Johns-Manville Correspondence on Herbert Miller's Threatened Asbestosis Claim (1952–1953)

Fourteen items, August 1952 to March 1953, about a threatened workmen's compensation claim by Herbert Miller, who had worked at Johns-Manville's Manville, New Jersey, plant and research center since 1948. On August 5, 1952, Frederick W. Hall's firm, Wharton, Hall, Stewart & Halpern, J-M's compensation lawyers, wrote that "in accordance with our general understanding with Messrs. Parsonnet, Weitzman & Oransky that all alleged asbestosis cases would be discussed with us before any petitions are filed," Miller's lawyer, Mr. Mungle, was holding back his petition until he heard "what Johns-Manville's opinion is in this matter." The plant doctor, Dr. D. T. DuBow, found no evidence of asbestosis, diagnosed "tracheobronchitis of unknown origin," and Dr. Kenneth W. Smith agreed.

What it shows

Hall's firm asked J-M to say whether there was "something to his client's claim warranting further discussion"; if not, "we would like to be in a position to tell Mr. Mungle to go ahead and file his petition." Miller's job records list exposure to asbestos and cement, Santocel (a silica gel), dyeing asbestos cloth, mineral fiber and asbestos textile products. In November the firm told Mungle that J-M's medical department believed Miller's complaints "to be non-compensable in nature" and that J-M "was not disposed to do anything voluntarily"; by March 1953 nothing more had been heard. The file shows a standing arrangement under which a New Jersey claimants' firm brought asbestosis cases to J-M's lawyers before filing them, and J-M's medical judgment then decided whether the company would settle.

In Johns-Manville's chronology

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

Letter from Frederick Hall of Wharton, Hall, Stewart & Halpern (Somerville, New Jersey, workers' compensation counsel to J-M), dated 8/5/52, concerning a claim from Herbert Miller. Hall reports: "In accordance with our general understanding with Messrs. Parsonnet, Weitzman & Oransky that all alleged asbestosis cases would be discussed with us before any petitions are filed, Mr. Mungle has written us in connection with the above entitled matter . . ." Mungle wrote that Miller was suffering from asbestosis but that "in accordance with our understanding, I will withhold the filing of a formal petition pending a reply from you advising me what Johns-Manville's opinion is in this matter." Hall sought a confirmation of diagnosis based on J-M's medical records as well as a date of last exposure. "In other words, we would like to able to advise Mr. Mungle as to whether this is a case in which there is something to his client's claim warranting further discussion, or as to whether additional investigation is required on our part. If there is nothing in our point of view substantiating such a claim, we would like to be in a position to tell Mr. Mungle to go ahead and file his petition."

Needless to say, this practice would have resulted in only entirely invalid asbestosis claims being filed. Thus, both in terms of absolute numbers of claims filed, and in terms of the apparent validity of such claims, this practice would have led to an under-appreciation of the magnitude of the asbestos health risk.