Vandiver Brown to A. R. Fisher on New Jersey Occupational Disease Bills (1939)

A two-page internal memo of February 8, 1939, from Vandiver Brown, Johns-Manville's attorney, to A. R. Fisher at J-M's headquarters, enclosing two New Jersey Assembly bills that would add pneumoconiosis to the state's list of compensable occupational diseases. Brown recalls that when the company last set its policy, "it was decided that we were opposed" to making dust diseases compensable, and he finds these bills "badly designed" in any case: they put asbestos dust disease on the same footing as silica disease, the means of diagnosing dust disease by X-ray were not adequate, and responsibility was not divided among several employers.

What it shows

Brown writes that he had long thought "properly formulated" dust disease legislation desirable "from the employers' point of view," and had disagreed with the company's policy. Then he adds: "candor forces me to admit I may have been wrong on the earlier occasions when I advocated our joining in the effort to make these diseases compensable. It is an impressive fact that nearly ten years have elapsed since a claim has been made by a Manville employee. However, I am keeping my fingers crossed." Copies went to S. A. Williams and to the Manville plant's J. E. Begert and C. W. Hite. The bills had come to him from J-M's Newark lawyers (the Hobart, Minard & Cooper letters); that August, the widow of a Manville weaver sued the company (the Lacho and Smutko suits).

In Johns-Manville's chronology

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

V. Brown writes to A.R. Fisher, 2/8/39, and discusses these two bills. Brown states that J-M's past policy has been that it was opposed to making dust diseases compensable. He states that even if J-M's past policy has changed, he believes these two bills are poorly designed for their stated purpose for the following reasons: (1) by specifying "pneumoconiosis" dust disease caused by asbestos is placed on the same footing as dust disease caused by free silica, even though the latter is considered a "far more serious menace"; (2) the machinery for diagnosing occupational dust disease and determining the extent of injury or incapacity therefrom is not adequate (x-rays); (3) since the onset of the disease is gradual over time, provision should be made for dividing responsibility between several employers.

Brown states that in contrast to the company's policy, it has long been his opinion that properly drawn occupational disease legislation covering dust diseases is desirable from the employer's point of view, and if a bill were introduced in New Jersey which would make dust disease compensable and provide the safeguards to prevent fraudulent or unjustified claims, he would advise the company to re-examine its policy. Yet, Brown concludes by stating that he may have been wrong in advocating making dust diseases compensable, because nearly 10 years have elapsed since a claim has been made by a Manville employee. "However I am keeping my fingers crossed".

Related documents

• Vandiver Brown and Hobart, Minard & Cooper on New Jersey Dust Disease Bills (1939)