W. E. Shoemaker of American Mutual on Keasbey & Mattison and the Public Health Service Cancer Survey (1961)

A four-page memo of September 26, 1961, from W. E. Shoemaker, assistant engineering manager at the American Mutual Liability Insurance Company's Upper Darby office, to L. P. Bloomer, on its insured Keasbey & Mattison Company of Ambler, Pennsylvania. Ohio doctors at the Cleveland Chest Clinic had seen "higher than normal incidents of cancer" in Social Security records for an asbestos plant's workers, and the U.S. Public Health Service had become "unusually interested." Dr. Kenneth Smith of Johns-Manville had then proposed that the Asbestos Textile Institute ask the Service to survey asbestos and cancer. Mr. Porter, Keasbey & Mattison's president, "was very afraid of publicity" and wanted the insurance industry to act.

What it shows

The insurer's engineers agreed "that such a survey including cancer investigation could increase claim costs and industry costs greatly," and that "defense against phony cancer claims is very expensive." They favored a dust survey "not including cancer," suggested the industry "handle suspected cancer problems themselves as an internal project," and advised that "The best thing would be for the risk to ignore dealing with or expressing themselves on this subject" to the Service. Porter, who saw himself "in the role of Paul Revere," did not want the matter "pushed through by staff representatives of the Johns-Manville Company" and had tried to get Raybestos-Manhattan's president to take over the initiative. Shoemaker closed that if plant dust were kept within "what are known to be safe levels," the company would have less to worry about.

In Johns-Manville's index

Johns-Manville's legal department indexed the Motley 1,000 in 1984. Its index describes this document as follows:

W.E. Shoemaker (Upper Darby Eng., American Mutual) memo to L.P. Bloomer (Upper Darby Eng., American Mutual), 9/26/61, re insured Keasbey & Mattison, entitled "Asbestosis - Cancer 'Investigation' - Proposal by U.S. Public Health Service." Shoemaker states that his memo will attempt to summarize a very complicated story regarding the proposed USPHS survey on asbestos and cancer and Mr. Porter's (President, Keasbey & Mattison(?)) reaction to the proposal. Shoemaker was asked to handle this matter after Porter called Mr. Kley (Atlantic Division Operations, American Mutual) asking for some kind of help from Amlico. Shoemaker reports that at the beginning of 1961 "in the Cleveland Chest Clinic some Ohio doctors were looking over social security records on an asbestos products producer's plant. It is alleged that they thought they found higher than normal incidents (sic) of cancer among the workers, who must have been retired. Dr. Kenneth Smith of J-M, being the only full time medical director in the industry, was asked to review their findings." M.C. Shaw (Executive Secretary, ATI) was also asked to participate in the review. Shoemaker reports that at the annual meeting of the ATI on 6/8/61, Dr. K. Smith (Head of the ATI Air Hygiene and Manufacturing Committee) recommended adoption of the following proposals for submission to the ATI Board of Governors: 1) Authorization to ask the USPHS to conduct a survey concerning asbestos and cancer; and 2) Creation of a subcommittee of company doctors by the Board of Governors to meet at least once a year. Shoemaker reports that subsequently a model letter was drawn up by the Executive Secretary of the ATI soliciting the membership's approval for the USPHS investigation. Shoemaker summarizes Porter's response to Dr. K. Smith's proposal regarding the USPHS survey. Porter was "very afraid of publicity and felt that Smith and others were trying to make a name for themselves and had not thought through what they were doing." Shoemaker states that "Porter wanted the insurance industry to take action." But "[i]t was thought that action through Insurance Trade Associations could be very cumbersome, drawn out and probably not effective in this particular area." Shoemaker made the following suggestions to Kley for proposed referral to Porter: 1) We certainly agree that such a survey including cancer investigation could increase claim costs and industry costs greatly. There has not only been a lot of controversy on the subject of cancer and asbestos, but defense against phony cancer claims is very expensive. 2) We are in favor of a factual environmental survey by the USPHS, not including cancer. 3) On the positive side, the asbestos industry would do well to handle suspected cancer problems themselves as an internal project .... Handling this problem as an internal one has not developed runaway claims situations. 4) The best thing would be for the risk to ignore dealing with or expressing themselves on this subject to the USPHS. There is nothing that compels K&M to cooperate with the rest of their industry if the USPHS do make a study. "Mr. Porter felt that he was in the role of Paul Revere in trying to get his industry heads to give this matter serious consideration, rather than allowing it to be pushed through by staff representatives of the Johns-Manville Company." Porter tried to get R-M to take over the initiative and also contacted other asbestos manufacturers. Porter believes that certain members of the asbestos industry "will not attend a conference on this subject, which USPHS tried to call." Shoemaker states that he is "sorry that we do not have something more dramatic to offer Mr. Porter but believe it is fairly obvious that if the plant dust conditions are kept within, what are known to be safe levels, K&M and their industry would have less concern with this matter."

About this copy

This is document 875 of the Motley 1,000, from the set the Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust's records facility certified as true copies, pages CRMC-Motley1000-Subj-004593 to CRMC-Motley1000-Subj-004596.