You don't need the product names or old records. No fee unless we recover compensation for your family.
An eight-page memo of April 19, 1979, marked attorney's work product, from Dennis H. Markusson, Johns-Manville's associate general counsel, to R. B. Von Wald, copied to G. Earl Parker, on the Waukegan plant's failure to record occupational disease cases on OSHA logs since July 1972, "a total of 23 cases." Markusson found "certainly a prima facie indication that we have failed to comply with recording and reporting regulations with respect to occupational illness." He recommended amending the logs back to 1972 by addenda, with workers who did not want the union told entered as "John Doe 1, John Doe 2, etc."
- Author
- Dennis H. Markusson
- Sent to
- R. B. Von Wald
- Published by
- Johns-Manville
- Date
- April 19, 1979
- Number
- Bates 000119
- Library no.
- ACL Doc 11213 · asbestosclaims.law/library/11213
- Rights
- Republished under fair use for research and historical study.
Read or download
Read online Download the PDF Memo, April 19, 1979 · 8 pages · 298 KB
What it shows
Markusson's sixth recommendation was "That OSHA not be specifically advised of our amendment to OSHA records as outlined above," and the amended annual summaries were not to be reposted for inspection. Disclosure, he reasoned, would not establish good faith, was not legally required, and "would carry with it the strong likelihood of an immediate citation." He judged that the criminal provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act did not apply, since the omission was a failure to keep records rather than a false statement, and put possible civil penalties at more than $50,000. The memo answered Szcygielski's report and took a different course from Dr. Kotin's memo, which had urged reporting the cases to OSHA at once.
In Johns-Manville's chronology
Johns-Manville's own chronology of what the company knew describes this document as follows:
Memorandum to R.B. Von Wald from D.H. Markusson, 4/19/79 regarding OSHA Reporting System - Occupational Disease - Waukegan. The memorandum concerns the information received from the Waukegan facility that Waukegan has not logged 23 individuals identified as having pneumoconiosis since the effect date of OSHA in 1972. On page 2, Markusson recommends that "6. OSHA not be specifically advised of (Manville's) amendment to OSHA records as outlined above." On page 3, Markusson states that there is certainly a prima facie indication that Manville has failed to comply with recording and reporting regulations with respect to occupational illness.
On page 4, Markusson states that Manville should treat the 23 cases identified by Waukegan as information requiring the amendment of OSHA logs of occupational injuries and illnesses. Further on page 4, Markusson states that there has been concern expressed that due primarily to the length of time during which pneumoconiosis cases have not been entered on the OSHA log and the particularly extensive nature of asbestos related disease that Manville might be subject to the criminal penalty sections of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Based upon the analysis, Markusson does not feel the criminal sanctions section of the Occupational Safety and Health Act are applicable to the Waukegan situation, and at the very least Manville has a strong defense to any attempt to proceed against the company for criminal sanctions.
On page 6, Markusson states an item of serious concern at Waukegan and the subject of NLRB litigation is the disclosure to the union of the identity of individuals with occupationally related illnesses. On page 7, Markusson suggests that Waukegan amend Manville's logs entering those employees who request that his identity not be made known to the union as John Doe 1, John Doe 2, etc. Continuing on page 7, Markusson suggests that at the present time OSHA not be advised as to the amendment of Manville's logs and OSHA records. The reasoning in arriving at this recommendation is that nothing will be gained by making such a disclosure to OSHA at the present time. Legally, Manville will not establish good faith by making such a disclosure, and secondly, there is no legal obligation to make such a disclosure. In the author's judgment, such a disclosure to OSHA would carry with it the strong likelihood of an immediate citation.
Related documents
Cited on this site
Cite this document
“Dennis H. Markusson to R. B. Von Wald on Amending Waukegan's OSHA Logs.” April 19, 1979. Bates 000119. Johns-Manville. AsbestosClaims.Law Library, ACL Doc 11213. https://asbestosclaims.law/library/11213.
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.