H. M. Jackson to M. F. Naylor on Reporting Occupational Disease Cases in New Jersey (1952)

A one-page memorandum of September 5, 1952, from Hugh M. Jackson, Johns-Manville's safety engineer at headquarters, to M. F. Naylor at the Manville, New Jersey, plant, headed "Reporting of Occupational Diseases." Based on New Jersey's workmen's compensation law and an opinion from Frederick W. Hall, J-M's compensation lawyer, it defines when a case must be reported to the state. A case became reportable only when a worker lost more than a week of work, or had to be given different work, because of disability from the disease itself. "Transfer based on X-Ray changes only, without accompanying incapacity, would not make the cases reportable," and neither would a transfer made because continued exposure "might result in disability."

What it shows

Jackson explains why the definition mattered: Hall had advised that "the filing of reports by the plant constitutes prima facie case for compensation for the employee," so "complete agreement" between the plant medical department and the headquarters safety section was required before any case was treated as reportable. Workers whose X-rays showed dust disease, and who were moved out of dust to protect them, were therefore kept out of the state's count unless they were already disabled. Four months later Dr. Kenneth W. Smith, J-M's medical director, pointed back to this memo in his plan for the Manville plant's no-dust list.

In Johns-Manville's chronology

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

Jackson memorandum dated 9/5/52 establishes policy regarding the reporting of occupational diseases for New Jersey workers' compensation. X-ray changes and preventive job transfers to "no dust" are not reportable absent physical "disability". Work history to be done before reporting to state (to facilitate second opinion).

Editor's note: J-M's description says a work history was to be taken before a case was reported to the state, "to facilitate second opinion." The memo says only that doubtful cases be reviewed by the plant medical department and headquarters safety before any report, and be handled under Standard Practice S-54; it does not mention a work history or a second opinion.