Drs. Vorwald and Lanza Testify in Haines v. Johns-Manville on Removing Workers from Dust (1950)

Excerpts from the December 1, 1950, workers' compensation hearing in Somerville, New Jersey, on John Haines's claim against Johns-Manville for total disability from asbestosis after nine years at the Manville plant, with a one-page memorandum summarizing the medical testimony for the defense. Asked whether he would remove a man with asbestosis from further exposure, Dr. Arthur J. Vorwald of the Saranac Laboratory answered "Not necessarily," saying it would depend on the man's age and ability to do other work. Dr. Anthony J. Lanza, testifying next, said he could not answer yes or no "because it depends on circumstances." A 1984 Manville legal department memo on top notes that the transcript was being produced in J-M's insurance litigation.

What it shows

Vorwald testified that he would advise a man of about 40 who developed lung changes after two or three years in dust to find other work, but would be "extremely cautious" with an older man, because the disease "is not a rapidly progressing one" and such a man can "do a good day's work, and he wants to do it. There are many men like that." He said it was "not common practice" to remove men with dust disease from exposure: "We watch them. If he is getting worse then we do something about it." Both doctors appeared as witnesses for J-M. The same question, whether to move men out of the dust, was being decided the same way at Lompoc that winter (Elsenbast to Westmont, January 1951).

In Johns-Manville's chronology

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

Drs. Vorwald and Lanza testify on 12/1/50 in the workers' compensation hearing regarding Haines v. Johns-Manville. Haines had worked at the Manville plant for nine years and alleged permanent total disability due to asbestosis. Dr. Vorwald testifies that it is not common practice to automatically remove workers from further dust exposure after they have been diagnosed as having pneumoconiosis. The following items are taken into consideration before a transfer takes place: 1.) The worker's age; 2.) The worker's ability to do other kinds of work; 3.) The workers' mental condition (how he would react to a job change); 4.) The swiftness with which the worker's condition occurred.

For example, Dr. Vorwald states that certain workers, from a medical standpoint, become worse when they are removed from their occupation. If a worker is aged 40 and shows signs of pulmonary changes after two or three years in a job where he is exposed to dust, Dr. Vorwald would advise the worker to get some other form of employment. If, on the other hand, the worker is over 40 years of age, Dr. Vorwald would be extremely cautious in making a similar recommendation, especially if the worker had worked for many years at his trade. "The disease is not a rapidly progressing one, and we know by experience that, barring pulmonary disability, that this man is able, by reason of his taking precautions in his trade, to do a good day's work and he wants to do it. There are many men like that."

Dr. Vorwald does not believe that continued exposure would necessarily be detrimental to that worker, especially if he belongs to that class that is not developing the disease as rapidly as others. Of course, if the worker's condition becomes worse, he would be transferred. Dr. Lanza testifies that he would not categorically recommend that a worker with silicosis or pneumoconiosis be removed from exposure. It would depend on the circumstances.