Thomas R. Thibodeau to Helen Marsh and Lively Wilson on Halverson v. Johns-Manville and Judge Miles Lord (1982)

A three-page letter of May 6, 1982, from Thomas R. Thibodeau, J-M's defense attorney in Duluth, Minnesota, to Helen Marsh of Johns-Manville's legal department and Lively Wilson of the Louisville firm Stites, McElwain & Fowler, reporting on Wallace Halverson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, a plumber's asbestosis suit. The court had dismissed J-M's third-party claims against other manufacturers. Thibodeau writes that J-M had "originally commenced those third party actions mainly to have Judge Miles Lord removed from the case" because Lord's son-in-law worked for the firm representing GAF, and that with the case now before Judge Robert Renner, "our purpose was accomplished."

What it shows

The rest of the letter lays out the defense. Thibodeau planned an employment evaluation to argue that Halverson, who left plumbing at 57, could still earn a living, and to raise whether he "lacks motivation to return to work" because of workers' compensation. The plaintiff's own doctor, Dr. Terry Clark of the Duluth Clinic, had diagnosed asbestosis but agreed that before Dr. Selikoff's work the accepted standard was that dust below 5 million particles per cubic foot was probably not hazardous; Thibodeau meant to use that for J-M's "state of the art argument" and to help defuse punitive damages. A defense doctor, Dr. Fee, had concluded Halverson did not have asbestosis and blamed other causes, including smoking.

In Johns-Manville's chronology

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

In a letter to Helen Marsh and Lively Wilson from Thomas R. Thibodeau of Johnson, Fredin, Killen, Thibodeau & Seiler, 5/6/82, re Halverson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, Thibodeau states that Manville originally commenced third-party actions mainly to have Judge Miles Lord removed from the case because of his son-in-law's employment with the law firm that represents GAF. He further states that since the case has been assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Robert Renner, Manville's purpose was accomplished and there is no longer any need to retain the third-party defendants.