Hygiene, starting in
23 1919 and the Industrial Hygiene Digest, starting in
24 1937 in the United States, and one called Bulletin of
25 Hygiene, published in Great Britain, starting in 1926.

515
1 These all had annual indexes. So if you knew how to
2 spell asbestosis, you could just look up in the annual
3 index the abstracts on that subject and then open up
4 the volume for that year and look up the individual
5 abstracts. A very good and easy-to-use source of
6 information.
7 And anybody could walk into a medical
8 library and do this kind of stuff in the afternoon and
9 get an idea about what was publicly known.
10 Aside from medical publications, there
11 were trade magazines, trade magazines that were used
12 by companies manufacturing boilers, valves, pumps, for
13 example, and equipment for such devices, included
14 magazines with titles like Southern Power and
15 Industry, Heating and Ventilating. And we have found
16 a trade magazine with articles that talked about
17 asbestos hazards, asbestosis, and the like published
18 in the mid 1940s in which many companies that sold
19 valves and pumps and boilers and so on had
20 advertisements in the same issues of those magazines.
21 Q. When did the trade magazines start
22 publishing information about asbestos disease?
23 A. Well, you can go back to 1928 with
24 Asbestos magazine as one. The trade magazine of the
25 asbestos industry carried brief mention of articles on

516
1 asbestosis in 1928 and 1930.
2 Can I continue or do you want to talk
3 more about trade magazines?
4 Q. Well, I wanted to ask you, is this a
5 collection of -- is asbestos an article?
6 A. Yes, this is articles from the years 1937
7 and 1938. The magazine, you can see, was a little
8 magazine. The page size was kind of small. And this
9 is about 12 issues of the magazine in this one volume.
10 And it would have articles about the
11 uses, industrial uses of asbestos, new products being
12 introduced, advertisements from companies that were in
13 the industry, that sort of thing.
14 Q. Okay. Im sorry, Dr. Castleman. Go
15 ahead. Were you done with the trade magazines?
16 A. Yeah, I think we pretty well covered
17 those.
18 Q. Okay.
19 A. Then there were safety publications,
20 journals with names like Safety Engineering. And the
21 publications of the National Safety Council were most
22 prominent here.
23 The National Safety Council was set up
24 around 1912 as basically industries collective effort
25 to reduce the toll of industrial injuries by applying

517
1 more scientific approaches to the design of industrial
2 systems.
3 So, for example, if you had a fast-moving
4 belt of machinery that the worker had to stand next to
5 and if you put a guard over that belt so that he
6 couldnt get his sleeve caught in the belt, that was a
7 simple way of keeping people from suffering serious
8 injuries who worked in industry.
9 And so it was the development of safety
10 glasses, safety shoes, safety gloves, and other kinds
11 of things like that that were developed, industrial
12 safety, including such things as electrical hazards as
13 well, so the design of electrical systems so that
14 people wouldnt get electrocuted when they were
15 working in industry and the floors would get wet or
16 whatever else was going on. These were the kinds of
17 subjects that they addressed.
18 This became a very big group within a
19 very short time. Major industries of all kinds, heavy
20 industries were involved in the National Safety
21 Council. And this was set up in Chicago. And by 1928
22 they decided to expand and create an occupational
23 health group within the National Safety Council
24 because there was growing concern, particularly about
25 industrial dust diseases by that time. And so the

518
1 National Safety Council served as a major source of
2 information. They published something called the
3 National Safety News every month, which was available
4 publicly and in public libraries as well as to member
5 companies, and they had annual national safety
6 conferences where presentations would be made.
7 And by the mid 1930s you see in these
8 national safety conferences and National Safety News
9 lots of articles about industrial dust measurements,
10 industrial dust control, the diseases it could cause
11 and so on.
12 Q. Let me ask you specifically, by the mid
13 1930s was the National Safety Council publishing
14 articles in the National Safety News about asbestos
15 diseases?
16 A. Yes, many of the articles talked about
17 asbestos in particular.
18 Q. And by the mid 1930s was the National
19 Safety Council publishing articles about how to
20 prevent asbestos-related diseases?
21 A. Right. They talked about air sampling,
22 periodic air monitoring, they talked about the design
23 of industrial dust control systems, the idea of
24 setting up if you have an industrial process throwing
25 dust in the workers face to put a hood over the

519
1 process, to have that connected by ductwork or fan
2 that would draw the dust-laden air away from the
3 breathing zone with some dust-collecting device.
4 The simple engineering of these kinds of
5 systems was discussed in articles that appeared in the
6 National Safety News.
7 Q. And by the mid 1930s, Dr. Castleman, were
8 there articles in the asbestos safety news -- Im
9 sorry -- the National Safety Council newsletter
10 talking about whether or not it was important to make
11 actual measurements of a workplace to know whether or
12 not people were being exposed?
13 A. Yes. There was one article, for example,
14 in September of 1935 called the Spine Insurance
15 Official, who noted that the one method that was
16 important was the periodic monitoring of the dust
17 content of the air in industrial settings so you could
18 tell how dangerous it was. And the author noted that
19 the recommended guideline for dusts like silica was
20 five million particles of dust per cubic foot of air,
21 and the author said it usually takes about 60 million
22 particles of dust per cubic foot of air before you can
23 actually see the dust in the air.
24 So youre talking about dust particles
25 that are so small, has to be respirable into the deep

520
1 lungs; that means they are individually invisible.
2 Its only when the density of these dust particles in
3 the air is great enough that you start to see the
4 haziness when light is shining through it. But youre
5 not seeing any individual particles.
6 Q. Now, could you just write out next to the
7 National Safety Council the 1930s; thats when the
8 asbestos articles started to appear.
9 And Ill go back up to the medical --
10 Ill do the same thing on the medical journals. When
11 did the articles about asbestos disease start
12 appearing in medical journals?
13 A. The first report was in 1897.
14 Q. And did they continue regularly in the
15 medical journals after 1897?
16 A. Yes, particularly there were reports from
17 various countries in between 1897 and the mid 20s,
18 but starting in 1924 there were a large volume of
19 reports published in British Medical Journal and other
20 journals, so that by 1935 state government reports in
21 the State of Pennsylvania listed 135 references on
22 asbestos disease. So it was a large amount of
23 literature published by 1935, which was demonstrably
24 available in this country.
25 Q. How about medical textbooks, when did

521
1 asbestos disease information begin appearing in
2 medical textbooks?
3 A. I think we started to see stuff about
4 this in around 1930 and thereafter. The first case of
5 asbestosis published in the US medical journal was in
6 1930. It was right around that time that textbooks
7 were starting to reflect the publications from other
8 countries that had already appeared in the 20s and
9 before.
10 Q. And abstracts, when did these abstracting
11 publications start abstracting articles on asbestos
12 disease?
13 A. I dont have a specific one in mind, but
14 I would say the late 1920s definitely; sometime in the
15 late 1920s the abstracts started to come out.
16 Q. Now, under trade magazines, when did
17 trade magazines start publishing?
18 A. Well, I mentioned asbestos magazines, so
19 I guess were taking it back to 1928. And then there
20 were trade magazines in the chemical industry and
21 other industries, industrial management trade
22 magazines in the 1930s and so on.
23 Q. And did the trade magazines beginning in
24 about 1928 then regularly publish articles about
25 asbestos disease from then up until 1970?

522
1 A. Right. By 1970s, things like
2 architecture journals.
3 Q. Is there anything else under the safety
4 in addition to National Safety Council?
5 A. Well, I mentioned safety engineering.
6 And this was a journal which was published from around
7 1901 on. And Safety Engineering had an article in
8 1931 that was called, The Very Least That an Employer
9 Should Know About Industrial Dust Diseases and
10 Hazards. And it mentioned asbestos and said that
11 asbestos in any process in which its used is
12 dangerous. So well say 1931. There may have been an
13 earlier reference to asbestos in that journal, but
14 there certainly was one in 1931.
15 Q. Anything else under the safety
16 publications that we should mention?
17 A. No, I think that covers it pretty well.
18 Q. Then whats the next source of
19 information that a company in the 30s, 40s, 50s,
20 and 60s would have?
21 A. Well, there were government publications
22 of various kinds. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics
23 published a report in 1918 on mortality in dusty
24 trades. And this was a pretty thick volume; it had
25 four pages on asbestos, and there were actually a few

523
1 other pages where statistics were presented in
2 addition. It talked about the dangers of asbestos, it
3 had reported there were deaths in asbestos factories
4 from lung diseases reported in Britain and said -- the
5 author of this report was Frederick Hoffman who was
6 with the Prudential Company even though the report was
7 published by the federal government, and Hoffman said
8 it was generally the practice of insurance companies
9 to not sell life insurance to asbestos workers. This
10 is what he reported in this 1918 publication listing
11 that deaths from -- in asbestos workers attributed to
12 such causes as tuberculosis and pneumonia, that the
13 word asbestosis had not appeared in medical journals
14 and the insurance companies had already picked up on
15 this as a high-risk group. So I guess thats 1918 on.
16 There were British government publications well before
17 that, so well just say US in parentheses here.
18 Q. Were there any other US government
19 publications on asbestos disease, lets say, before
20 1950?
21 A. Yes. The US Department of Labor
22 published a journal called Monthly Review which
23 periodically carried reports on such things as
24 summaries of the annual report of the chief inspector
25 of factories and workshops in England, and they would

524
1 report on the mortality that tolled from asbestosis
2 and silicosis that had been reported in the British
3 government. And so it was kind of like one government
4 tipping its hat to the other, the British having a
5 much more advanced system of monitoring and regulating
6 industrial hazards than we had in the United States.
7 Q. Were there any publications by the US
8 Public Health Service?
9 A. Yes. The Public Health Service doesnt
10 have any regulatory authority. They didnt even have
11 the power to walk into a factory without the approval
12 of the factory owners.
13 But in the 1930s the Public Health
14 Service was able to talk its way into different
15 industries and do some surveys, and they did surveys
16 of a number of industries. And the 14, I think, of
17 these industries that they did such surveys in was the
18 asbestos industry in North Carolina, and they went
19 into some textile plants, they did some air sampling,
20 and they did some medical examination of the workers
21 who were still there.
22 The plant management, according to the
23 Public Health Service report, fired 150 out of less
24 than 600 of the workers before the Public Health
25 Service arrived. And then the Public Health Service

525
1 made a recommendation based on its findings that
2 exposures should be limited to no more than five
3 million particles of dust per cubic foot of air, the
4 same guideline that was used for silica dust and the
5 prevention of silicosis.
6 So we have the Public Health Service, US
7 Department of Labor, so maybe Ill just put DOL and
8 PHS to indicate the major government agencies that
9 published these reports back in the
10 19 -- well, in the early decades of the last century.
11 Q. Now, Dr. Castleman, while youre talking
12 about Public Health Service, I wanted to ask you
13 something about that study and the five million
14 particles.
15 Are you familiar with this book?
16 A. Yes, Silicosis and Asbestosis is a book
17 published by Dr. Anthony Lanza of the Metropolitan
18 Life Insurance. Lanza was an authority on dust
19 diseases of the lungs.
20 Q. And --
21 A. This was published in 1938.
22 Q. And this chapter is by -- it says its
23 Dr. Sayers and Dr. Lanza?
24 A. Right, the chapters were contributed by
25 different authors including British authors:

526
1 Etiology, Symptoms, Diagnosis of Silicosis and
2 Asbestosis. Its by Dr. Lanza and Roy Sayers of the
3 Public Health Service.
4 Q. And what did Dr. Sayers of the Public
5 Health Service and Dr. Lanza tell us about a number of
6 people who got sick when they were exposed to
7 different levels of asbestos in the 1938 publication?
8 A. He said one-fifth of those with an
9 exposure of 50 million to 99 million particle years
10 had asbestosis. In other words, if you have five
11 million particles per cubic foot and ten years of
12 exposure, that comes to 50 million, five times ten, so
13 thats how he comes up with these cumulative measures
14 of exposure that people had.
15 So even if you just had 10 to 20 years of
16 exposure at five million particles per cubic foot,
17 that is 50 to 100 million particle years, you had,
18 according to the -- prime is 20 percent of the workers
19 had asbestosis. So you could go to the industry at
20 the age of 18 and have asbestos before you were 40 and
21 have a very good chance of that according to this
22 finding.
23 Q. Thats at five million particles per
24 cubic foot?
25 A. Right. And this is basically information

527
1 that came right out of the Public Health Service
2 report of 1938, which was a study of peoples whose
3 average age was only 32, because after the 150 people
4 had been fired they had a lot of new workers in the
5 industry.
6 Q. And does it say how many people, what
7 percentage of people got sick if they were exposed at
8 over a hundred million particle years?
9 A. Yes. The same paragraph says that one
10 half of those with more than a hundred million
11 particle years because they didnt have that many
12 people with more than a hundred million particle years
13 because the workforce was so young.
14 Q. So if I understand, if I went to work at
15 age 20 and in an atmosphere that had five million
16 particles per cubic foot of dust that contained the
17 kind of asbestos they were measuring here, by age 40
18 half of those people would be sick from asbestosis?
19 A. No, not necessarily. But youd be in
20 that category of over a hundred million particle
21 years. You would have crossed over into the over
22 hundred million after 20 years at five million
23 particles per cubic foot.
24 So, yes, some of the people had more than
25 just barely over a hundred million; some had close to

528
1 150 million. But clearly you were in a high-risk
2 group. You were certainly in the upwards of over
3 20-percent risk and approaching 50-percent likelihood
4 of developing asbestosis. And this is just at the
5 time that the workers were examined. These same
6 workers would have that asbestos in their lungs for
7 years afterwards even if their exposure ceased.
8 And by 1938 it was established by
9 numerous reports that there was progression of disease
10 even in people whose exposures had stopped. The
11 radiologists had identified cases of individuals where
12 you could see from the sequential X rays of people
13 whose exposure had stopped, you know, they were
14 starting to get sick, their doctor said get out of
15 that industry, they stopped working with asbestos, but
16 their chest X rays from year to year would keep
17 getting worse because the mineral fibers were trapped
18 in the lungs and they were still exerting their
19 damaging effects.
20 Q. So it says five million particles per
21 cubic foot level is the one that after this 1938
22 report by Dreesen.
23 A. Right. Dreesen was the principal author
24 of the Public Health Service.
25 Q. This is the one the Public Health Service

529
1 suggested might be safe?
2 A. No. They said this is recommended as a
3 limit. They call it an attentive threshold for the
4 industry that shouldnt be exceeded. This was the
5 Public Health Services way of saying lets get some
6 control over the hazards of this industry. We realize
7 we dont have the regulatory power to enforce anything
8 over anything, but wed like the industry to take
9 serious need to at least get down to five million
10 particles per cubic foot.
11 Q. By the way, asbestos magazine, 19 --
12 July 37 issue, does it mention anything about anybody
13 from John Crane in there from Crane Packing Company?
14 A. Yes. They have this -- they would -- one
15 of the features of the trade magazine was to say happy
16 birthday to people who were executives in the
17 industry, and so they list birthdays of the vice
18 president of Crane Packing, in Chicago, Mr. Trumble,
19 on August 12th in the July 1937 issue of the magazine.
20 Q. And this was a magazine devoted to what?
21 A. The asbestos industry. I think they
22 say -- basically its devoted to the asbestos
23 industry. Its members consist entirely of the
24 companies that were mining asbestos and manufacturing
25 asbestos products.

530
1 Q. So the government reports, US government
2 reports in the 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s, did you
3 finish talking about that at this point as being
4 something that was a source of information?
5 A. Yes. This is prior to the 1970s when we
6 actually had government regulation. I guess we did
7 have some forms of government regulation in the form
8 of laws that were changed back in the 1930s regarding
9 compensation. Thats a little different than
10 government information reports. I dont know whether
11 you want to get to that.
12 Q. I want to go back and ask you a little
13 bit more about these, Dr. Castleman.
14 Whats the next source of information?
15 A. I guess that would just be popular
16 writings. And this would be newspapers, magazines,
17 and popular encyclopedias.
18 Q. Encyclopedias would be like Encyclopedia
19 Britannica, those?
20 A. Yeah, thats right.
21 Q. When did the Encyclopedia Britannica
22 first have information about asbestos disease?
23 A. I believe that was 1940, the Americana in
24 their annual Public Health Service report in 1939, so
25 lets say 1939 for the encyclopedias. The Britannica

531
1 first mentioned asbestos as a cause of cancer in 1952
2 under the heading of cancer.
3 Q. And how about popular writings, magazines
4 and whatnot, when did those first start talking about
5 asbestos disease?
6 A. Well, certainly the newspapers were
7 carrying stories as early -- well, the early 1930s. I
8 dont know exactly when the first one would have been,
9 but it was certainly the early 1930s there were
10 articles in the Chicago newspapers about public
11 information campaigns that were going on. There were
12 also radio announcements back then, radio information.
13 All of that started in the early 1930s, too. And that
14 was also in the Illinois area, at least the ones that
15 Im thinking of. There may have been more. Some of
16 these things are a little hard to find out 30, 40,
17 50 years later.
18 Q. So there were radio programs about
19 discussing asbestos disease --
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. -- in the Chicago area in the 1930s?
22 A. Yes. And these were recorded in this
23 three-volume treatise about dust diseases of the lungs
24 that was put together in the mid 1930s when there was
25 so much concern in industry about industrial dust

532
1 disease and claims for compensation arising from
2 industrial dust disease around the country.
3 Q. Are these pages from the treatises youre
4 talking about?
5 A. Yes, they are.
6 Q. Whats the title of it?
7 A. I think its called the Pneumoconiosis.
8 Q. Whats that mean?
9 A. Pneumoconiosis is dust disease of the
10 lung, like asbestosis and silicosis.
11 Q. And where was -- where were these -- let
12 me try this word -- pneumoconiosis volumes published?
13 A. They were published out of the Chicago
14 medical press, in Chicago, Illinois, by a doctor, a
15 librarian, and a lawyer. Those were the three
16 authors.
17 Q. Did these publications from the early
18 30s contain abstracts of information about asbestos
19 disease?
20 A. Right. Thats the way the format was.
21 They were basically summaries of things that had
22 appeared. Abstracts were summaries of things that had
23 appeared in a very diverse range of publications,
24 including medical publications, trade magazines,
25 insurance industry journals. And things like the

533
1 radio broadcasts were also mentioned in this.
2 Q. Where would this be located if someone
3 wanted to find it back in the 30s, this information
4 about these abstracts and radio programs and
5 everything on asbestos that was published in Chicago?
6 A. Public libraries, medical libraries, and
7 possibly other major city public libraries.
8 Q. With regard to the popular magazines,
9 when did the popular magazines first publish
10 information about asbestos as a cause of cancer?
11 A. The earliest ones I can think of are
12 Business Week in 1948 and Scientific American in 1949.
13 So Ill just say as to cancer, 1948 on.
14 Q. Where would those magazines be available
15 to somebody that wanted to take a look for asbestos
16 disease information?
17 A. Popular libraries, Newsweek, 1950s talked
18 about cancer from asbestos.
19 Q. Okay. After the popular magazines, is
20 there any other source of information that somebody
21 could have gone to?
22 A. Well, people in industry also had the
23 opportunity to observe things for themselves in their
24 own workforce; they could do air sampling of plants,
25 they could do medical examinations of their employees,

534
1 they could extract information that would be uniquely
2 available to them that went beyond what was in the
3 public domain. They could certainly contact the
4 authors of some of these reports or the agencies that
5 issued such reports. They could call up the state
6 department of labor and industry or the state health
7 department and say, were working with asbestos; do
8 you have somebody who can tell us about the dangers
9 and hygiene associated with the proper handling of
10 that material?
11 So these are other ways that information
12 could have been available to companies that were
13 manufacturing products containing asbestos.
14 Q. Are you familiar with this document?
15 A. This is --
16 Q. Ill --
17 A. Yes, I am.
18 (There was a pause in the proceedings.)
19 THE COURT: Gentlemen.
20 MR. WALLACE: We were revisiting an issue
21 yesterday, laughing about it.
22 THE COURT: All right. Dont let me have
23 to put somebody in time out.
24 MR. METCALF: I apologize.
25 BY MR. METCALF:

535
1 Q. What is this, Dr. Castleman?
2 A. This is called, Silicosis Committee:
3 Illinois Manufacturers Association.
4 Q. And just generally what does that
5 discuss?
6 A. Well, it talks about silicosis and
7 similar diseases that were a matter of some concern
8 and the discussion of an occupational disease law.
9 And basically the Illinois manufacturers committee --
10 Manufacturers Association is taking an interest in the
11 possible development of a law involving employers
12 responsibilities in the field of prevention of such
13 diseases as silicosis and asbestosis.
14 Q. Now, does that article, the author of
15 that article, refer people to other sources they might
16 look at --
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. -- for further information?
19 A. Yes. They have some references here.
20 They mention the Journal of the American Medical
21 Association and they give a particular date, and they
22 also mention the report by the Industrial Commission
23 of Wisconsin on the effect of dust upon the
24 respiratory system.
25 Q. Now -- and whats the date of that

536
1 Illinois Manufacturers Association document youre
2 looking at?
3 A. 1935.
4 Q. Now, are you familiar with any of those
5 references given?
6 A. Well, the Wisconsin document, I am. This
7 was a conference that was held in Chicago by the
8 Industrial Commission of Wisconsin in 1932, and
9 asbestosis was discussed at that meeting.
10 Q. Well, can we flip the page here then.
11 Would that be another source of information, is
12 conferences?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Okay.
15 A. This particular conference, the Wisconsin
16 one, the International Labor Organization had held
17 conferences starting in 1930 and there were various
18 other types. These conferences are kind of a
19 one-of-a-kind deal that are held at irregular
20 intervals, maybe one or maybe periodically at
21 different times.
22 There was a group called the Saranac
23 Laboratory in the United States that had experts on
24 industrial dust diseases and they would hold
25 conferences. They held seven between 1934 and 1952.

537
1 Q. Would you put Saranac down?
2 A. Yes. Saranac is in northern New York
3 State. And the Saranac conference and the Wisconsin
4 conference were largely attended by attorneys as well
5 as doctors who were concerned about the issue of
6 compensation from industrial dust disease.
7 Q. The Wisconsin conference was held in what
8 city?
9 A. Chicago.
10 Q. And was asbestos disease discussed at
11 that 1932 conference -- Wisconsins conference held in
12 Chicago?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And that was -- and that conference, was
15 it attended by people from industry in the Chicago
16 area?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. You said the Saranac conferences were
19 held over some number of years. Was asbestos -- the
20 aspects of asbestos disease discussed at any of the
21 Saranac conferences?
22 A. Yes. By 1952 -- by the 1952 conference,
23 there was a lot of discussion about cancer and
24 asbestos.
25 Q. Did representatives of companies,

538
1 industrial companies attend the Saranac conferences?
2 A. Yes. They were the dominant attendees of
3 these conferences where various corporate
4 representatives, either people that worked directly
5 for the companies or doctors and lawyers who worked as
6 consultants outside the company.
7 Q. Now, was there any discussion of asbestos
8 disease before the 1952 conference where cancer was
9 discussed?
10 A. Yes, there were plenty of discussions
11 about asbestosis prior to the 1952 Saranac conference.
12 The 1947, 46 -- I think its 47, Saranac conference
13 included a presentation by a Johns Manville executive
14 in which he questioned what the safe level might be
15 for exposure to asbestos, raising questions about the
16 five million particle guideline because he was
17 concerned that it might be moving in the direction of
18 becoming a legally imposed limit in the State of
19 New Jersey and he didnt want to have to deal with
20 that.
21 Q. So medical conferences was another place
22 where people could potentially get information?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Okay. Were there -- now, you said you
25 didnt even have to join the National Safety Council

539
1 to get their newsletter?
2 A. Right. The National Safety News was a
3 magazine that you could just subscribe to, anybody
4 could subscribe to it and get it monthly.
5 Q. Were there other organizations that were
6 primarily directed at companies --
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. -- that you could join and get
9 information if that was something of interest to you?
10 A. Right. Why dont we call them company
11 organizations. The National Safety Council was like
12 that. Another one was the Industrial Hygiene
13 Foundation. The Industrial Hygiene Foundation was
14 founded in 1937. And by the late 1940s its annual
15 meetings were being covered in the Wall Street Journal
16 and the New York Times. It had hundreds of industrial
17 firms as members, and they published the Industrial
18 Hygiene Digest which was a monthly abstract
19 publication which was one of the perks of membership
20 in the group.
21 So you had the staff of the Industrial
22 Hygiene Foundation reading several hundred medical
23 scientific journals on a continuous basis and writing
24 summaries or abstracts of articles on different
25 subjects relating to occupational health that were

540
1 appearing in these journals, many of which were in
2 other languages than English. So this was a very
3 valuable service to the member companies.
4 The Industrial Hygiene Foundation also
5 did special toxic hazard investigations for industry
6 if companies or trade associations wanted to hire
7 them, they had a staff of engineers and doctors that
8 they could send out. And they did this for oil
9 companies and other kinds of companies to do
10 evaluations of the health hazards in their industries.
11 They did this for the asbestos textile
12 producers in the late 1940s. They would have access
13 to medical and air sampling information from the
14 companies and they would turn around and write
15 confidential reports to the sponsoring companies which
16 were never published in the open scientific
17 literature, but which were mentioned collectively as
18 one of the services of the IHF in its publications.
19 And only after litigation over asbestos
20 starting in the late 1970s, did we start to see some
21 of these confidential reports that they had provided
22 to the asbestos industry.
23 Q. When did articles about asbestos disease
24 begin appearing in the IH -- Industrial Hygiene
25 Digest?

541
1 A. From the beginning. 1937 or 1938 at the
2 latest there were abstracts starting to appear.
3 An article, for example, the German paper
4 titled, Occupation of Cancer of Asbestos Workers was
5 the subject of an abstract in the Industrial Hygiene
6 Digest, the same year it appeared in 1938.
7 Q. Have you seen like the abstracts that
8 appeared in the Industrial Hygiene Digest from 1937,
9 say, to 1970 that deal with asbestos?
10 A. Yes. There were dozens of them. There
11 were over 50. I dont know how many exactly, but in
12 that period of time there would have been over 50
13 abstracts that talked about asbestos, asbestosis,
14 cancer from asbestos.
15 Q. You mentioned something about the
16 Asbestos Textile Institute?
17 A. Right.
18 Q. What was that?
19 A. Thats a trade association. So under
20 company organizations we could also just say trade
21 associations.
22 In every industry there are trade
23 associations. In the oil industry, its the American
24 Petroleum Industry. In the tobacco industry, its the
25 Tobacco Institute. Chemical industry, they now call

542
1 themselves the American Chemistry Council. It used to
2 be called the Chemical Manufacturers Association. So
3 you have this in every industry.
4 Trade associations are a forum in which
5 occupational health gets discussed by industries.
6 This is because -- well, the trade association deals
7 with problems that are common to the whole industry.
8 So, for example, if they are selling
9 asbestos textiles, they maybe want to have a
10 definition of the different grades of products so that
11 when they speak to the public, they are all speaking
12 the same language in terms of what they are offering
13 for sale to the public. So just to standardize the
14 language of communicating the products they are
15 selling to the public, they need to collectively get
16 together and work that out. So thats the kind of
17 thing that trade associations deal with.
18 Trade associations, however, also deal
19 with things like health hazards associated with a
20 particular industry because, again, this is a problem
21 that is common to all members of the industry. And
22 when you get around to dealing with such subjects as
23 putting warning labels on the products, obviously some
24 companies are at a disadvantage if they put warning
25 labels on products they are selling and their

543
1 competitors dont. So theres a competitive
2 disadvantage that has -- thats another appropriate
3 subject that trade associations try to resolve.
4 Q. And when did the IHF, Industrial Hygiene
5 Foundation, do a project for the Asbestos Textile
6 Institute?
7 A. That was in 1947 that that report was
8 prepared, so I guess a service to trade associations
9 and trade association studies, well say 1947, is the
10 earliest. There actually was an earlier report by an
11 individual company Raybestos Manhattan Company in
12 1944, but since were talking about trade associations
13 here, well say 1947 referenced the Asbestos Textile
14 Institute.
15 Similar studies were done for other
16 companies and industries that made asbestos products,
17 like the manufacturers of consumer patching compounds
18 hired some consultants to do some tests on the
19 exposures associated with those products. Vinyl
20 asbestos flooring manufacturers hired people to do
21 tests from exposure to those products. So these are
22 other things that can be done and that often get
23 coordinated through trade associations.
24 Q. Did the study that the Industrial Hygiene
25 Foundation did for the Asbestos Textile Institute in

544
1 1947 have to speak to this question of, you know, five
2 million particles per cubic foot thing you mentioned
3 earlier?
4 A. Yes. The confidential report to the
5 industry repeatedly dismissed the five million
6 particle guideline as being not supported by good
7 information and recommended that additional studies be
8 conducted on workers with long-term exposure to see
9 what the long-term effects of lower levels of asbestos
10 dust would be on workers.
11 Q. Now, you mentioned in the other page this
12 Saranac Laboratory that had conferences?
13 A. Right.
14 Q. Since the main laboratory is in it, did
15 they conduct research for people?
16 A. Yes, they did. Lets put Saranac down
17 here, too. Well, lets just call it toxicology labs
18 because there were others as well. So you could have
19 laboratories where they would test the industrial
20 material on experimental animals. Saranac did this
21 for industrial insulation products, dust that the
22 company had collected in its dust collectors and was
23 then used on experimental animals by inhalation tests
24 on rats, mice, and guinea pigs, and demonstrated the
25 lethality of the insulation dust in experimental

545
1 animals just after the time that the product had been
2 introduced on a commercial scale.
3 Q. When did the Saranac Laboratory first
4 embark on doing studies on asbestos for a company or
5 groups of companies?
6 A. Well, the first reports of Saranac were
7 published in 1931, so lets say 1931. Probably the
8 studies were done earlier, you know, 1929 and 1930.
9 But since they were published in 1931, lets just use
10 that date. Close enough.
11 Q. Now, you talked about companies working
12 cooperatively within these trade associations. In the
13 course of your work and research, Dr. Castleman, did
14 you learn whether or not companies -- for example,
15 somebody would go to a supplier and ask them for
16 information about the potential hazards of the
17 material they were supplying?
18 A. Right. Sometimes this would happen. It
19 certainly happened with asbestos where companies that
20 were using asbestos or asbestos products would read
21 something about the asbestos being dangerous and get
22 back to the supplier saying, hey, whats the problem?
23 Whats the story about this? And what are the dangers
24 and what should we be doing to protect our workers
25 against this?

546
1 Q. And when is the first time that you can
2 remember in your research seeing that happen where
3 somebody went to their materials supplier and said, is
4 there a problem here we should be concerned about?
5 What should we do?
6 A. Im having trouble thinking of an early
7 case of that. I mean, it must have happened a lot,
8 but it got so that in the 1970s there was -- one
9 company wrote a memo thats referred to as the Set
10 the Mood memo because they would get these angry
11 calls from customers and they had a whole response
12 approach in trying to calm down the person who was
13 making the complaint before they would deal with the
14 issue of the complaint, sort of psych out the person
15 who was making the complaint. But that was in the
16 early 70s once we had government regulations.
17 Q. Anything else that companies had
18 available to them if they wanted to find out
19 information with their products and whether they were
20 potentially dangerous and whether things had to be
21 done?
22 THE WITNESS: Well, there were law
23 journals occasionally reporting on legal developments,
24 Workers Compensation matters, civil suits. There
25 were -- the actual experience of Workers Compensation

547
1 claims that some of these companies had where their
2 own employees would bring claims against them saying,
3 I got an occupational disease working at your factory
4 and I want compensation for disability and medical
5 costs.
6 MR. METCALF: Your Honor, Mr. McCormick
7 has advised me with a note that Ms. King is in need of
8 a short comfort break.
9 THE COURT: All right then. We will
10 stand in recess for about 10 minutes.
11 MR. METCALF: Thank you, Your Honor.
12 (The jury left the courtroom.)
13 (A recess was taken.)
14 MR. McCORMICK: Your Honor, one thing
15 that we might ask you to think about is possibly
16 giving an -- not now, but at a later time, giving an
17 instruction to the remaining jurors about
18 Ms. Shackelford and the fact that its imperative that
19 they not try to contact her and communicate with her.
20 THE COURT: Yes. I had -- I have been
21 thinking about it, and I was wondering what to say to
22 them when they came out. Im concerned because she
23 and Ms. Valvo were carpooling and I dont know -- my
24 inclination is that Ms. Valvo will call her and say,
25 what happened?

548
1 MR. McCORMICK: Yeah.
2 THE COURT: Or shes going to call and
3 they are going to want to discuss it, so we need to --
4 I think your point is well taken, and we need to try
5 to say something to them.
6 Maybe this afternoon before we --
7 MR. McCORMICK: That would be fine, Your
8 Honor.
9 THE COURT: Before we recess for the
10 weekend?
11 MR. WALLACE: Sure.
12 MR. McCORMICK: I think that will be
13 great.
14 THE COURT: Remind me, because you know I
15 have CRS.
16 MR. McCORMICK: Your Honor, as you know
17 from yesterday, so do I. Ill tie a ribbon around my
18 finger.
19 THE COURT: All right. Lunch, same time.
20 MS. HIERONIMUS: Your Honor, the caterer
21 should be here at 12:30.
22 THE COURT: So its still 12:15, so about
23 a quarter to one well break again.
24 MR. METCALF: I thought 10 to 15 minutes
25 on direct.

549
1 THE COURT: Do you want to start your
2 cross before we break for lunch?
3 MR. WALLACE: As soon as you let me. But
4 if lunch is here at 12:30 and hes going to go 10 or
5 15 minutes, that sounds like lunch, but Im ready to
6 go.
7 THE COURT: I know you are.
8 All right. My clerk brought to my
9 attention -- I want to make it clear on the record
10 that I did accept Castleman as an expert as proffered
11 by counsel. I dont -- I think it was understood, but
12 I wanted to make it clear on the record that he was
13 accepted as an expert in the areas that Mr. Metcalf
14 had stated on the record.
15 Lets bring the jury back in.
16 (The jury entered the courtroom.)
17 THE BAILIFF: Eight jurors in the box.
18 THE COURT: Eight jurors in the box.
19 Does counsel waive the poll?
20 MR. McCORMICK: Yes, Your Honor.
21 MR. METCALF: Yes, Your Honor.
22 MR. WALLACE: Yes, Your Honor.
23 THE COURT: All right. Please be seated.
24 And, please, return Dr. Castleman to the
25 witness stand.

550
1 BY MR. METCALF:
2 Q. Dr. Castleman, you had a book up there on
3 the witness stand? Not your book, but another book?
4 A. Right.
5 Q. Whats the name of that book?
6 A. Its just called Asbestos, and then has
7 some subtitle from Rock to Fabric, published by
8 something called the Textile Institute in 1956.
9 Q. 1956. Is this a medical book?
10 A. No. Its a book about the technology of
11 asbestos, mining and manufacturing different products.
12 Q. Does this book, technical book about
13 asbestos manufacturing, contain information about
14 asbestos disease?
15 A. Yes, it does.
16 Q. What sort of information does it contain
17 about asbestos disease?
18 A. It makes reference to published articles
19 in medical journals about asbestosis and cancer from
20 asbestos.
21 Q. Is this the kind of publication that
22 would fit under one of the categories youve already
23 put up on the chart?
24 A. Well, no, I guess not. It would just be
25 technology literature. There are other things that

551
1 fit in that category, so that would be textbooks which
2 talk about asbestos as a hazard as early as 1956, just
3 using that one. There may be others. I cant think
4 of any earlier than that.
5 There were also chemical abstracts and
6 ceramic abstracts that are abstracts that are
7 published that are used by different types of
8 industries that are mostly about new developments that
9 are technological but also cover medical subjects on
10 occasion, so you see things published in chemical
11 abstracts.
12 And ceramics are high-temperature
13 products, products that are made at high temperatures,
14 and so theres a whole technology about the handling
15 and manufacturing of such materials. And the
16 abstracts that were published for that industry also
17 talk about asbestosis and asbestos. And these kinds
18 of things started talking about asbestos and disease
19 from the 1930s onward.
20 MR. METCALF: I want to show you this,
21 Mr. Wallace.
22 BY MR. METCALF:
23 Q. Dr. Castleman, have you seen this
24 three-page document?
25 A. Yes. This is another document from the

552
1 Illinois Manufacturers Association, dated 1935.
2 Q. What does that -- what do those pages
3 talk about?
4 A. It talks about a conference that they
5 were planning to hold at the end of January in 1935
6 called Occupational Diseases from the Medical Point of
7 View, with experts Dr. Gardner from the Saranac
8 Laboratory, Dr. Lanza from Metropolitan Life, and
9 others talking about the pathology, etiology, and the
10 chest x-ray abnormalities associated with dust
11 diseases. And it was announced as Occupational
12 Disease Conference.
13 Q. And to whom was this conference
14 correspondence directed?
15 A. Well, it says the purpose was to acquaint
16 Illinois employers with the nature, legal aspects,
17 extent, and prevention of occupational diseases. So
18 it was directed at employers in the State of Illinois.
19 Q. Thank you, Dr. Castleman.
20 Now, would that just be another kind of
21 conference, one by manufacturers associations?
22 A. Right. Okay. And this was 1935. Well
23 just note that.
24 Q. This particular one was the Illinois
25 Manufacturers Association?

553
1 A. Right.
2 Q. And then I wanted to ask you about --
3 Ill show this to Mr. Wallace.
4 Have you seen this document?
5 A. This is called -- yes, I have. This is
6 called Industrial Review, published by the Illinois
7 Manufacturers Association. And here they report on
8 occupational diseases, health, comfort, and safety and
9 changes in the Blower Act, B-l-o-w-e-r.
10 Q. And does that talk about asbestos
11 disease?
12 A. Yes. Asbestosis is mentioned at the
13 bottom of the first column. Silicosis, asbestosis,
14 and other lung afflictions which are described as a
15 variety of real and fancy lung afflictions in this
16 manufacturers newsletter.
17 Q. Now, this newsletter was published by
18 whom?
19 A. Illinois Manufacturers Association,
20 February 1936.
21 Q. And where on our chart here would you put
22 the IMA newsletter?
23 A. Company organizations, I suppose. So
24 this will be manufacturers newsletter. And since
25 this one is from 1936, well just use that. In

554
1 Illinois.
2 Q. Dr. Castleman, I want to ask you next
3 about this piece of paper. Let me show it to
4 Mr. Wallace.
5 Are you familiar with this item?
6 A. This appears to be -- yes, the
7 occupational disease law from the Illinois legislature
8 in 1936.
9 Q. 1936. And did that occupational disease
10 law from the Illinois legislature in 1936 talk about
11 asbestos disease?
12 A. Yes; it addressed silicosis and
13 asbestosis.
14 Q. Did it talk about disability from
15 asbestosis?
16 A. Yes. The purpose of the law was to
17 compensate -- arrange to compensate people. It says,
18 an act to promote the general welfare of the people of
19 this state by providing remedies for injuries suffered
20 or death resulting from occupational diseases incurred
21 in the course of employment.
22 Thats basically what its about.
23 Q. Was this the kind of thing that was
24 available to people who were interested in whether or
25 not there might be a disease problem?

555
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. I guess we do have a category under
3 government?
4 A. Lets see. Lets say publications and
5 laws. In the case of laws, certainly have laws in the
6 1930s that specifically address asbestosis in many
7 states in the United States, including Illinois.
8 MR. METCALF: Ill show this to
9 Mr. Wallace.
10 MR. WALLACE: Can I just check one thing,
11 Your Honor? It will be just a second.
12 THE COURT: Okay.
13 (There was a pause in the proceedings.)
14 MR. METCALF: Ill just try and move on
15 here, Your Honor. What were looking for is an
16 exhibit number, but Ive got a few other things I need
17 to ask Dr. Castleman about anyway, so...
18 THE COURT: All right.
19 BY MR. METCALF:
20 Q. Are you familiar with this publication?
21 A. Yes. This is called the Illinois Labor
22 Bulletin. Its a state government publication, dated
23 February 28, 1943.
24 Q. And is there anything in there about
25 asbestos?

556
1 A. Theres an article starting on page 10
2 called, Wartime Operations Emphasize Industrial
3 Hygiene Problems of Asbestos Industry.
4 And it goes into considerable detail over
5 the two and a half pages of the article.
6 Q. I wanted to ask you something
7 specifically about this article by the State of
8 Illinois, 1943. And if you could read to us, I think,
9 the second full paragraph, does it have a comparison
10 between the disease silicosis and the disease
11 asbestosis?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. What does it say about that?
14 A. It says, silicosis has been known as a
15 serious lung disease for many years but few people
16 have thought of asbestosis as an even worse disease.
17 What makes it worse is its insidious character. The
18 fact that so much harm can be done before X ray or
19 other evidence can be found and that the disease is
20 progressive. The lung condition continues to grow
21 worse even when the worker has left the offending
22 environment.
23 It goes on to say, the amount of harm
24 possible without visible evidence makes it a dangerous
25 substitute for the control of dust -- makes medical

557
1 examinations a dangerous substitute for dust control,
2 but the damage is already done by the time you see it
3 on the X ray. In one of the studies mentioned above
4 the conclusion was drawn that workers exposed to less
5 than five million particles of asbestos per cubic foot
6 would be unlikely to develop asbestosis. This value
7 has been used to measure the potential harm in the
8 industrial environment.
9 So they are referencing the five million
10 particle guideline as something that they consider
11 should be complied with.
12 Q. Thank you, Dr. Castleman. And, again,
13 would this be something that the CEO of a company in
14 Chicago in 1945 might have available if they wanted to
15 be informed about a potential asbestos disease
16 problem?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Now, are you familiar with this
19 publication, Dr. Castleman?
20 MR. WALLACE: What is it, Mr. Metcalf?
21 MR. METCALF: Im sorry. I apologize. I
22 got in a hurry there.
23 MR. WALLACE: Thats all right.
24 BY MR. METCALF:
25 Q. Dr. Castleman, what is this publication?

558
1 A. This is called Health and Safety Act and
2 the Health and Safety Rules, published by the State of
3 Illinois. And it references rules and regulations
4 relating to labeling in the use, handling, and storage
5 of substances harmful to the health and safety of
6 employees. Effective June 15th, 1951.
7 Q. Is this an Illinois law?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Did this law apply to potentially harmful
10 dusts in the labeling of materials that could produce
11 potentially harmful dusts?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Did this Illinois law describe the manner
14 in which somebody if they didnt know how to do it,
15 could label their products?
16 A. Yes. They talk about dust, theres a
17 category of regulated materials, and under
18 requirements, under the information to be included on
19 various labels, they have such language as avoid
20 breathing dust. Materials in dust form that are
21 hazardous, they indicate such language as hazardous or
22 harmful dust, harmful if inhaled; that kind of
23 language is put forth in here. Do not breathe dust,
24 that kind of language. Wash thoroughly before eating
25 or smoking, that kind of language.

559
1 Q. Is this the type of thing that was
2 available to people in the early 1950s in Illinois if
3 they wanted to find out how to label products?
4 A. Yes. It was the law.
5 Q. Now, Dr. Castleman, in your book at page
6 731 youve got a chart?
7 A. Right.
8 Q. Is this just a bigger version of it?
9 A. Right.
10 Q. And before we show it to the jury, what
11 is it?
12 A. Its an annual consumption of asbestos in
13 the United States. Its a graph of the trend of
14 annual asbestos consumption that we used in the US
15 economy year by year going back to 19 -- practically
16 1900.
17 Q. Other than showing how much asbestos was
18 used, is there any other story that this chart tells?
19 A. Yes, there is.
20 Q. Could you tell that story for us? Well
21 show that now to the jury. I can hold it.
22 A. What we see here is that the use of
23 asbestos, notwithstanding the many publications --
24 Q. Im trying to make sure these folks over
25 here can see.

560
1 A. Asbestosis. And then by the end of the
2 40s, over 80 publications talking about cancer from
3 asbestos appearing in medical and popular literature.
4 It kept showing up and it actually peaked in 1973.
5 And even though the hazards of asbestos,
6 including mesothelioma and the households of the
7 asbestos workers and the neighbors of the asbestos
8 plants was published in the 1960s, the use of asbestos
9 kept going up, and the reason for that is that the
10 awareness wasnt there, public awareness wasnt there,
11 workers were not aware that asbestos products were
12 dangerous so there wasnt the demands for hazard pay,
13 calling up government inspectors, and things like
14 that. And there wasnt any government regulation.
15 Thats the other thing that this shows.
16 In 1970 Congress created the
17 Environmental Protection Agency. In 1971 the
18 Occupational Safety and Health Administration. In
19 1972 the Consumer Product Safety Commission. And with
20 the creation of these federal agencies and the laws
21 authorizing them to regulate industry in ways that
22 industry had never been regulated before, there
23 finally came a drop in the use of asbestos. And this
24 was also paralleled by increasing publicity about the
25 hazards of asbestos in the 1970s.

561
1 And so by 1980 we see various precipitous
2 falloff of asbestos use after 1980, largely fueled by
3 information and regulation.
4 Q. Anything else in this story that this
5 consumption chart tells?
6 A. Well, we still do use some asbestos
7 because a ban on asbestos was overturned by a court
8 challenge in 1991. But even with the no ban in place,
9 the use of asbestos has steadily gone down. Its down
10 to about 2,000 tons a year. Thats what we used to
11 use one day back in 1973. So our annual
12 consumption is down about 400 from what it was at its
13 peak.
14 Q. Based on your review and research,
15 Dr. Castleman, for people who are interested in
16 asbestos disease, doctors, industry people, and
17 whatnot, when was it generally accepted that breathing
18 asbestos could cause disability and death? Will you
19 just point out the year on this chart?
20 A. Yes. I would say thats well recognized
21 by the early 1930s. As I said, there were 150 -- 125
22 references to a study published by the State of
23 Pennsylvania in 1935 talking about asbestos. And
24 thats just the beginning of the literature starting
25 to appear on lung cancer from asbestos.

562
1 By the end of the 1940s there were at
2 least 80 publications on lung cancer from asbestos,
3 including popular magazines like Business Week,
4 Scientific American, and --
5 Q. Can you point out on this chart,
6 Dr. Castleman, where, based on your review, research
7 people who are interested in the subject of asbestos
8 disease, such as doctors and industry people,
9 generally recognize that asbestos could be a cause of
10 cancer?
11 A. I would say by the end of the 1940s.
12 Q. Point that out on here.
13 A. Right here. Already use of asbestos was
14 quite high, but it didnt go down with that
15 publication of that knowledge because the knowledge
16 didnt reach that many people.
17 MR. METCALF: Thank you, Dr. Castleman.
18 Thats all the questions I have right
19 now, Your Honor.
20 THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
21 I think well break for lunch at this
22 time before we get started, Mr. Wallace. Is that
23 agreeable?
24 MR. WALLACE: Thats fine.
25 THE COURT: Thank you, Dr. Castleman. If

563
1 you will go with the bailiff, and youll be able to
2 get some lunch.
3 I think well probably resume at about a
4 quarter to two.
5 All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we will
6 break for lunch now. Please do not discuss the case
7 or any aspects of the case, and we will resume again
8 at 1:45.
9 (The jury left the courtroom.)
10 THE COURT: Well stand in recess.
11 (A luncheon recess was taken.)
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

564
1 THE COURT: Are we ready to presume?
2 MR. METCALF: Your Honor, I think Mr.
3 Harty has an order that he would like to present to
4 the Court, and Im going to offer into evidence --
5 well mark and then Ill offer six of the exhibits we
6 used for Dr. Castleman.
7 MR. HARTY: I was just going to hand up
8 an order based on the Courts rulings the last couple
9 of days.
10 MS. BUGG: Ive already seen it.
11 MR. HARTY: Theyve already endorsed it.
12 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Metcalf, you
13 can offer your exhibits up. Are there any objections
14 to them? Have you look at them, Mr. Wallace?
15 (There was a pause in the proceedings.)
16 MR. WALLACE: Are we putting laws in,
17 Your Honor?
18 MR. METCALF: This is the Health and
19 Safety Act were talking about.
20 THE COURT: Yes. Do you have an
21 objection?
22 MR. WALLACE: Because its a law, as
23 opposed to some document between the parties or
24 relating to us, but -- I just dont think we put law
25 in. Otherwise, wed put in the whole code.

565
1 THE COURT: Ill let it in.
2 Its Illinois law. Thats an exhibit.
3 MR. METCALF: Dr. Castlemans chart he
4 prepared which well mark. I think there were two
5 pages as one exhibit. And then the asbestos
6 consumption is an exhibit. And well substitute
7 something more reasonably sized.
8 MR. WALLACE: I dont object.
9 THE COURT: All right. Very good.
10 MR. WALLACE: I dont know what numbers
11 youre going to give them, if you can tell us as you
12 do it. I would think the chart probably ought to come
13 first, because thats what he prepared first.
14 THE COURT: Doesnt matter.
15 MR. WALLACE: But then the rest of them
16 it doesnt matter.
17 THE CLERK: That will be 17.
18 (The exhibit was admitted into evidence.)
19 THE CLERK: 18.
20 (The exhibit was admitted into evidence.)
21 MR. METCALF: And then next will be the
22 January 10, 1935 Manufacturers Association exhibit.
23 THE COURT: Thats received and marked as
24 Exhibit Number 19 without objection.
25 (The exhibit was admitted into evidence.)

566
1 MR. METCALF: Illinois Manufacturers
2 Association exhibit February, 1936.
3 THE COURT: That will be received and
4 marked as Exhibit Number 20 without objection.
5 (The exhibit was admitted into evidence.)
6 MR. METCALF: Illinois Labor Bulletin,
7 February 28, 1943.
8 THE CLERK: 21.
9 THE COURT: That will be received and
10 marked as Plaintiffs Exhibit Number 21 without
11 objection.
12 (The exhibit was admitted into evidence.)
13 MR. METCALF: And the Health and Safety
14 Act and the health and safety rules of the State of
15 Illinois, 1851.
16 THE COURT: Received and marked as
17 Plaintiffs Exhibit Number 22 without objection.
18 (The exhibit was admitted into evidence.)
19 MR. METCALF: Thank you.
20 (There was a pause in the proceedings.)
21 THE COURT: Are there any more matters
22 that we need to take up before we bring the jury in,
23 counsel?
24 MR. METCALF: Not from the plaintiffs,
25 Your Honor.

567
1 MR. WALLACE: No, maam.
2 THE COURT: All right. Deputy Sonnier,
3 if you would bring the jury back in.
4 I need to tell you Im somewhat in the
5 position I was a few days ago wherein I may have to
6 take a phone call of some importance, so if I have to
7 interrupt you during questioning, I apologize.
8 MR. WALLACE: We understand.
9 MR. MCCORMICK: Yes, maam.
10 (The jury entered the courtroom.)
11 THE BAILIFF: Eight jurors in the box.
12 THE COURT: Eight jurors in the box.
13 Does counsel waive the poll?
14 MR. MCCORMICK: Yes, Your Honor.
15 MR. WALLACE: Yes, Your Honor.
16 THE COURT: All right. You may be
17 seated.
18 Would you bring Dr. Castleman back to the
19 stand, please, Deputy Sonnier.
20 (There was a pause in the proceedings.)
21 THE COURT: Mr. Wallace, you may examine.
22 CROSS-EXAMINATION
23 BY MR. WALLACE:
24 Q. Dr. Castleman, good afternoon.
25 A. Good afternoon.

568
1 Q. We shouldnt be too long together -- at
2 least I hope not -- but I do have some questions for
3 you.
4 One, I would like to ask you up front --
5 you said you had some help in writing this book from
6 folks, and you repeated my name, correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. I didnt help you with anything in the
9 first edition, did I?
10 A. I dont think so. I think it was
11 between -- after the first edition you provided me
12 with a copy of Howard Easoms deposition or something
13 else like that.
14 Q. Would you not agree that after the first
15 edition at some point in history I deposed you in
16 Baltimore about your opinions and your writings?
17 A. I really dont remember. I get
18 deposed -- Ive been deposed over 60 times.
19 Q. And in that deposition isnt it a fact
20 that I went through your book and pointed out things
21 that werent there, that werent included that should
22 have been, including the deposition you mentioned, and
23 I gave you copies?
24 A. The Easom deposition is now included.
25 And maybe thats what happened, you took my

569
1 deposition, you told me about the historic deposition
2 and testimony of a North Carolina doctor about what
3 happened in the 1930s, and then you sent me a copy of
4 that. I think thats what happened. And, so, I then
5 added.
6 Q. Could I differ with you with this
7 question: I didnt tell you about it, I asked you
8 about it and you didnt know, but then I sent it to
9 you so you would know and it could be in the book.
10 A. Right.
11 Q. So thats my help is in the deposition
12 pointing out stuff you didnt have in your book that I
13 later provided you a copy and you put it in your book.
14 A. I believe thats what it was, yes.
15 Q. And in this book there are still things
16 that arent in there, arent there?
17 A. Yes, there are things not referenced.
18 There are thousands of publications about asbestos and
19 disease, medical articles and things like that, and I
20 dont attempt to reference every single thing thats
21 ever been published on asbestos.
22 Q. This book was intended by you to be a
23 snapshot, was it not, about 1971 or 1972 of what the
24 history was of asbestos?
25 A. Right, it mainly focuses on the public

570
1 health history and especially on the period prior to
2 1965.
3 Q. And you have a section, do you not, on
4 corporations, companies, their knowledge?
5 A. Right.
6 Q. And you had initially a number of
7 companies listed that made asbestos.
8 A. Right.
9 Q. Through the years now youve added to
10 this book, have you not?
11 A. Right.
12 Q. Youve published new editions?
13 A. Well, the new editions have simply been
14 expansions of the material already in the book, for
15 the most part.
16 Q. And among the companies or under the
17 companies youve discussed youve added information
18 about Garlock, for example.
19 A. Right.
20 Q. Garlock wasnt in your first book.
21 A. Thats right.
22 Q. And it wasnt until this edition, I think
23 it is, the 2006 -- is this 2006 or 2005?
24 A. 2005.
25 Q. -- the 2005 edition that you added

571
1 Garlock?
2 A. I believe thats right.
3 Q. You would agree, would you not, theres
4 not a chapter in here on John Crane?
5 A. Thats correct. The corporate knowledge
6 references corporate documents that have come up in
7 legal discovery, and I havent seen any in terms of
8 corporate documents from John Crane.
9 Q. Well, in your treatment of corporations
10 in the writings in your book its not all corporate
11 documents, is it?
12 A. No, but the companies that are included
13 in the corporate knowledge chapter, I think in all of
14 those companies there are corporate documents
15 included.
16 Q. And under company knowledge, Chapter 9,
17 of your book -- you have your book there and can look,
18 but under Chapter 9 you have how many companies named?
19 A. Oh, maybe 35 or 40.
20 Q. Right. But not John Crane.
21 A. No.
22 Q. All right. But you do have Johns
23 Manville.
24 A. Right.
25 Q. You do have Garlock.

572
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. So, in 19 -- Im sorry. This was
3 published, the first edition, in 1984, correct?
4 A. Right.
5 Q. So in 1973 this wouldnt be a reference
6 anybody could go to to see what was out there.
7 A. Thats correct.
8 Q. But in 1984, when you first published,
9 you didnt mention John Crane.
10 A. Thats right.
11 Q. And you havent mentioned it all the way
12 up to 2005.
13 A. No, Ive never seen any corporate
14 documents from John Crane, so they dont show up in
15 the book.
16 Q. Now, youve testified before, have you
17 not?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. In asbestos cases?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. In fact, youve testified a lot of times,
22 havent you?
23 A. Well, for about 25 years I averaged about
24 one trial a month somewhere in the United States or
25 Australia.

573
1 Q. Would you disagree with this: That in
2 2006, for example, you testified in 60 depositions?
3 A. Thats about right, yes.
4 Q. And in 19 trials?
5 A. Yes. That was the record up until this
6 year, which is even worse in terms of the number.
7 Q. Even more trials than that this year?
8 A. Yes, Ive exceeded 20 trials already.
9 Q. And 30 depositions as of mid year this
10 year?
11 A. Well, I think Im up to 60 already, and
12 weve still got two months to go.
13 Q. Youve been testifying since 1979?
14 A. Thats right.
15 Q. And you are close to 500 depositions now?
16 A. Probably.
17 Q. And youre close to 300 trials now.
18 A. Right.
19 Q. And youve been paid for your work, have
20 you not?
21 A. Most of the time, not all the time.
22 Q. Over $3 million so far testifying?
23 A. Well, if you go back 30 years it probably
24 adds up to something close to that.
25 Q. And you charge by the hour?

574
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. But you also have arrangements with some
3 attorneys, do you not, that youre on retainer with
4 them?
5 A. Well, when I encounter a lawyer for a law
6 firm the first time I charge a retainer just as a kind
7 of assurance that Ill get paid something even if they
8 turn out to be deadbeats later on. So I give them a
9 one-time charge of a thousand dollars for listing me
10 as a witness in their cases, and they can list me, and
11 they never have to pay another retainer if they use me
12 for 20 years in thousands of cases that they file they
13 never have to pay any more as a retainer. But thats
14 the arrangement I have.
15 Q. And that arrangement started back in the
16 early days when the plaintiffs lawyers came to you
17 and asked you to research and write?
18 A. Well, at some time in the early 80s I
19 came up with that and I think then the retainer was
20 $500.
21 Q. Mr. Metcalf was one of those who helped
22 fund your research?
23 A. I dont know. I suppose he probably paid
24 for some of the research that I did, but I dont
25 recall anything in particular that he paid for. I

575
1 dont really know. He may have done it by
2 contributing to the plaintiffs lawyers group that
3 paid for some of the research I did.
4 Q. And he was one of those thousand dollar
5 retainer lawyers back then, wasnt he?
6 A. Back in the days I encountered him I may
7 not have been charging a retainer. That goes back
8 25 years or more.
9 Q. But you testified before he was one of
10 the retainer lawyers?
11 A. Well, he may have been. He probably was.
12 I just dont remember, its been so long.
13 Q. Okay. Now, is there a section in your
14 book that deals with gaskets and packing per se?
15 A. Not in a special section. I do have a
16 bunch of references on gaskets and packings in Chapter
17 5, but I dont have a special section on that class of
18 products.
19 Q. You have special sections on insulation,
20 do you not?
21 A. Well, I think you might be referring to
22 Chapter 6, which was the one chapter in the book that
23 was contributed by someone else, by Stephen Berger,
24 and he breaks down -- he basically lists alternatives
25 to asbestos in different product categories

576
1 referencing them to patents and technology
2 publications. I edited the chapter, but I didnt
3 write that one.
4 Q. And thats the only place in the book?
5 A. Well, insulators are discussed in
6 different parts, brake mechanics are discussed in
7 different parts. I mean, there are different products
8 that are discussed and references on different
9 products throughout the book.
10 Q. Now, I might jump around just a little
11 bit because I want to respond to some of the things
12 that you spoke to as we went through your testimony.
13 You stated in your testimony earlier
14 today, communications with the workers is critical to
15 let them know of the danger.
16 A. Thats right.
17 Q. But you cant tell them of a danger that
18 doesnt exist, can you?
19 A. Well, I dont think it would be wise to
20 warn workers about dangers that dont exist.
21 Q. Okay. Let me ask it this way:
22 In the asbestos area you recognize and
23 agree, do you not, that there are three separate major
24 diseases associated with exposure to asbestos?
25 A. Well, actually more, but three that are

577
1 generally accepted by everybody and others that are
2 disputed by some.
3 In other words, additional sites of
4 cancer besides the lung and mesothelioma have been
5 also listed as occupational diseases of asbestos
6 workers.
7 Q. One of those diseases is asbestosis,
8 isnt it?
9 A. Right, thats a disease that is only
10 caused by asbestos thats recognized as an
11 occupational disease from asbestos.
12 Q. And another of those diseases is lung
13 cancer.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And another is mesothelioma.
16 A. Right.
17 Q. Each of these diseases is separate and
18 distinct from the other, correct?
19 A. Right.
20 Q. You dont have to have one to have the
21 other, correct?
22 A. I believe thats correct.
23 Q. And the information about each differs,
24 does it not? That is, the health information about
25 each differs.

578
1 A. Well, historically -- the historical
2 development of knowledge about each one differs from
3 the others, yes.
4 Q. And they roughly came in this line, this
5 progression, that the information about each, the
6 background about asbestosis and then lung cancer
7 followed and then mesothelioma followed.
8 Do you agree thats the general
9 progression?
10 A. Generally speaking, yes, by the time
11 doctors were associating mesothelioma with asbestos
12 exposure lung cancer was widely accepted as an
13 asbestos disease, and by the time lung cancer was
14 discussed as an asbestos disease asbestosis had been
15 widely accepted.
16 Q. Now, you came down and drew for the jury
17 all of the places you could go and get information.
18 Im looking at what has been marked as Exhibit 17. Do
19 you recall coming down and standing here just a little
20 while ago and writing these things down?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. If we go through those, what youve
23 written down is about asbestosis, correct?
24 A. About asbestosis, lung cancer, and
25 mesothelioma, but for the most part the earliest case

579
1 referred to publications on asbestosis.
2 Q. Well, lets sort of take them as you
3 talked about them.
4 The National Safety Council created in
5 1928, you said, wrote on occupational health issues,
6 1928 and 1930, its publication, probably published
7 about asbestos disease and it was about asbestosis.
8 A. Right, the earliest National Safety
9 Council publication that talks about lung cancer as an
10 asbestos disease was 1957.
11 Q. And you even stated in your testimony,
12 did you not, the first case of asbestosis in the
13 United States was 1930.
14 A. Right.
15 Q. But thats asbestosis.
16 A. Thats right.
17 Q. Now, you talked about 1918, government
18 publications, a 1918 publication, but that dealt with
19 asbestosis, didnt it?
20 A. Right, the disease wasnt named, but I
21 think its reasonable to infer that they were seeing
22 the cause of some of those deaths of people dying
23 before their time would have been asbestosis.
24 Q. At that point in time I think your
25 testimony was, was it not, that the name asbestosis

580
1 had not appeared in the medical literature.
2 A. Thats right.
3 Q. So in 1918 theyre talking about
4 something that today youd look back and say, they
5 meant asbestosis.
6 A. Well, Im saying probably what they were
7 seeing was asbestosis, but the life insurance
8 companies were simply seeing that people of this
9 class, the asbestos workers, were dying before their
10 time and they were bad risks for life insurance.
11 The life insurance companies may not have
12 been that concerned about what the particular cause of
13 disease was; their job was to identify risks and price
14 their insurance accordingly.
15 Q. But the bottom line of all that -- that
16 was about asbestosis.
17 A. Well, you know, I think it probably was,
18 but its impossible to say for sure.
19 Q. Well, now, lets move on to the United
20 States Department of Labor. You said they published
21 monthly reviews, and among the earlier reportings were
22 on things going on in England.
23 A. Right.
24 Q. But you would agree, would you not, they
25 were reporting on asbestosis and silicosis?

581
1 A. Right, that was in the early 30s I was
2 talking about.
3 Q. And you recognize, do you not, in the
4 early 30s the Merewether report from England that
5 really focused on the asbestos textile industry and
6 asbestosis?
7 A. Right.
8 Q. They called it fibrosis, then, did they
9 not, in their report?
10 A. Right.
11 Q. But thats the same thing as this
12 asbestosis were talking about?
13 A. Right.
14 Q. So the United States Department of Labor,
15 in publishing monthly in that time frame, in the 30s,
16 in getting information about asbestos is talking about
17 asbestosis?
18 A. Yes. I dont recall at what point the
19 monthly labor review carried articles or reference to
20 articles that talked about lung cancer as an asbestos
21 disease. I dont recall when they first did that.
22 Q. Okay. Now, you talk about the United
23 States Public Health Service as a government
24 publication place where you could get information
25 about asbestos, correct?

582
1 A. Right.
2 Q. But that, too -- 1938 -- that was the
3 Dreesen study?
4 A. Well, the Public Health Service published
5 a lot of things, and the Dreesen study was the one I
6 discussed in some detail.
7 Q. In 1938 Dreesen did a major study for the
8 United States Public Health Service?
9 A. Right.
10 Q. A division of the United States
11 Government?
12 A. Right.
13 Q. And in Dreesens study Dreesen looked at
14 asbestos textile plants?
15 A. Right, he looked at asbestosis in workers
16 in those plants.
17 Q. And thats the bottom line; he was
18 looking at asbestosis?
19 A. Right, although he did include an
20 annotated bibliography at the end of this report which
21 included references, four abstracts, of articles on
22 lung cancer and asbestosis that had been published by
23 1938.
24 Q. Well, now, Dreesen in 1938 said if
25 asbestos dust concentrations are kept below this

583
1 limit, meaning 5 million particles per cubic foot new
2 cases of asbestosis would not appear. Thats what he
3 said?
4 A. I think it was more qualified than that,
5 something like it would appear that new cases...
6 Q. Well, with that caveat at the beginning,
7 it would appear that, or however you want to qualify
8 it, thats what he said.
9 A. Right. I mean, he gave a very qualified
10 statement to the effect that this will at least reduce
11 the toll of asbestosis.
12 Q. And in doing that hes talking about
13 asbestosis.
14 A. Absolutely.
15 Q. And that became the standard in use in
16 America following that, correct?
17 A. Well, I dont know the extent to which it
18 was the standard in use, because the Public Health
19 Service didnt have any regulatory authority, and the
20 state government agencies that sometimes published
21 these guidelines, occupational exposure to toxic
22 substances -- as far as I know they were never
23 enforced before OSHA in the 1970s, so they were more
24 in the sense of an advisory guideline than actual
25 limits that were really complied with in industry.

584
1 Q. But you would agree, would you not, from
2 1938 on in America that that was what the -- what
3 youd find in the literature as being discussed as a
4 level beyond which you shouldnt have exposure to
5 dust.
6 A. Right.
7 Q. And some people call it a maximum
8 allowable concentration or a threshold limit value?
9 A. Right, different terms were used in
10 different contexts, thats right, but thats
11 basically -- its a maximum allowed or recommended
12 concentration for the toxic agent in the workplace
13 air.
14 Q. And if you kept it below five million
15 Dreesen is suggesting you shouldnt see any more
16 asbestosis -- new cases?
17 A. He says it in a more qualified and
18 limited way, and I mean a closer reading of his report
19 shows that people with advanced asbestosis at 103
20 million particles per cubic feet which means you can
21 go to work for the industry at the age of 18 and have
22 asbestosis by the time you were 40, so...
23 Q. But if you were looking for a government
24 publication in 1938 in the United States, the United
25 States Public Health Service had published about

585
1 asbestosis, had it not?
2 A. Right.
3 Q. And it published that asbestos and use of
4 it by folks in a manufacturing facility could get sick
5 and you should keep the dust levels below 5 million
6 particles per cubic foot of air.
7 A. Right.
8 Q. Okay. Now, you spoke in your testimony
9 about Lanza in 1938, also.
10 A. Right, Lanzas book I was asked about.
11 Q. Now, Lanzas book, was that a government
12 publication?
13 A. No.
14 Q. That fits under another one of these
15 categories you have?
16 A. Medical textbooks.
17 Q. Okay. And as a medical textbook Lanza is
18 talking about -- what is the title of his book?
19 A. The book was called Silicosis and
20 Asbestosis.
21 Q. Right, he was writing about asbestosis
22 and silicosis at that point in time, isnt he?
23 A. Right.
24 Q. And silicosis was much more of a serious
25 widespread disease at that time than asbestosis?

586
1 A. It was more widespread. It wasnt more
2 serious. There was substantial evidence to the effect
3 that asbestosis was a more serious disease.
4 Q. And wouldnt you agree at that point in
5 time one of the big concerns in America was how does
6 this relate to tuberculosis, and there was some
7 thought that silicosis led to tuberculosis.
8 A. Right, there was an interaction between
9 the dangers of silicosis and TB, which didnt appear
10 to be the case with asbestosis.
11 Q. And thats really what Lanza was trying
12 to get at, was it not; looking at the silicosis,
13 looking at the impact on TB, and how the two might
14 interrelate? But then you had a throw-in section on
15 asbestosis.
16 A. Well, that was one of the many subjects
17 that were discussed, the interaction with TB, but they
18 talked about the disease of silicosis and asbestosis
19 from every standpoint, from the standpoint of cause,
20 from the standpoint of the radiology, from the
21 standpoint of the pathology, from the standpoint of
22 the clinical appearance of people suffering from the
23 disease, so they looked at it from the different
24 medical points of view of both diseases.
25 Q. Youve testified before, have you not,

587
1 about this Lanzas book, 1938?
2 A. Sure.
3 Q. And you have testified as far as this
4 book is concerned asbestosis was not a big public
5 health concern in the U.S.?
6 A. Lanza tended to down play it. I dont
7 know if it was his book that said that, but he
8 published an article in 1936 which suggested that the
9 industry was behaving itself and we wouldnt be seeing
10 a whole lot of asbestosis in the future, wrote Dr.
11 Lanza of Metropolitan Life.
12 Q. And youve also testified about the Lanza
13 book that asbestosis does not appear to be as serious
14 a disease in the U.S. as it has in England, judging
15 from various reports from the latter company.
16 That was something you pulled out of that
17 article. Youre aware of that statement?
18 A. Again, I think this is the Journal of the
19 American Medical Association, editorial that Lanza
20 wrote two years earlier, in 1936, that suggested that.
21 Q. But the bottom line on Lanza is, as far
22 as asbestos is concerned, hes looking at asbestosis.
23 A. Until he started denying that asbestos
24 caused cancer in the 1950s, thats right.
25 Q. Lets go back. Im only asking about his

588
1 book in 1938?
2 A. Oh, right, in the 1930s he was writing
3 about asbestosis.
4 Q. So if I pick up his book in 1938 and look
5 at it all Im going to see is information about
6 asbestosis.
7 A. No, there were references to some of the
8 early publications on cancer in the book, too. I
9 think Gloynes chapter on pathology.
10 Q. Now, you talked about a man named Hemeon,
11 correct?
12 A. I dont believe I mentioned him by name,
13 but he was the author of the report to the Asbestos
14 Textile Institute that the Industrial Hygiene
15 Foundation presented in 1947, that confidential
16 report.
17 Q. You are right about that, you didnt
18 mention his name, but you were talking about the
19 Asbestos Textile Institute and a study it did that
20 questioned the 5 million particles standard. You were
21 referring to Mr. Hemeon?
22 A. Among other things, yes.
23 Q. And you were referring to Mr. Hemeons
24 report in 1937?
25 A. Right.

589
1 Q. And that report was never published, was
2 it?
3 A. Thats right.
4 Q. The Asbestos Textile Institute got the
5 report and never published it.
6 A. Thats right.
7 Q. And that was a joint study, was it not,
8 with the Asbestos Textile Institute and the Industrial
9 Hygiene Foundation?
10 A. Well, it was a study for the Asbestos
11 Textile Institute by the Industrial Hygiene
12 Foundation.
13 Q. Now, in all of your review of the
14 literature youre aware, are you not, that John Crane
15 was never a member and has not been a member of the
16 Asbestos Textile Institute or the Industrial Hygiene
17 Foundation?
18 A. I believe thats correct.
19 Q. Okay. So Mr. Hemeon does a report,
20 questions the 5 million particles standard, submits it
21 back to the Asbestos Textile Institute, and it yous
22 never published.
23 A. Right.
24 Q. It was about asbestosis, though, wasnt
25 it?

590
1 A. It was.
2 Q. Now, going on in your list that you went
3 through, this radio information in Illinois that you
4 had the copy of -- do you recall that?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. That was about asbestosis, was it not?
7 A. Right, that was in the early 30s.
8 Q. And that was about whether or not it
9 should be covered under the Occupational Health Act of
10 the State of Illinois and how it would fit in with
11 silicosis, correct?
12 A. I dont really have the text of that
13 announcement, so I dont know exactly what it said.
14 Ive only seen it referred to secondhand in that --
15 Q. Thats not in your book, is it?
16 A. Yes, I think it is.
17 Q. Okay. What page?
18 A. Lets see.
19 (Pause.)
20 It may not be in the book. I think it
21 may have been referred to in the section on railroads
22 in Chapter 9. Let me take a real quick look and see
23 if its there.
24 (There was a pause in the proceedings.)
25 THE WITNESS: No, its not cited in my

591
1 book. I remember seeing it in that reference to
2 pneumoconiosis, but I didnt see it in the book.
3 BY MR. WALLACE:
4 Q. Really, the subject matter is
5 pneumoconiosis, isnt it?
6 A. It would have been if its from the early
7 30s, because even in the medical texts there wasnt
8 any discussion of cancer from asbestos until the mid
9 30s.
10 Q. Pneumoconiosis is that big word that
11 means dust disease in the lung?
12 A. Right.
13 Q. And asbestosis is one of the subsets of
14 pneumoconiosis?
15 A. Thats right, thats one of them.
16 Q. As is silicosis?
17 A. Right, those are different dust diseases
18 of the lung.
19 Q. And then if you have brown lung disease
20 from cotton exposure it would be byssinosis?
21 A. Right.
22 Q. All of those fit under the big heading of
23 pneumoconiosis?
24 A. Thats right.
25 Q. So the radio thing that you referenced

592
1 from the 1930s is about pneumoconiosis -- silicosis,
2 maybe, asbestosis, maybe, but about pneumoconiosis?
3 A. Right, Im sure thats safe to say, given
4 that were talking about something that occurred no
5 later than probably 1934 or 1935.
6 Q. Now, you talked about the Illinois
7 Manufacturers Association. Do you remember that?
8 A. Right.
9 Q. And you talked about their silicosis
10 committee in 1935, that study?
11 A. Right.
12 Q. That was about silicosis and asbestosis,
13 was it not?
14 A. Yes, it was.
15 Q. And that committee was looking into the
16 question if theres going to be a Workers
17 Compensation law in Illinois, then we need to speak to
18 it as an industry or an association.
19 A. Right, they wanted to minimize the impact
20 of that law on their bottom line, basically.
21 Q. All right. But heres the Illinois
22 Manufacturers Association looking into that issue and
23 looking into the legislation in 1935 about asbestosis.
24 A. Right.
25 Q. And all of those Illinois Manufacturers

593
1 Association documents that weve looked at that are
2 exhibits -- theyre all about asbestosis?
3 A. Right, because they were during the
4 period of 1935 and 1936 when the law was being changed
5 in Illinois which made asbestosis a compensable
6 occupational disease.
7 Q. Fair enough. It didnt say anything
8 about lung cancer, did it?
9 A. No.
10 Q. It didnt say anything about
11 mesothelioma, did it?
12 A. No.
13 Q. You talked about information in one of
14 the articles from the Illinois Manufacturers
15 Association that said it made a reference to a 1932
16 Wisconsin conference.
17 A. Right.
18 Q. And in that conference it was dealing
19 with issues of compensation, correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. The one that met in Chicago, as you said.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. All right. And that was dealing with
24 asbestosis.
25 A. Well, asbestosis and silicosis, right,

594
1 not cancer.
2 Q. Right. Now, you next talked about you
3 went to -- you said, all right, Ill move from that,
4 Ill go to another heading, and this was conferences.
5 And you talk about Saranac Lab and Saranac Lake,
6 conferences there, correct?
7 A. Right.
8 Q. And you said from 1934 to 1952 Saranac
9 would have conferences -- were they every year?
10 A. No -- well, they had seven of them
11 between 1934 and 1952, so thats every three years or
12 so, four years.
13 Q. All right. And it was open to anyone who
14 wanted to come?
15 A. I think so, or maybe they had to pay, you
16 know, a registration fee, but, otherwise, it was open
17 to anyone who wanted to.
18 Q. And those from 1934 up to the last one
19 before 1952 dealt and discussed asbestosis.
20 A. Right.
21 Q. And the one in 1952 I think you say there
22 was a lot of discussion about cancer and asbestos.
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. Okay. Another area that you talked
25 about, companies, organizations, trade associations,

595
1 the Industrial Hygiene Foundation was one of those,
2 correct?
3 A. Right.
4 Q. We talked about that briefly but you
5 agree that John Crane was never a member.
6 A. I believe thats correct.
7 Q. And their studies in 1934, 1935, 1936,
8 1937 when it was forming and in its earliest days --
9 their concern was with occupational diseases and
10 problems to the people who worked in industry,
11 primarily or initially in the Pittsburgh area?
12 A. Oh, I dont think it was only the
13 Pittsburgh area. The meeting was in Pittsburgh that
14 formed the Industrial Hygiene Foundation but they had
15 major companies and major industries that operated all
16 over the country and worldwide present at that
17 meeting.
18 Q. And their earliest work was on
19 asbestosis.
20 A. Well, the earliest focus of this meeting
21 of industrial representatives was the fact that by the
22 mid 1930s there were $300 million worth of damage
23 suits and comp claims pending against corporate
24 America for dust diseases of the lungs, and companies
25 were finding it a major item of expense to hire highly

596
1 qualified lawyers to represent them in defending these
2 cases, and even when they won it cost them a lot of
3 money, and, so, they were gathering together to
4 confront that as a problem as a business expense and
5 how to reduce it.
6 Q. And out of that came a series of laws
7 across the country in various states dealing with
8 occupational diseases and compensation.
9 A. Right. One of the things that they did
10 was set up a legal committee because they wanted to
11 make sure that their interests were represented in the
12 fashioning of Workers Compensation laws and other
13 laws being developed in the various states around the
14 country to minimize their financial burden that would
15 be associated with compensation for occupational dust
16 diseases of the lungs.
17 Q. And the laws that were ultimately
18 developed across the United States for Workers
19 Compensation are a patchwork of laws, are they not;
20 that is, this state may be one way, and this state may
21 be another, and this state may be another?
22 A. Right, these things were dealt with
23 state by state, so there was a certain range of
24 difference in the ways that the different states
25 approached it.

597
1 Q. Whats in your book about Virginias
2 effort in that regard, where Mr. King worked?
3 A. I dont go through the state by state
4 differences on Workers Compensation law, so I dont
5 have anything to say specifically about Virginia or
6 most of the other states.
7 Q. Would you not agree that these laws were
8 talking about are talking about the manufacturing
9 place where asbestos or silica is being used and made
10 into some product or made into some subset that would
11 ultimately be a product?
12 A. I dont think so. I think most of the
13 laws didnt limit the compensated class to people who
14 were employed in certain specified occupations, they
15 basically said, you can get compensated if you get
16 asbestosis from your job. And it didnt say, you can
17 only get compensated for asbestosis from your job if
18 you work in the following industries doing the
19 following jobs.
20 Q. But that wasnt my question.
21 A. Im sorry. I misunderstood.
22 Q. Thats all right.
23 My question is it spoke to the worker for
24 a particular employer, correct?
25 A. Well, it was the employer that was

598
1 responsible under Workers Compensation. It was the
2 employer that would have to pay for the medical costs
3 and disability under the Workers Compensation law.
4 That was true for all the states.
5 Q. And these laws didnt apply to the end
6 users way out in the field, whoever they might be,
7 working for someone else or working for themselves.
8 A. They applied to everybody that developed
9 the occupational disease. If you were a pipe coverer,
10 an insulation worker, you had a comp. claim against
11 your employer, no matter how small your employer might
12 have been. It might have been Jimmys Insulation
13 Company, but legally you had a compensation claim that
14 you could file if you developed disability from
15 asbestosis against that employer.
16 So those are product users, as I
17 understand the term.
18 Q. So whenever those employers were using
19 asbestos in any form the worker would have a claim
20 against that employer?
21 A. If the worker developed asbestosis and
22 was disabled by it, yes.
23 Q. You talked about an Asbestos Textile
24 Institute and I asked you a little about Mr. Hemeon.
25 The Asbestos Textile Institute was developed for

599
1 companies making asbestos textiles?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. All right. John Crane was never a member
4 of that?
5 A. No, they didnt join that group.
6 Q. Did they have to?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Let me ask you this: Youve listed a
9 number of places and companies. Are you under any
10 duty to join these places?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Would you agree that if you dont join
13 you would take them to task for not joining, but if
14 they do join you would take them to task for joining
15 and knowing and not doing something about it?
16 A. It depends what they did.
17 Q. So no matter which way it went youre
18 going to blame them one way or the other?
19 A. I mean, thats up to the jury, not me.
20 Q. Okay. Now, Saranac did studies, did it
21 not, for its members?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And members -- John Crane wasnt a member
24 of Saranac, correct?
25 A. Correct.

600
1 Q. Never asked Saranac to do any studies, as
2 far as you know?
3 A. I believe thats correct.
4 Q. But companies that did, for example,
5 Owens-Illinois, for example, they asked for studies,
6 correct?
7 A. Right.
8 Q. Johns Manville did, correct?
9 A. Right.
10 Q. Garlock did, correct?
11 A. Yes, through the Asbestos Textile
12 Institute.
13 Q. So a lot of companies asked Saranac to do
14 studies for them, but these studies that they did were
15 not ever made public, were they?
16 A. For the most part they were. The
17 Owens-Illinois study did ultimately get published.
18 Q. 15 years later?
19 A. Well, it was --
20 Q. After the asbestos litigation began?
21 A. It was completed in -- the study was
22 completed in 1952 and published in 1955. The lab had
23 a new director, and I think the new director just
24 didnt bother checking with the corporate sponsor
25 about letting them publish, so it was one of those

601
1 things that got published probably one might say
2 partly by accident.
3 Q. This book you referred to in another
4 category, Asbestos From Rock to Fabric, 1956 -- that
5 book talks about asbestos and asbestosis, does it not?
6 A. It talks about lung cancer, as well.
7 Q. All right.
8 A. I mean, its mostly about industrial
9 applications, but it does have reference to medical
10 articles.
11 Q. Well, let me ask you this:
12 Youre familiar with something called
13 Asbestos?
14 A. Do you mean the trade magazine or the
15 book?
16 Q. Sure. Are you familiar with that?
17 A. The trade magazine, yes.
18 Q. Do you know it in any other capacity than
19 a trade magazine?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Did it have members?
22 A. Well, it had subscribers.
23 Q. Do you know about the industry
24 associations that were available -- you talked about
25 that here -- available in the time frames 1930s,

602
1 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, generally?
2 A. Well, in the asbestos industry there were
3 a number of different groupings of companies, trade
4 associations.
5 Q. Are you aware of one called MIMA?
6 A. Yes, Magnesia Insulation Manufacturers
7 Association.
8 Q. And that was an association that met and
9 did work certainly in the asbestos area?
10 A. Well, they published handbooks on how to
11 use their products, the products of insulation and the
12 products that they made.
13 Q. But they also kept things to themselves,
14 did they not?
15 A. Well, they did in the sense that they
16 represented their products as not having any
17 particular danger in these handbooks.
18 Q. Are you familiar with another association
19 called NIMA?
20 A. NIMA was -- MIMA renamed in the 1960s to
21 the National Insulation Manufacturers Association.
22 Q. Turn in your book on page 862, Fifth
23 Edition.
24 A. 8-6-2?
25 Q. Yes, sir. You have a chart there, dont

603
1 you?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Do you recall this chart?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. This chart has in information on it
6 called Conspiracy of Silence. Do you see that?
7 A. Right.
8 Q. And its something you published in your
9 book.
10 A. Yes. This was a chart that was developed
11 by a lawyer in a case that I testified in in 1986
12 mapping the overlapping relationships between
13 different asbestos companies and different groups that
14 they worked with and through.
15 Q. And the suggestion is from this chart
16 that these organizations, these companies, GAF,
17 Eagle-Picher, Owens-Corning, Owens-Illinois, Keen,
18 Philip Carey, Pittsburgh Corning, Armstrong,
19 Fibreboard, Raymark, J-M, all were members of
20 organizations that had information about asbestos and
21 asbestos-related disease and they kept their mouths
22 quiet.
23 A. Generally speaking, right.
24 Q. So anyone not in that group wouldnt know
25 the things they kept quiet about, would they?

604
1 A. Not necessarily. I mean, some of the
2 stuff they kept quiet was also in the published
3 literature on asbestos and disease, but they didnt
4 want it getting out in the trade magazines so there
5 werent any articles about asbestosis and asbestos.
6 Q. So if I went to these associations that
7 you listed here, trade associations, or Saranac or
8 industrial hygiene foundation Asbestos Textile
9 Institute -- if I went to any of these or these two os
10 you listed, you said you can go anywhere and find
11 information -- here are groups that are keeping it
12 quiet?
13 A. There were certain groups who suppressed
14 information from ultimately getting to workers who
15 were on the front lines at risk.
16 Q. John Crane is not on that list, correct?
17 A. Thats correct, theyre not.
18 MR. WALLACE: Your Honor, I would offer
19 this one page out of this book as an exhibit.
20 THE COURT: Any objection?
21 MR. METCALF: No objection, Your Honor.
22 THE COURT: All right. It will be
23 received and marked appropriately as a defendants
24 exhibit without objection, Defendants Exhibit
25 Number 1.

605
1 (The exhibit was admitted into evidence.)
2 BY MR. WALLACE:
3 Q. Now, if I might ask about your book
4 again, 1970-ish is where youre doing a snapshot of
5 whats out there and what information is available,
6 correct?
7 A. Well, I certainly talk about what was
8 known in 1970 or knowable.
9 Q. Well, that was your intent when you wrote
10 it the first time was to try to project as of that
11 time and use that as sort of a cutoff line?
12 A. Well, it was sometime between 1965 and
13 1970 that I sort of -- Im not going to try and write
14 about everything after this.
15 Q. Fair enough. Now, in that book you dont
16 write about background levels, ambient air, exposures
17 above ambient air, do you?
18 A. I cant think of anyplace in the book
19 where I talk about environmental pollution
20 concentrations or measures of asbestos in the air in
21 cities like New York and stuff.
22 Q. And you dont have anything in your book
23 on something called relocation or translocation, do
24 you?
25 A. I dont even know what you mean by that.

606
1 Q. All right. Nothing in your book about
2 the medical aspect, even though it says medical and
3 legal aspects nothing in it in 1970 that when you
4 inhale asbestos or any dust the body pushes it out or
5 the body removes it from within, so the body deals
6 with a lot of it? Nothing in your book about that?
7 A. My book is not a medical textbook, its
8 about public health, so I dont go into the details of
9 the physiology of asbestos fiber metabolism and
10 take-out by the body when the fibers are inhaled.
11 Q. Well, Im confused about your title
12 because you have medical on it, but then you say it
13 doesnt have medical in it?
14 A. I didnt say that. There are medical
15 references, hundreds of them, cited in that book.
16 Q. All right. Theres nothing in your book
17 about the -- Ill leave that one. Ill leave that
18 one.
19 (There was a pause in the proceedings.)
20 BY MR. WALLACE:
21 Q. One thing you do have in your book, is
22 there not, sir, a sort of a translation between how
23 many -- you move from 5 million particles per cubic
24 foot of dust to fibers per cc -- you do have those
25 conversions and you do have sections that deal with

607
1 the numbers, how you can equate the two.
2 A. Well, Im probably pretty cautious about
3 what I say because there really isnt any good
4 correspondence between the two systems of measurement.
5 One is the particle count using an instrument
6 developed around probably 1930 that only magnifies up
7 to 100 power and counts particles irrespective of
8 whether theyre fiber shaped asbestos or some other
9 kind of dust.
10 And the other is a magnification of up to
11 430 power, 4.3 times the power of magnification and
12 counts only fiber-shaped particles. And to go from
13 one system of measurement to the other where you have
14 matched samples done by both methods of analysis at
15 the same time in a particular dust setting you get a
16 very wide scatter. Its not like you can have a
17 single conversion factor to multiply by the numbers of
18 one system of measurement to tell you what youre
19 going to get with the other system of measurement.
20 Its not at all precise.
21 Q. What does your book say, though, even if
22 its not precise? What have you published saying,
23 heres how you can go back and forth how they relate
24 to each other? You have that written in your book,
25 right?

608
1 A. Theres probably something in Chapter 4
2 about that, but I dont recall exactly what it was.
3 Its getting so that I cant even find things in this
4 book, its gotten so big.
5 Q. Would you agree or disagree that five
6 fibers per cc means a 25 million asbestos fiber
7 exposure per day for an economic work life? Thats
8 what youve written, isnt it?
9 A. I think 50 was the figure I gave. Did
10 you say five fibers per cc.
11 Q. Five fibers per cc -- you think that
12 would be 50 million?
13 A. That would be 250 million.
14 Q. So every day you could breathe 250
15 million out of five fibers per cc and be within the
16 standard that that five fibers per cc calls for?
17 A. Right.
18 Q. And you might not see that?
19 A. You wouldnt, probably, see that. Not
20 everything thats legal is safe.
21 Q. 250 million you cant see?
22 A. Thats right. Were talking about
23 respirable fibers. Anything thats small enough to
24 get into your lung is too small to see.
25 Q. But it was all right to work with the

609
1 dust, work with asbestos, work up to that level?
2 A. Well, when OSHA first set standards those
3 were the first levels that were allowed, the OSHA
4 standards have to be, under the law, technologically
5 feasible. So in giving OSHA the authority to set
6 standards Congress said, wait a minute, youve got to
7 consider economic impact in these standards as well as
8 the health effects in setting these standards on
9 industry, you cant get too carried away with
10 protecting peoples health.
11 Q. Now, you talked in your testimony, your
12 direct testimony, about a company writing something
13 called Set the Mood a memo in the 1970s. Do you
14 recall that?
15 A. Right.
16 Q. What company wrote that?
17 A. Union Carbide, an asbestos mining
18 company.
19 Q. Not John Crane?
20 A. No.
21 Q. In your book do you have information
22 about New York States occupational disease concerns?
23 A. I talked about New York State a little
24 bit, yes.
25 Q. Would you not agree that in 1949 their

610
1 state occupational cancer committee said that concerns
2 between respiratory cancer and asbestos exposure are
3 doubtful?
4 A. Right. They listed cancer agents that
5 were in categories of established and they used the
6 term doubtful or questionable, and they listed
7 asbestos in the latter category, this particular
8 group, in 1949.
9 MR. WALLACE: May I have just a moment,
10 Your Honor?
11 THE COURT: Yes, sir.
12 (There was a pause in the proceedings.)
13 BY MR. WALLACE:
14 Q. If I can go back to that New York State
15 Occupational Cancer Committee, 1949, Hueper and Lanza
16 were on that committee, werent they?
17 A. Hueper, Lanza, somebody from Standard Oil
18 of New Jersey, somebody from DuPont. I think so.
19 Q. Okay. Thank you.
20 MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Your Honor.
21 THE COURT: Thank you, sir.
22 Redirect, Mr. Metcalf?
23 MR. METCALF: Just a couple of things,
24 Your Honor. Thank you.
25 THE COURT: You may proceed.

611
1 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
2 BY MR. METCALF:
3 Q. Dr. Castleman, I just have a few
4 questions.
5 First of all, when was it known,
6 established, and accepted that breathing asbestos
7 would cause disability?
8 A. I think this was generally accepted in
9 medical, industrial, and insurance circles about the
10 early 30s.
11 Q. And when was it known that breathing
12 asbestos could cause death, generally accepted that
13 breathing asbestos could cause death?
14 A. Same answer, the early 30s. Asbestosis
15 was known to be a fatal disease. The early reports
16 were fatal cases.
17 Q. Now, do you in your work as a public
18 health person have to deal with what kind of caution
19 labels or warnings to put on products to actually
20 inform workers about hazards?
21 MR. WALLACE: I have an objection. May
22 we do a sidebar.
23 THE COURT: Yes, sir. You may proceed.
24 MR. WALLACE: Its beyond the scope of
25 direct. I didnt ask anything about warnings or any

612
1 of that.
2 THE COURT: I didnt hear his question.
3 You didnt let him finish his question. I know he
4 said something about labels but.
5 MR. WALLACE: Hes talking about washing
6 labels. I never asked him about that.
7 MR. METCALF: Counsel asked a good deal
8 of information about how can you tell people about
9 something you dont know. This was all about
10 asbestos, asbestosis, cancer, how can you tell people
11 about cancer if you dont know about it. Thats all
12 about communicating information.
13 THE COURT: What was your question?
14 MR. METCALF: My question is from a
15 public health perspective do you have to have a label
16 that says words about mesothelioma or ones that say
17 things like disability and death.
18 MR. WALLACE: I didnt go into that.
19 Thats my objection. He testified briefly about
20 warning labels on direct. I did not touch that. I
21 stayed away from it. Now hes going back to something
22 I didnt touch.
23 MR. METCALF: Your Honor, he asked many
24 questions about how can you tell me about things you
25 dont know. The point is you dont have to tell

613
1 people about things you dont know about if you tell
2 them what you do know about.
3 MR. WALLACE: I only asked him one
4 question about that. I asked him about can you tell
5 people about things you dont know. Thats the only
6 question I asked him.
7 THE COURT: Okay. Well, I think you can
8 get your point across and rephrase your question to
9 not use the word label, all right.
10 MR. METCALF: Okay.
11 (The sidebar conference concluded, and
12 the proceedings resumed in open court as follows:)
13 BY MR. METCALF:
14 Q. Dr. Castleman, when youre communicating
15 information to workers do you want to use what I call
16 shirt sleeve English, or do you use long technical
17 medical words?
18 A. Shirt sleeve English.
19 Q. Why is that?
20 A. You want them to understand what youre
21 saying. Warning workers is like warning workers who
22 are going to be working on the night shift with
23 chemicals under my direction. It isnt a process of
24 expanding their vocabularies, its a matter of
25 protecting them from the hazardous materials theyre

614
1 going to be working with, and so you use the existing
2 language they have. You dont say, This can cause
3 mesothelioma, you say, This can cause cancer. They
4 understand that, for example.
5 Q. Now, Counsel asked you a number of
6 questions about getting internal corporate memos, had
7 you ever seen any documents from John Crane, internal
8 documents from John Crane like youve seen from other
9 companies.
10 A. Thats right.
11 Q. Did anybody or any lawyer, anybody from
12 John Crane, ever come to you and say, Heres our
13 documents, heres what we knew?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Dr. Castleman, somebody -- the president
16 of a company like John Crane, sitting in his office in
17 Illinois, in Chicago, in 1945 -- is all of the
18 information you have on Exhibit 17 information that
19 would have been available to that person if they had
20 cared to look?
21 A. Yes.
22 MR. METCALF: Thank you.
23 THE WITNESS: The National Safety Council
24 is based in Chicago, for one thing.
25 MR. METCALF: Thank you, Your Honor.

615
1 THE COURT: All right. Thank you, sir.
2 You may step down.
3 May the doctor be excused?
4 MR. METCALF: Yes, Your Honor.
5 THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Dr.
6 Castleman. You may be excused.
7 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor.
8 MR. MCCORMICK: Your Honor, may
9 Ms. Hieronimus step behind the bar? She needs to take
10 Dr. Castleman.
11 THE COURT: Yes, she may.
12 MR. MCCORMICK: Thank you, Your Honor.
13 THE COURT: Are we ready to call our next
14 witness?
15 MR. MCCORMICK: Your Honor, if it please
16 the Court, the plaintiff would ask to read several of
17 John Cranes answers to interrogatories to the jury.
18 THE COURT: All right. Are you ready to
19 do that now?
20 MR. MCCORMICK: Yes, Your Honor.
21 Your Honor, I have an extra copy for the
22 Court, if you would like.
23 THE COURT: Yes, sir.
24 Is this a loose page?
25 MR. MCCORMICK: It is. Actually, I

616
1 believe it may belong in your copy, Your Honor. I
2 just have the selected interrogatories.
3 THE COURT: I think I have this page. It
4 appears to be a duplicate.
5 MR. MCCORMICK: Too efficient. Im
6 sorry.
7 Your Honor, if it please the Court, may I
8 explain to the jury what interrogatories are.
9 THE COURT: Yes, you may.
10 MR. MCCORMICK: Ladies and gentlemen, Im
11 going to read answers to interrogatories which John
12 Crane has answered. Interrogatories are a discovery
13 vehicle under Virginia law where a party can ask
14 another party questions and they are required to
15 answer those questions under oath.
16 These interrogatories were asked In Re:
17 All Asbestos Cases, Newport News Circuit Court.
18 Theyre captioned defendant John Crane, Incorporateds
19 8th Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of
20 Interrogatories and Requests For Production to John
21 Crane, Incorporated.
22 Interrogatory 14: State separately as
23 to the diseases asbestosis, lung cancer, and
24 mesothelioma, A, the date on which defendant or its
25 subsidiary predecessor first knew or had reason to

617
1 know that such disease can result from inhalation of
2 asbestos fibers by humans; B, how defendant became
3 aware of the existence of the disease; C, who within
4 the company first discovered, recognized, or
5 understood the adverse consequences or effects of the
6 disease and/or of asbestos exposure; D, what
7 information was disseminated within defendants
8 company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding
9 such adverse consequences or effects; E, whether any
10 such information is still maintained by the defendant
11 or its subsidiary or predecessor in any written form;
12 F, who is the custodian of such information; and, G,
13 the date on which you first received knowledge or
14 information that the disease was caused by inhalation
15 of asbestos fibers.
16 Answer by John Crane: As a general
17 response to interrogatory 14, subcategories A through
18 G, defendant states that it first learned of the
19 health hazards related to respirable asbestos in
20 approximately 1970 from the general news media
21 surrounding the passage of OSHA and at a meeting of
22 the mechanical packing association at which a
23 representative of Johns Manville spoke about the
24 health hazards to employees who smoked and used raw
25 asbestos in the fabrication of asbestos-containing

618
1 products. Defendants president, Carl Roland, now
2 deceased and George McKillop, retired, product
3 manager, were present. One document has been found
4 relating to that meeting, a memo establishing a
5 company, medical screening program for employees, a
6 copy of which is attached.
7 As to the specific public parts A
8 through G, defendant believes the above general answer
9 covers each of the subparts.
10 As further response, John Crane states
11 that it did not obtain any knowledge from John Crane
12 Canada, Incorporated regarding asbestos hazards, nor
13 did it receive any such knowledge from Crane Packing,
14 Ltd. in England. Even with the passage of OSHA and
15 general news media coverage related to it,
16 encapsulated products containing asbestos were
17 exempted. Gaskets and packing were also exempt
18 because of the nature of the product.
19 MR. WALLACE: Excuse me, Your Honor. I
20 have to object.
21 If youre going to read it, you didnt
22 read it all.
23 MR. MCCORMICK: Well, what did I miss?
24 (There was a pause in the proceedings.)
25 MR. MCCORMICK: Sorry. I didnt, I

619
1 apologize.
2 MR. WALLACE: Could we read that whole
3 sentence again?
4 MR. MCCORMICK: How about I start from
5 the -- sure, Mr. Wallace.
6 Even with the passage of OSHA and the
7 general news media coverage related to it encapsulated
8 products containing asbestos were exempted from the
9 placement of warning labels. Gaskets and packing were
10 also exempted because of the nature of the products.
11 Correct?
12 Interrogatory 17: State the names and
13 addresses of all professional trade, industrial, state
14 of the, hygiene associations and/or research
15 foundations or organizations you have been a member of
16 since 1930, including but not limited to the Asbestos
17 Textile Institute, the Industrial Hygiene Foundation,
18 or Industrial Health Foundation, Mineral Wool
19 Institute, Industrial Mineral Insulation Manufacturers
20 Institute, Magnesia Silica Insulation Manufacturers
21 Institute, National Insulation Manufacturers
22 Association (NIMA) Thermal Insulation Manufacturers
23 Association (TIMA) Asbestos Insulation Association
24 (AIA) Quebec Asbestos Mining Association (QAMA),
25 National Safety Council, Asbestos Cement Producers

620
1 Association, Refractories Institute, Chemical
2 Manufacturers Association, or its predecessor the
3 Manufacturing Chemists Association, any other
4 organization or associations of manufacturers,
5 asbestos insulation contractors, miners, distributors,
6 importers, labelers, suppliers and/or sellers of
7 products containing asbestos fibers.
8 John Cranes answer: A through M, John
9 Crane was not a member.
10 N: John Crane, Incorporated was a
11 member of the Mechanical Packing Association, now
12 known as the Fluid Sealing Association, from the mid
13 1950s until approximately 1970. John Crane rejoined
14 the association in the late 1980s. John Crane was
15 also a member of the Illinois Manufacturers
16 Association, the IMA, a trade association for
17 manufacturers, from 1926 to the present. Two of John
18 Cranes former employees, Carl Roland, and Frank
19 Payne, were individual members of the IMA in the past.
20 Neither is now alive. Their participation in the IMA
21 is unknown.
22 24, question -- and there are two
23 subparts, A and B, and then multiple subparts under
24 each.
25 If you ever became aware that there was

621
1 any recommended threshold limit value which applied to
2 the dust created from the use of asbestos-containing
3 products, state: A, when and how you first became
4 aware of such a threshold limit value and if you
5 passed this information to any customers, clients,
6 employees, and/or contractors; subpart one, identify
7 to whom the information was begin; subpart two, the
8 information by which the information was communicated;
9 subpart three, the exact contents of the information;
10 and, subpart four, the specific date such information
11 was communicated to each such person; and, five, the
12 identity of any and all documents which contain this
13 information.
14 Subpart B: When and how you became
15 aware that your asbestos product and/or any -- when
16 and how you became aware that your asbestos product
17 and/or any place where your employees used, installed,
18 repaired, removed, or handled insulation products
19 was/were within the threshold limit value and if ever
20 identify to whom the information was given, the method
21 by which the information was communicated, the exact
22 contents of the information, the specific date of such
23 information was communicated to each such person, any
24 studies, reports, tests upon which you rely in
25 determining your product and/or your job site was

622
1 within the threshold limit value and the identity of
2 any and all documents which contain this information.
3 Answer: Defendant understands threshold
4 limit value to be a trademarked phrase which refers to
5 airborne concentrations of substances and represents
6 conditions under which it is believed that a worker
7 may be repeatedly exposed day after day without
8 adverse effect. Defendant is aware that the American
9 Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists,
10 ACGIH, has suggested threshold limit values for
11 asbestos for many years but cannot state when it first
12 became aware of this. Defendant has found no records
13 related to this.
14 Interrogatory number 31: Was each of
15 your asbestos products generally expected to reach or
16 packaged to reach the consumer or user without
17 substantial change in the condition in which it was
18 sold? If not, with respect to any such product
19 explain in what way the defendant claims its products
20 were altered or substantially changed after the sale
21 or distribution and before reaching the user.
22 Answer: Yes.
23 Interrogatory number 32: Was it a
24 foreseeable use of your asbestos-containing products
25 that they may have been removed, stripped, or replaced

623
1 at some time after installation?
2 It was foreseeable that they may have to
3 be removed or replaced, but not stripped.
4 Interrogatory number 33: When, if ever,
5 did defendant or any of its predecessors in interest
6 first receive a copy of the article entitled A Health
7 Survey of Pipe Covering Operations in Constructing
8 Naval Vessels, published in January, 1946 in the
9 industrial hygiene -- excuse me -- 1946 in the
10 Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology and
11 authored by W. Fleischer and P. Drinker, et al., the
12 Fleischer-Drinker report?
13 The answer is: Defendant never received
14 a copy of said article. Defendant is aware of the
15 article through its counsel in this litigation as part
16 of the medical and scientific literature and the
17 history of asbestos.
18 When, if ever, did the defendant or any
19 of its predecessors in interest first receive a copy
20 of the article entitled, A Study of Asbestos in the
21 Asbestos Textile Industry, published in 1938 in Public
22 Health Bill No. 241, U.S. Public Health Service, and
23 authored by W. C. Dreesen, the Dreesen report?
24 Their answer: Defendant never received
25 a copy of said article. Defendant is aware of the

624
1 article through its counsel in this litigation as part
2 of the medical and scientific literature and the
3 history of asbestos.
4 Interrogatory 40: If defendant has ever
5 given any information to defendants employees
6 concerning any potential hazards of exposure to
7 asbestos state the specific information given, the
8 dates on which information was given, the manner in
9 which said information was given, by whom was said
10 information given, to whom was said information given,
11 the name and current address of the custodian of any
12 records concerning the information given.
13 John Cranes answer: After the passage
14 of OSHA the United States -- in the United States,
15 1970, all new employees in defendants packing plant
16 were required to attend a meeting at which work rules
17 for handling raw asbestos materials, safe work
18 practices and possible health hazards, were discussed.
19 John Crane has discovered no record of any warnings to
20 employees nor anyone who can recall such warnings at
21 John Crane Canada since the passage of the Ontario
22 Workers Health and Safety Act of 1976.
23 Continuing with their answer: See also
24 answer to interrogatory number 39 as to subparts A, B,
25 E, and F of interrogatory 40 the specific information

625
1 is unknown. As to part C, orally. As to part D, Bill
2 Koch, plant manager, Morton Grove, deceased.
3 Defendant cannot respond to this subpart insofar as
4 the operations of John Crane UK. See answer to
5 interrogatory number one.
6 This is the last one, I promise.
7 Interrogatory number 44: Prior to 1972
8 did defendant ever advise any purchaser or user of
9 asbestos-containing products that there was any
10 threshold limit value which applied to the dust
11 created from the use of asbestos-containing products
12 and/or that the dust associated with the use of
13 asbestos-containing products should be kept below the
14 threshold limit value of 5 million particles per cubic
15 foot? If so -- well, the answer is: No.
16 Signed, John Crane, Incorporated, by
17 counsel, Thomas J. Moran, Wallace Pledger, PLC, sworn
18 to, George Springs, October 30th, 2007, before
19 Marcelia Bell, Notary Public, State of Texas.
20 Thank you.
21 THE COURT: Thank you, sir.
22 I think maybe well have a short break
23 right now, maybe about ten minutes.
24 (The jury withdrew from the courtroom.)
25 THE COURT: My bailiff tells me that

626
1 you-all have had enough for today.
2 MR. MCCORMICK: I dont know that we can
3 put the jury through any more pain.
4 THE COURT: I know. Well, I think weve
5 made substantial progress. Next week what does your
6 witness list look like?
7 MR. MCCORMICK: Your Honor, we have three
8 witnesses, three experts; John Maddox will be here on
9 Monday -- Tuesday, Im sorry -- and then we have two
10 other witnesses who will be Wednesday and Thursday,
11 respectively, and we have Mrs. King and Mrs. Ford.
12 THE COURT: And right now it looks like
13 you might be done by maybe --
14 MR. MCCORMICK: Thursday after lunch, God
15 willing and the creek dont rise.
16 THE COURT: Yes, thats right.
17 Mr. Wallace, give me the benefit of your
18 wisdom, sir. When do you think -- what does your case
19 look like in terms of time?
20 MR. WALLACE: Two and a half days, as
21 soon as they finish.
22 THE COURT: Okay.
23 MR. WALLACE: And well be ready to go.
24 THE COURT: So were going to go into the
25 third week, it looks like. So Thursday will be a half

627
1 day, more or less --
2 MR. WALLACE: Were looking at
3 Thanksgiving, too, and thats a real worry.
4 THE COURT: Well, we cant stop it, can
5 we? We have absolutely no control over that.
6 MR. WALLACE: I wonder if it would be
7 possible to put two of their experts on the Tuesday or
8 Wednesday and let them finish a day ahead rather than
9 just take one expert per day.
10 MR. MCCORMICK: If it were possible, Your
11 Honor, I would have done it. It is not possible.
12 THE COURT: All right. Well, how many
13 times have you seen his experts?
14 MR. WALLACE: Oh, I dont know. A lot.
15 THE COURT: You cant count the times.
16 Okay, so --
17 MR. WALLACE: How many times have I seen
18 them?
19 THE COURT: Yeah.
20 MR. WALLACE: Repeatedly.
21 THE COURT: Thats what I thought. So
22 did you think there was any room to tighten up their
23 case.
24 MR. WALLACE: Yes, maam. I think you
25 can do each one in half a day.

628
1 THE COURT: You think so.
2 MR. WALLACE: Yes, maam.
3 THE COURT: If you were on their side
4 would you think that.
5 MR. WALLACE: Yes, maam.
6 THE COURT: No, you wouldnt.
7 MR. WALLACE: Well, look at what we did
8 today.
9 THE COURT: No, Im just kidding with
10 you. You know that.
11 All right. Friday would be November
12 the 16th, and then the 19th, and Tuesday. So you,
13 Mr. Wallace, are thinking perhaps you would be done by
14 Tuesday afternoon?
15 MR. WALLACE: Yes, maam.
16 THE COURT: Oh.
17 MR. WALLACE: Thats the problem.
18 THE COURT: Thats true, because the 21st
19 the Court is scheduled to close half a day. But of
20 course I have everybody here and theyre going to
21 stay. Somebody will have to man the doors. Im not
22 going to let them go. If were here, well be here.
23 MR. WALLACE: Well be finished Monday
24 evening. If they finished Thursday noon and we can
25 start, well be finished by Monday night. Thats two

629
1 days, thats Friday and Monday, and half a day
2 Thursday. So well be finished Monday night.
3 THE COURT: All right. So then they
4 would have Tuesday, Wednesday -- Thursday and Friday
5 are out, so if they dont reach a decision by the 21st
6 we would not be able to resume until Monday, the 26th.
7 MR. MCCORMICK: Your Honor, trying to
8 streamline things, have you given any thought to when
9 we might argue instructions?
10 MR. WALLACE: Could we stay one night and
11 do that and get that off the table so we can go pretty
12 close to the last witness.
13 THE COURT: How much argument do you
14 have? Because I require this stack of agreed
15 (indicating) and that stack of disagreement
16 (indicating).
17 MR. MCCORMICK: Perhaps it might be
18 appropriate for each side to confer.
19 THE COURT: I think that would be wise
20 and prudent, yes, sir, and would make the Court happy.
21 Yes, sir.
22 MR. WALLACE: Judge, I have an issue, and
23 I dont know how to address this. May I approach just
24 by myself for a second?
25 THE COURT: Yes.

630
1 (Mr. Wallace speaks at sidebar with the
2 Court.)
3 THE COURT: All right, then -- where is
4 my bailiff? There he is.
5 Do you want to bring the jurors back in?
6 Oh, what do you want me to tell them
7 about Ms. Shackelford?
8 MR. MCCORMICK: I think if you just
9 suggest that she was discharged for no reason --
10 MR. WALLACE: I think they must be
11 admonished not to talk to her.
12 MR. MCCORMICK: And that it was nothing
13 that she did.
14 MR. WALLACE: I think you can say that
15 she talked with her husband, maybe.
16 THE COURT: Okay.
17 (The jury entered the courtroom.)
18 THE BAILIFF: Eight jurors in the box.
19 THE COURT: Eight jurors in the box.
20 Counsel waive the poll?
21 MR. MCCORMICK: Yes, Your Honor.
22 MR. WALLACE: Yes, Your Honor.
23 THE COURT: All right. You may be
24 seated.
25 Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we have

631
1 decided that we will end for today at this time. I
2 know youre unhappy about that, but -- and we hate to
3 punish you that way, but were going to excuse you for
4 the weekend, and I would ask that you meet Deputy
5 Sonnier in the usual place at the usual time, quarter
6 to 10:00 on Tuesday morning. Monday is a holiday. If
7 you come down Monday, youre going to be lonesome,
8 because we wont be here, all right? So mark your
9 calendars that you do not have to come on Monday. Get
10 plenty of rest, and well see you at quarter to 10:00
11 on Tuesday morning.
12 One further note: Im sure you have
13 realized that Ms. Shackelford is no longer with us,
14 and I know that you are probably curious about that.
15 I would ask that you put your curiosity on hold for
16 the duration of this trial and that you not discuss or
17 speculate or anything. It was just a series of events
18 that made it inappropriate for her to continue. It
19 was nothing that she did wrong, but, as I told you
20 when we were doing the voir dire and selecting you, it
21 doesnt mean that you did anything wrong or that
22 youre less qualified than anyone else, its just for
23 this particular case and the circumstances that came
24 about in this particular case we excused her.
25 So I know that she and Ms. Valvo had

632
1 driven in together, and Ms. Valvo was kind enough to
2 give her a ride today. I would ask that none of you
3 talk with Mrs. Shackelford about the case in any way,
4 shape, or fashion, and that you do not allow her to
5 speak with you about it. Im speculating that she
6 might want to call Ms. Valvo and say something about
7 it. I would appreciate it if you would tell her, I
8 cant talk about it, and wait until the case is over
9 and then you can discuss matters. But I would ask and
10 instruct you that you should not speak with her about
11 the case or her reasons for being excused until after
12 this case has concluded.
13 That leads me also to remind you do not
14 discuss the case with anyone. I know your significant
15 other, your kids, anybody might want to know, whats
16 happening down there? Judge Foster has said, and its
17 the rules, you cannot talk about it, all right?
18 Im sorry I cant see you, Mr. Chapman.
19 All right. Thats better.
20 Now, do you have any questions about my
21 instructions?
22 JUROR VALVO: Judge, if by chance
23 Ms. Shackelford calls me because I was supposed to
24 pick her up the next time or meet, do I have to report
25 to the Court that she did call? I mean, she may just

633
1 call to tell me that shes no longer coming or have
2 you instructed her not to.
3 THE COURT: No, I did not instruct her
4 not to, but I would ask that if she does call and
5 tries to discuss the case with you that you report
6 that to the Court. But if she just calls and says,
7 you know, Im not there anymore, you no longer need to
8 pick me up and thats the extent of the conversation
9 then thats fine. And Im instructing you that that
10 is all that should be discussed about the
11 circumstances and that you not go into anything else,
12 her opinions, her thoughts, nothing, witnesses
13 testimony, that you not discuss anything about any
14 aspect of the case with her.
15 All right. Thank you very much. Youve
16 been a very good group. Do I have any requests for
17 breakfast for Tuesday morning? You have your hot
18 chocolate.
19 JUROR SMITH: Yes, I have some next week.
20 THE COURT: Do you want me to bring some
21 more.
22 JUROR SMITH: No, Ill bring my own.
23 Thank you.
24 THE COURT: All right. Good afternoon,
25 and have a good weekend.

634
1 (The jury withdrew from the courtroom.)
2 THE COURT: Is there anything else we
3 need to take up gentlemen and lady?
4 MR. MCCORMICK: No, Your Honor.
5 MR. METCALF: No, Your Honor.
6 MR. WALLACE: No, Your Honor.
7 THE COURT: And Ms. King. I missed you.
8 I see you back there.
9 I want to wish all of you a good weekend,
10 and well see you first thing Tuesday morning.
11 (The hearing adjourned at 3:50 p.m., to
12 be reconvened on November 13th at 10:00 a.m.)
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

635
1 COURT REPORTERS CERTIFICATE
2
3 We, Scott D. Gregg, Registered Professional
4 Reporter and Heidi L. Jeffreys, Registered
5 Professional Reporter, certify that we recorded
6 verbatim by stenotype the proceedings in the captioned
7 cause before the HONORABLE AUNDRIA D. FOSTER, Judge of
8 said Court, Newport News, Virginia, on the 9th day of
9 November, 2007.
10 We further certify that to the best of our
11 knowledge and belief, the foregoing transcript
12 constitutes a true and correct transcript of the said
13 proceedings.
14 Given under our hands this day of
15 , 2007, at Norfolk, Virginia.
16
17
18
19 _____________________________
20 Scott D. Gregg, RPR
21
22 _____________________________
23 Heidi L. Jeffreys, RDR, CRR
24 CCR No. 0413283
25