No fee unless we recover compensation for your family Text size 833-4-ASBESTOS (833-427-2378) Free Case Review

Ralph M. Barley, Herbert Ball and Dr. Kenneth Smith on Raybestos-Manhattan's Asbestosis and Lung Cancer Claims (1958)

You don't need the product names or old records. No fee unless we recover compensation for your family.

Call 833-4-ASBESTOS Request a review

Three letters of July and August 1958. Ralph M. Barley, a Lancaster, Pennsylvania, lawyer for the insurer of Raybestos-Manhattan's U.S. Asbestos Division, wrote to Herbert Morton Ball, Johns-Manville's secretary and general attorney, that the company "has a great many cases of asbestosis" from its Manheim plant and now faced a claim (the Geiman case) linking asbestosis and lung cancer. He asked for Dr. Kenneth Smith's literature and opinion. Smith sent reprints of his own article and of "the result of our Q.A.M.A. study," which he called "an excellent reference," and declined to give an opinion himself, since "my word would be considered from a prejudiced point of view because of my employment."

Author
Ralph M. Barley; Kenneth W. Smith
Date
July 17, 1958
Number
Bates AK103100352–AK103100357
Rights
Republished under fair use for research and historical study.

Read or download

Read online Download the PDF Ralph M. Barley to Herbert Ball, July 17, 1958 · 2 pages · 73 KB

Read online Download the PDF Dr. Kenneth Smith to Ball, July 23, 1958 · 1 pages · 71 KB

Read online Download the PDF Barley to Ball, August 1, 1958 · 1 pages · 37 KB

What it shows

Smith told Ball that J-M had "seen no increase in our J-M asbestos workers over the incidence in those not exposed to the fibre," and suggested Dr. Arthur J. Vorwald, formerly of the Saranac Laboratory, as an expert witness. The "Q.A.M.A. study" he sent was the Industrial Hygiene Foundation's published article on Quebec miners, from which the finding on asbestosis and lung cancer had been left out (1958 article). Barley also wrote that the insurer had not appealed an earlier award (the Taylor case) because "our record was not sufficiently good to risk establishing a Court precedent."

In Johns-Manville's chronology

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

Correspondence from counsel for Raybestos Manhattan to Herbert M. Ball dated 8/1/58 requesting that they have the benefit of Kenneth Smith's opinion concerning the link between asbestos exposures and cancer. Raybestos reports that while they did not appeal the worker's compensation verdict in the Taylor case they have another action pending (Geiman) which they are considering appealing in the event that an award is granted. Smith provided Ball with a copy of his 1955 publication and some other literature and suggested that Dr. Vorwald might be a good witness on behalf of Raybestos Manhattan.

Editor's note: J-M's description calls Barley counsel for Raybestos-Manhattan. His letter says his firm represented Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association Casualty Insurance Company, the insurer for Raybestos-Manhattan's U.S. Asbestos Division.

Cited on this site

Cite this document

“Ralph M. Barley, Herbert Ball and Dr. Kenneth Smith on Raybestos-Manhattan's Asbestosis and Lung Cancer Claims.” July 17, 1958. Bates AK103100352–AK103100357. AsbestosClaims.Law Library. https://asbestosclaims.law/library/documents/ralph-m-barley-herbert-ball-and-dr-kenneth-smith-on-raybestos-manhattans-asbestosis-and-lung-cancer-claims-1958.

ACL Doc numbers and their short links never change. See how to cite the Library.

Talk with an asbestos lawyer

Start with what you remember, and we'll take it from there.

This page is provided for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Every asbestos case turns on its own facts, exposure history, diagnosis, deadlines, available evidence, and applicable law. Reviewing this page does not create an attorney-client relationship. For advice about your specific situation, call 833-4-ASBESTOS for a free case review.