Charles L. Sutherland of the British Ministry of National Insurance to Dr. A. J. Lanza on Pneumoconiosis Claims (1950)

A one-page letter of November 6, 1950, from Dr. Charles L. Sutherland of the British Ministry of National Insurance in London to Dr. A. J. Lanza of New York, answering Lanza's questions about how Britain handled claims for dust disease. Sutherland explains that the old Workmen's Compensation Acts had been replaced by the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) scheme, that the medical boards had power to require an X-ray of the chest, and that the diagnosis of pneumoconiosis rested primarily on the X-ray findings. In his last paragraph he says it was not correct that British workers were compensated for asbestosis on the findings of a clinical examination without an X-ray. Lanza sent a copy to Dr. Kenneth W. Smith of Canadian Johns-Manville on November 21, calling his attention to that paragraph.

What it shows

The question mattered to the Quebec industry because diagnosis by X-ray limited who could claim. That winter Dr. Wright's breathing studies suggested asbestosis could be found in men whose X-rays showed little, which Smith warned "might change our whole examination program and seriously affect the field of compensation" (Smith's letters on Dr. Wright's findings).

In Johns-Manville's chronology

Johns-Manville's own chronology of what the company knew describes this document as follows:

C. Sutherland (Ministry of National Insurance), on 11/6/50, explains to Dr. A. Lanza that under the British system, workers are not compensated for asbestos based upon the findings of a clinical examination only. An x-ray is also obtained as well. Sutherland briefly describes the British equivalent of workers' compensation and the handling of pneumoconiosis claims in Britain. Lanza sends K. Smith a copy of the above-referenced letter on 11/21/50 with a brief enclosure memorandum to which Smith responds that it is "gratifying to know that those who wish to ignore the value of an x-ray pattern have not succeeded in changing the minds of the Compensation Board in England."

Editor's note: The chronology quotes Dr. Smith's reply to Lanza ("gratifying to know that those who wish to ignore the value of an x-ray pattern..."). That reply is not in this file.