Unsigned J-M Memorandum on Settling Illinois Industrial Commission Claims (1936)

An unsigned six-page memorandum of October 21, 1936, on thirteen claims pending against Johns-Manville Products Corporation before the Illinois Industrial Commission for occupational disease contracted before the state's new Occupational Diseases Act took effect on October 1, 1936. The claims could succeed only if the dust were held to be "poisonous" under Section 2 of the old act. After talking with two Chicago advisers, Mr. Heth and Mr. Clarke, the writer recommends settling all thirteen, which Heth thought could be done for no more than $4,000, less than one test case would cost. "By settling the cases we reduce the possibility of a holding that asbestos dust is a poison," the memo says.

What it shows

The memo explains that the forty-odd former employees who had already sued J-M in the courts were now barred by time limits from bringing claims before the Commission. Clarke thought "paltry settlements" would dispel any belief among employees, encouraged by what the memo calls the "silicosis ring," that large sums could be won from the company. The writer adds that even a ruling that asbestos was a "poison" would have "no serious aspects" for J-M, because the Health and Safety Act left the precautions to the Industrial Commission. The memo was written the same day as Vandiver Brown's two memoranda on the new act, and it follows his July 1936 advice on the Illinois law.

In Johns-Manville's chronology

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

Memorandum of 10/21/36 regarding claims pending before Illinois Industrial Commission which were filed prior to 10/1/36. The unknown author suggests settling the cases to "reduce the possibility of a holding that asbestos dust is a poison". Since the current Health and Safety act did not require precautions be taken for poisons, the author recommends regarding asbestos as a poison, as the industry will maintain control over the precautions needed.

Editor's note: J-M's description says the writer recommended treating asbestos as a poison so that the industry would keep control of the precautions. The memo makes no such recommendation; it says that even if asbestos dust were held a poison, the result would have "no serious aspects," because the Industrial Commission would distinguish such dusts from ordinary poisons.

Related documents

• Vandiver Brown to S. A. Williams on the New Illinois Dust Disease Law (1936)