In IL 2" roan (0.. IAVONNL NJ. 07003 THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ST. CLAIR COUNTY, ILLINOIS FRANCES E. man, ET AL., Plaintiffs, NO. 80-L-970 vs. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defundants. REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS JULY 9: 1985 Before HONORABLE RICHARD P. GOLDENHERSH, Circuit Judge APPEARANCES: HR. REX CARR and HR. JEROME SEIGPREID, Attorneys at Law, on Behalf of tho Plaintiffs; and MR. KENNETH HEINEMAN and MR. JOSEPH NASSIF on Behalf of the Defendant, Monsanto Company. (TH II. 248 NJ. 0?00! Puma co.. amountINDEX OF3WITNESSES Called on behalf of the DR. GEORGE RDUSH Cross Examination (By Mr. Carr). laintiffs: INDEX OF EXHIBITS 2x. 110 .mn FOR - Ipau7171c1110n 1456 3 1457 41 1453 49 1459 so 1470 so 1471 55 14714 as 1472 73 1473 103 1474 112 14734 4 115 1473c 3117 1474A IRTO 27192333 3 42 52 52 52 39 II. 345 BAYONNE. NJ. 0,001 REMEMBERED AND CERTIFIED, that heretofore, on to-wit: July 9, 1985, the matter as hereinbefore set forth came on for hearing before the Honorable Richard P. Goldenhersh, Circuit Judge in and for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, and the following was had of record, to?wit: (The cross examination under section 2-1102 of Dr. George Roush by Mr. Carr continued as follows:) (At this time Plaintiff's exhibit 1467 was marked for identification by the court reporter.) (By Hr. Carr) Doctor, I'll hand you now what's been marked Plaintiff's exhibit 1467, ask you to look at that, if you would. Do you recognize that as a news release issued by Mbnsanto relating to the study that we've looked at yesterday? A Yes, sir. How, Doctor, the purpose of news_re1eases is to let the public be informed as to things and events that Mbnsanto considers important, and of course, for the benefit of the public relations aspect of the Monsanto operation; would that be correct, sir? A Yes, sir. FORM IL 07008 PINGID MR. CARR: I'd like to offer 1467 into evidence at this time. THE COURT: Any objections? MR. HEINEMAN: Your Honor, I think the last number we had was 1465. MR. CARR: We'll make this 1466 then. THE COURT: Okay. MR. CARR: We'll just mark it--just put a 6 over the 7. (At this point previously marked Plaintiff's exhibit 1467 was correctly marked to Plaintiff's exhibit 1466 for purposes of identification.) MR. CARR: Now, I offer 1466, your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Any objections? MR. HEINEMAN: No objections. your Honor. THE COURT: It?s admitted without objection. (By Mr. Carr) Dr. Roush--I'11 withdrew the question for a moment. Dr. Roush, to put this Press Release in per? spective, at the time it was released in 1980. ansento was a defendant in the Sturgeon spill case. of course this one, the Nitro, West Virginia case being sued by its workers, by the Viet Nam Veterans in the "Agent Orange" case, and in Last? PENGAD 60,. 03'001 I'O?number of other cases related to dioxin and dioxin exposures: isn't that correct, sir? A Yes. And the study, as a matter of fact, it uses the-wordw? words "Agent Orange" at the heading of it rather than dioxin, doesn't it, sir, because it is that--dioxin is that part of "Agent Orange? that has created the problem; isn't that correct, air? A What problem? I i The problem associated with dioxin exposure, air. A Yes. And the study itself, if it were true, as stated by Miss Zack--Mrs. Zack, as we have established yesterday, would go a long ways towards negating those people that claim that dioxin either ptomotes or initiates cancer in hnnan beings; would it not. air? A Yes. But, if the figures that we've established yester- day that were in fact the cancer deaths from those people exposed to TCDD at the plant, it would have the contrarf I effect, wouldn't it, air, that is, it would show a strong relationship between exposure to TODD and death from caJcer, would it not, sir? I A If you can add those two together. 243 co.. snows, rm.- one20* Yes, indeed. If these figures that we put in exhibit 1464 end are indeed correct from the medical records that we have here, this shows a very strong relation? ship between TCDD exposure and death by cancer, doesn'tiit, sir? I I . If you can add these. Yes. Isn't that horrect,=sir? b- ?3 D- 'tht? Is what correct? If these are edde? together.snd if these figures are true, it shows strong relationship between TCDD es- posure and death by cancer. A If you can add those two. 1 . Is the answer to my question yes, if these are added? A They can't be added together. Dr. Roush, that is a point of contention. If these exhibits,sccurste1y reflect the facts, and assume they do, if you would, sir-- Yesprsir. i --if they eccersdely reflect the facts, they show a strong relationship between TCDD exposure and death by . ??i4 . I - a .Uffn- . LA 7-31 they, sit? PENGID C0.. BIYOHNE. NJ. 0,002 these figures had been exhibited, had been made public in 1980, they could have been used against . I in the Veterans csse against could they not, sir, to show the risk that the Viet Nam veterans hsve been exposed to by reason of their exposure to "Agent Orange", that is dioxin. . MR. HEINRMAN: rob: Honor, I'm going to object to that. It?s calling for sheer speculation on the part of this witness. Of course, it doesn't take into consideration the enormous difference in levels of exposure between those people involved in that litigation. and those people involved in the Nitro study. . MR. CARR: Your Honor, I'll accept those. (By Mr. Carr) The difference in exposure, not only the exposure of the Sturgeon people, but the exposure of the Viet Nam Veterans, and the exposure to the-~of the in- dustrial workers to TODD hes to be taken into consideration, mustnt it, sir? A Yes. Yes., But this study, if the figures that we have shown from these records are indeed the fact, it could be . used in-eny'court, sofnras?you know, to support the positionl that may be taken by those persons claiming injury from dioxin to show that the risk of cancer is great or greater . --.., IL "1&le C0. IAvonuL NJ. 0100than it should he; isn't that correct, sir? MR. HEINEMAN: Let me object--may I renew my objection your Honor, on the bounds it calls for speculation, conclu- sion on the part of this witness. THE COURT: Excuse me. Overruled. Proper question. THE WITNESS: If we say that the cancer was forty- three percent higher than expected?- (By Mr. Carr) Yes. A --that doesn't mean that it's statistically signifi- cant and has no meaning if it's not statistically significant. We can test that. Excuse me, Doctor, could you answer the question that I posed to you. A I'm not sure. Let me put it a different way. You issued this Pass Release, and you headlined it "Study Fails To Link "Agent Orangd'To Deaths 0f Industrial Workers," did you not, air? A Yes, sir. And the study that you submitted, in fact, left out half of the cancer deaths, did it not, sir, according to exhibit 1464 and A Yes. Yes. Now, Doctor, the study here, if you'll just I?O?ll II. 2" NC. NJ. 01001 FINGID (0.. BIVON look at the very first paragraph, it indeed describes it as a study to show whether or not a relationship exists between TCDD, that is the dioxin, and the cause of death. A Yes, sir. Doesn't it, sir? A Yes, sir. And it's really not concerned about whether or not it's it's concerned about the relationship between TCDD and the cause of death; isn't it, air? A Yes. And, Doctor, there is another, at least, change in this Press Release. It describes this study as being co? authored by Judith Zack and Dr. Suskind, doesn't it, air? A Yes. In fact, Dr. Suskind refused to be listed as a co- author of this study, did he not, air? A I don't know. It ultimately came out, did it not, called the Zack? Geffey Report? A Yes, sir. And Geffey had nothing to do with it, did he, sir? A Oh, yes. Whll, why did Dr. Suskind--why did you issue this Press Release describing Dr. Sucking as a co-euthor when in amour. one: roan IIfact he was not a co-authon, and when in fact he never allow- ed his name to be attached to this study? i A I don't know. MR4 HEINEMAN: Let me object to the question fiFst, Doctor. please. Let me object to the question as callinh for speculation on the part offthis witness, unless you establish that he had anything at al? to do with the drafting-of the Press Release. THE COURT: Objection is overruled. i (By Mr. Carr) well, D. R. Bishop is the person in charge of press relations, is he not, or was at that time? He was for this area. And he prepared this Press Release, did he not, sir? A Yes, sir. And you, of course, were familiar with and are aware of the fact that these Press Releases were coming out, weren't you, sir? And you, of course, were vitally concerned about this A I usually am. study, weren't you, air? A Yes. An important work? A Yes. And-you, of course, read this Press Release, did you co.. NJ. moo: roan not, sir? A I'm sure I did. Yes. . A But I can't be positive. And, Doctor, do you know any of the circumstances under which Dr. Suskind failed or refused or was not listed in the ultimate study as finally published as a co-author' of this studybe, Doctor, or do you know whether or not the fact that these nine deaths were omitted-~how, of these nine deaths, Dr. Suskind had to be aware of eight of them because they were in the report that he did co-author-- A Yes. --while in a minor way-- A Yes. -?he was fully aware of the fact that these four deaths, Farley. wesley and Ortho, were, in fact, deaths in persons exposed to even thOugh the study showed them as being unexposed to: TODD. Now,_he had to be aware of those facts, mustn't he, sir, just as_?rs. Zack was-aware of those facts? MR. HEINEMAN: Let me object to the form of the I question. as calling for speculation and conclusion on the IL Ill CO DIVONHI. PI.) 0700part of this witness as to what Dr. Suskind knew about the Zack-Gaffey study. THE COURT: Objection is overruled. It's a proper question. THE WITNESS: I don't think that he knew that those four people were included in that one-~in the non-exposed. (By Mr. Carr) Well, Doctor, he knew that these four people were, in feet, exposed, didn't he, sir? A Yes. Because he listed them in the Zack-Suskind study-- A Yes. --ss exposed, didn't he, sir? A Yes, sir. Now, when this 1980 study by Zack was submitted to him, and it had these same people listed as being unexposed, he could, if he read the document, as presumably he must have read it if it was submitted to himthe co-suthors, it must have been submitted to him-- A Yes, sir. ?-wssn?t it, sir? A I'm sure it was. He could have read, like we read it, he could have compared it like we compared it, and found that these four people were, in fact, listed in the unexposed table, when, 11 PENGID (20.. 07002 IIfact, he knew that they were exposed. He could have deduced that, a competent scientist could have deduced that, couldn't he, sir? A But he wouldn't have read it to that detail. Did you read it to that detail? A No, sir. Dr. Roush, when was it that you first learned that these four people that were exposed to TCDD were includsh in Table 11? A As we were getting ready for the Nitro lawsuit: Didn't you learn it. in fact, after--after this case was in trial? A This one? And after we put it in evidence in April or May of this past year? A. No, sir. It was +hon that Nitro lawsuit where this was involved. Dr. Roush, you don?t hnow that--that we had it testified to here in the spring of 1984? Your attorneys didn't advise you that we showed this to the jury in the ?spring of 1284? A No. No, sir. And you learned of this-~the fact that those four cancer deaths were put in an unexposed group by Mrs. Zack I L2 i 1. 4 ?mean .20.. BAYONNE. NJ. moo: FORM the Nitro case? A Yes. Did you learn it yourself, or was it pointed out A It was pointed out to me. In the Nitro case? A Yes, sir. And was it brought out by the plaintiffs in that case, or was it brought out by the defendants in that case? A I don't know. i You don't know whether you voluntarily admitted that-? A I don?t know how-~why they went back and reviewed it. i Well, in any event, if you discovered it and if we discovered it, Dr. Suskind,surely could have discovered it? A If he had had the names to associate with that, he could have. well, he had the names. He had the report. He co-authored the study. And you don't even need the names. You can do it by looking at the year of birth. the year:of hire, the year of termination. because these are the reasons we discovered it. we didn't have the names. All we had nae these tables. NJ. 03002 IORH Right. WE compared thasc tables, and ws saw that we had axactly tha same dates of avarything,.cxactly the same cause of daath, everything. That's the way it was discovered by us. Wt didn't have these reports at that time, Dr. Roush. A Yes, sir, I understand. They weren't proddcad to us. MR. HEINEMAN: Latima object to that as a speech by Counsel, no question involvad. I ask that it be strikan, ask the jury to be instructed to disregard it. THE cobam: Objection is ovarrulad. (By Mr. Carr) Now, he could have done the same thing that we did, couldn't he, air? A Yes. IQ Ha could have compared the deaths in Table 2 that was in his report, the ZacA-Suskind Report, and scan that they had exactly the same Jsars and days and causes of death, these four people, couldn't ha, air? A Yes. Now, maybe it's uafair to ask you, but did you or have you discussed the fact that these four deaths that were in tho Zack-Suskind Report. cancer deaths, have you that with Dr. Suskind? A No, sir. 14 FORM IL 2? 8 PENGJID BIYONNE. NJ. 03001 you actually then, as you sit here now, you actually don't know the extent of his knowledge, you don't know whether he even knows today that these deaths were included in the unexposed group, do you, air? A No. Well, didn't you--haven?t you had--didn't it con- cern you, Dr. Roush, that Mrs. Zack did this? A No, sir. Oh, it was done with your approval? A This study is done and followed just the way it's described. Then you intended, you at Monsanto, intended that this be done; is that correct, sir? It was not an accident, or it was not just on the part of Mrs. Zack, her own massag- ing of the figures? This was a policy that Monsanto made and approved and wanted to happen; is that correct, Dr. Roush? i MR. HEINEMAN: I object, your Honor, to the use of the term"massaging of the Eigures.? If he'd just let the witness explain how the two epidemioIOgical studies arise, we could certainly get an explanation of this. But he doesn't want the jury to hear that. I object to the use of theiterm. THE COURT: Objection is overruled. Your objection is improper. Go ahead, Mr. Carr. 15' IL 248 PENGID 60.. NJ. 07003 don't know_what you mean by policy. (By Mr. Carr) Dr. Rouah, did you at Honsanto,jea> part of the policy making group dealing with these studJes and what's to be revealed to the public, and tho studies to be performed, the mortality studies to be perform- ed. did you know of and did you approve of the putting of the four exposed deaths, those four people who were exposediin the TCP accident in 1949? Did you approve of putting those four people in the unexposed Table'll in the Zack-Gaffe? I Report of 1980? MR. HEINEMAN: Let no object, your Honor. I believe "the witness--I believe that's been asked and answered. The witness testified he didn't even know about it until the Nitro study, the Nitro lawsuit. .Am I incorrect? MR. CARR: The witness is now saying that it was done, and they approved of it. at least the inference is that they knew of it. and that it's proper, and that what was done Was appropriate. THE WITNESS: no, air. (By Mr. Carr) No, sir. what, sir? A I did not?- THE COURT: 'Wait a second. Before it's answered, I will overrule the objection. You may answer now, Dr. -Roush. FORM IL 2? PENGID BAYONNE. NJ. 0,003 THE WITNESS: I didn't know that those four were not?-were in that study there. . (By Mr. Carr) You did not know it? A Right. And since you did not know it, you obviously did not approve it, not knowing it; is that correct, air? A Approve what? What we're talking about, Dr. Roush. A I don't know-- These four cancer who were exposed to TODD, being put in Table 11. A It was a part of the design of that study. Excuse me. Is it, therefore--are you saying that you approve of it and it's preper? A Yes . All right. And you're speaking for MOnsanto, you approve of what was done, and in your judgment it's proper? A In that study it ?es proper. Yes. All right. That's what I want to establish. Then you'd have no reason to talk to Dr. Suskind about it because in your--in HOnsanto's Judgment it's proper to tell the world at large that these four people who died of cancer had no exposure to A The report States-- ll. FENGID BIVONNE. NJ. 03002 Could you qucstion please. sir? i A would you rapsct that quostion for me. I'm sorry. I (The previous question was read back by the court reporter.) THE WITNESS: The to that is no. (By Mr. Carr) Then it's not proper to tell the world at large; is that right, sir? A no: to tell than that wasn't exposure. that's right. And in fact, what you did tell them, however. in this study is that w: wars not expossd to TODD. did you. sir? I A Yes. i Thou, Doctor. how can you say it's proper to tall I them that they're not exposed to TCDD. and yet say it?s improper to'includs than in a table indicating that they wars not exposed, or vies verso? A Because a part of that study design.? Doctor, so yesterday the purpose of that study was to determino concur deaths caused by TCDD. A Yes, sir. I .: Yes. And thsy Wars put in a group of psoplo who presumably bad uo exposure to isn't that correct, sir? 3? .4 II. 245 PENGID BAYONNE. NJ. 07002 job assignment. Yes. And, Doctor, in fact, they had exposure to TCDD, though, didn't they, air? A. Yes. And, therefore, the person that reads that is going to believe that they were not exposed to TODD, but I yet that they died of cancer when, in fact, you knew absolutely that they were Exposed to Don't you see something rotten there, Roush? A No, sir. That is proper in your judgment? A The report states that that unexposed group could inciude some workers who had exposure that we couldn't determine. Where does it state that, Doctor? A It's in the text of that paper. It states what you couldn't detereine? A we couldn't-- But, Doctor, you could determine it. You did determine it. You knew that they were exposed to it because they were so listed in 1979 by Zack-Suskind. So that was I a lie. wasn't it, air? A No, sir. I . It wasn't a lie? 19: 1 FORM IL 14 PENGAD BAYONNE. NJ. OTOOI No, sir. You knew they were exposed, didn't you, sir? 5' ?3 3? Yes. And yet you said you couldn?t determine whether or not they're exposed, didn't you, sir? Didn't you just get through saying that, sir? A Yes. So that's a lie, isn't it, sir? You knew that they were exposed, but yet you said you couldn't determine whether or not they were exposed. That's a lie, Dr. Roush, any way you look at it it's a lie. A No, it isn't. It isn't? A No, sir. Is it the truth to say that you couldn't determine whether or not these people were exposed to Is that the truth, sir? I A Yes. When you knew they were exposed to TCDD because they were in that accident? A Yes. That is the truth, sir? A It's the truth that we knew that they were exposed to dioxin. I?Oll IL )4 I BAYONNE, NJ. 07001 Then if you knew they were exposed to dioxin, it's not the truth to say that you could not determine that; isn't that correct, sir? A On those four, that's correctthose four, isn't it, Doctor? A It's incorrect. If you know something is the truth, sir, if you know something is a fact, that is a lie any way you look at it, isn't it, Dr. Roush? A It's incorrect. would you answer my question, Dr. Roueh. No, it's not a lie. It's not a lie? >050 No, sir. Is it a lie when I know that I have four pieces of paper in my hand, Dr. Roush, if I tell you that I have three pieces of paper in my hand, knowing that I have four? Am I telling you lie or am I telling you the truth, or an I simply being incorrect? I know I have four. It is in my mind that I have four. I tell you I have three. Am I tell- ing you a lie, or am I telling you the truth? A If you knowingly, that's a lie. All right. And you indeed knew that these four were exposed to TCDD, did you not, sir? 21 PENGID CO.- BIYONNE. NJ. 01001 she had gone--if she had looked at it and tried to compare them. she would have seen them. She had to go and pick them out. She had to know that they were in the original hundred and twenty-two, didn't she, sir? A Yes. And she had to know the dates of their births, she had to look at those records to pull that out, didn't she, air? A Yes. sir. But I'n not sure she compared them. 'Well, have you discussed it with her? Have you ever asked her how she happened to tell something that was I . I untrue? A She didn't tell something was untrue. Dr. Roush, didn't we just get through establishing that these people were exposed to A Yes, sir. And they're listed in a table as not being exposed. aren't they, sir? A Yes. And that's not the truth then, is it, sir? That's right. A . 'Now, did you everidiscuss that with Mrs. Zack? A No, sir. I didn't know it. well, you knew it as far back as the spring of 1984. 23 . .ghr QAYONNE. N..I. OTOOI llYbu learned it than. A But Judy Zack wasn't working with us. But she coma in for a deposition taken by the peopla at Nitro. . A I didn't know that. You didn't know that? A No, air. Did you bothar to inquire, Dr. Rough? A No, air. Dr. Rouah, this report, now you knOW?th?t the Viet Nam case has been sattlod. You know it was disposed of. and you know what occurred tharo. MR. HEIREMAN: Yohr Honor, 1 object to this as boing irrelouant, and an attempt to influence the jury, and I object to it. THE COURT: Objection is ovnrruled. You may pro- ceed, Mr. Carr. i (By Hr. Carr) Dr: Rouah, doesn't it concern you that you at Monsanto have put out a document that ia--thia Press Release and tho docunent that was published, put out i a document that is based unon untruth? i A Yes. How, Dr. Roush, what have you done about that concern? 24 BIYONNE. NJ. 0,002 Nothing. Dr. Roush, don't you believe that it is Mbnsanto's duty to right this wrong, to let the people know that this is an untruth, to let the scientific community know that this is an untruth? A. on the report. I'd have to look at it to see what effect it has Doctor, you known if you take these four deaths, which were taken and put in the exposed group, it makes it thirteen deaths in the exposed group in that table itself. not just nine, but thirteen. and it reduces this group by four. A But you can't put that in the other group. Doctor, you can, Pecause they'wers-exposcd. But Just reducing that group by four, sir, would be important to the scientific community. now, if it's of concern to you. Dr. Roush. and you've known it since 1984. since the spring of 1984, .A A. why haven't you done something about it? I just haven't gotten around to it. One of these days you'll get around to it, Dr.ERoush? Yes. sir. Dr. Roush, if turn to the second page of this document. you've announced in that second paragraph in the middle of?the page there that this study found no 2'4 PENGAD C0.. EIYONNE. NJ. 0?00statistically significant eacess in total deaths or deaths due to cancer or disease of the nervous system, circulatory system, respiratory system or digestive system. Do you see that, sirt A Yes, sir. Now, have you determined whether or not adding these eighteen deaths, these additional nine deaths to the cancer group would make a difference statistically, sir? Have you made the determination? A I did last night._ Oh, you did make a determination? A I went to see what it would do if we put them to- gether. I don't think you can. You can't put those to- gether. Doctor, they are together here. A Yes, sir. They are deaths from cancer. They were deaths from cancer to people who were exposed to TODD, are they not? A Yes, sir. There were eighteen deaths of your workers, people that have worked for you, iaithfully, loyally for yearsfand' years, eighteen people that died of cancer from being ash posed to TODD. i No. Associated 1; that group. That doesn't mean that they died from exposure to TODD. 25 EATONNE. NJ. 0,003 Doctor, they were exposed to TODD. were they not? A That doesn?t mean--the question is every popula? tion is going to have-- . Doctor, were they exposed to A Yes, sir. Did they die of cancer? A Yes. And was this study an effort to associate or find out whether or not there ens a relationship to exposurezto TODD and deaths by cancer and death by other causes? A It doesn't show an association. Excuse me. was the purpose of the study to deter? mine whether or not there was an association or a relation- ship between exposure to and death by cancer? A It doesn't mean there's an association-- Excuse me. was ?hst the purpose of the study, Doctor? No, sir. Sir? A No, sir. It wasn't? A No, sir. Didn't we just get through establishing that. air, in the -?where is that group of exhibits--in the statement 1 I 26 Ptnoan co.. snouut; NJ. one: Forthat she said, air, in several different places where it says the study presented here examines the mortality of Nitro plant workers who were ass! production with potential for exposure to Isn't that exactly what it says? A Yes, sir. Yes, sir. And isn't that purpose of this study, air? A If there's an excess of deaths in that population. Lgned to an area of TCP or There is--the purpose of the study is to see whether mean there's an association if yen find it. That doesn't And doesn't she go on to say, "as a result, the only specific hypothesis that can be tested is whether a relation- ship exists between potential TCDD exposure and proportional mortality, especially for malignant neoplasms?" A. A there. .A Yea. Doesn?t she say that, air? Where did you read that? We read it yesterday several times, Doctor. All right. Do you see it, Doctor? Yes, sir. Right i Doctor, the purpose of the study was to see whether or not there's a relationship between exposure to TODD and I i 27 :1wa PENGID EIYONNE. NJ. 01003 FORM death by cancer? Possible relationship. To see if there's a possible relationship-- Yes. --between exposure to TODD and death by cancer? . an n- A: a- Yes. And these are eighteen deaths of people that nere exposed to A IYes, sir. And doesn't that?hape just a bearing on whether or not there is a causal relationship. Doctor? A It can have. That's the purpose of the whole study, isn't it. A .That's right. And she eliminated fifty percent, didn't she. air, by eliminating these nine? Didn't she. air? A Yes. Doctor, on the next page, she states, or the Press Release states to the would at large this was done--this is in the second paragraph in the middle of the page, talking about comparing the work history of the hundred and sinty- three decedents. She took all at the people that died? fifty? eight had been exposed to and a hundred and four 28 loll IL 01003 PINGID CO. OIVONNEwere considered non-exposed. So presumably, Doctor, these nine deaths here are all in the non-exposed, aren't they, sir? A Yes. They're not in the fifty-eight, are they, sir? A NO. So she?s telling the world, Monsanto is telling the world that these nine deaths came from people who were not exposed to TCDD, doesn't she, sir? A By virtue of job assignment. And it goes on to say this was done to test whether any relationship existed between potential TCDD exposure and proportional mortality, doesn't it say that, sir? A Yes. When, in fact, these folks were exposed to TCDD and put in the non-exposed group, isn't it, sir? A Yes, sir. 0n purpose. By purpose? A Because-- Exactly right, sir. A That's because of the design of that study said they couldn't be included. Then this statement, Doctor, this was done to test. how on earth, if you know that a hundred people have been 29 PENGID 60.. BAYONNEexposed to TODD by having been in an accident and having worked up and cleaned up that accident, but simply because they are not at the time of the study assigned to a place where they're producing the TODD, how on earth can you compare those hundred people who were exposed in the acci- dent and say they are not exposed to How can you I say that, Doctor, with a ?traight face? A By virtue of?thegr job assignment. They never had.worked in or None of those. . But they were all exposed to TCDD, weren?t they, sir? A Yes, sir. And they were all--these four all had cbloracne, didn't they, sir? I A hallmark of TCDD exposure? A Yes, sir. I You knew--you knew, you were absolutely certain because these four having chloraene, you knew for absolute certainty that they were exposed to TCDD, without a question of a doubt. A Yes, sir. And they had filed workmen's compensation claims for it. Yet, you put these peeple in a group that you told 30 DIIONNE. NJ. 07002 FORM IIthe world at large, one hundred and four were considered non?exPOsed. A By virtue of job assignment. You don't say by virtue of job assignment. Yen don't tell them that they were-in fact exposed in this accident, that they develoPed ohloracne. You don?t tell the world that, do you, air? A we tell them in the report. You don?t tell them that in the report, sir, because in the report you say TCP production as well. And these peoPIe were in the TOP production. . 3 A No, they were not. 0h, Doctor, where do you get the information that they were not? A Because they had never-- Where do you get the information they were not? A From their work rLcord. Where's the work Lecords that says that, sir? A The plant worh records. Do you have--heve you ever seen that work record, sir? A No. 1 How do you sit there under oath and say they were not producing 31. .II. 213 ?new enormt. NJ. oral): Foam Because that's what Zack was to do. .That's what Zack was to do. Zack tells you that they were not exposed, that they were not in the work pro- duction area. A That's right . And you believed what Zack tells you? A Yes, sir. You believe what Zack tells you when she says that these people-were not exposed to I A By virtue of job assignment. They talk about potentially exposed to TCDD. This is a study of people who were exposed to TODD as we estab- lished yesterday, did we not, sir? A 'No, not what that was to do. Excuse me. Didnht we establish that yesterday, sir? i A Ask the question Do we need to establish it again, Dr. Roush, that this study was for the purpose of determining whether ex- posure to TGDD causes these problems? Do he need to estab- lish that again, Dr. Roush? A No. sir. I . I All right. Now, Doctor, the statement here that this was then to test whether or not any relationship existed 32 PENGIQ BIYONNE. NJ. OTODZ IIpeople were, in fact, exposed to TCDD. Ybu simply can't ?sir. So we don't know how many of that hundred and four. between potential TCDD exposure and preportional mortality, you can't do that, if the people, if that hundred and four do that, can you, sir? It confounds the whole study, doesn't it, air? A What hundred and four? . The hundred and four that were considered non-exposed. according to this Press Release. A I see. Right. If a part of that group was, in fact, exposed to TCDD, you can't tell then whether or not TCDD did or did not cause their problems, can you, sir? A Not for those feur. Not for these nine, sir. All of these nine, air, were in the non-exposed one hundred and four, and there may have been more than that b?cause our studies only went to the cancer group. There may have been deaths from heart attack, or deaths from other reasons in people that were- exposed to TODD. But we felt it sufficient simply to point out that you missed half o? the cancer deaths at this tine, were,in fact, exposed to TODD, and neither do you, do you, Dr. Roush? MR. HEINEMAN: Let me object to the speech of 33 DEMON) 50.. snow?. NJ. 0700: roam Counsel as not being related to the question, ask that it be striken, ask that the jury be instructed to disregard it. THE COURT: Objection is overruled. (By Mr. Carr) Neither do you, do you, Dr. Roush, know how many of these hundred and four had been exposed to A No, sir. And, Doctor, if you don't know how many had been exposed to TCDD, then you cannot test whether or not a relationship exists between TCDD exposure and mortality, can you, sir? A You can do the study we did. Doctor, would you answer the question that I asked you? MR. HEINEMAN: Objection, your Honor. He just did. THE COURT: Overruled. He did not. THE WITNESS: Would you repeat that for me. (At this time the previous question was read back by the court reporter.) THE WITNESS: Yes, you can; by doing the study we did. (By Mr. Carr) Doctor, if you don't know how many 34 IL Ill IENQID ca. NJ. 07003 these hundred and four were exposed to TCDD, how on earth can you determine whether or not a relationship exists between TCDD exposure and their deaths? If you don't know whether they were or were not exposed to dioxin, tell me how you can do that. A That's-? Excuse me. Tell me how you can do that which I'm asking you, sir. A You can't do it well. You can't do it at all. All of those one hundred and four decedents may have been exposed to TCDD. If you don't know whether they were or not, how can you tell whether or not their death had any relationship to TCDD exposure if you don?t know, Dr. Roush? You can't, can you, sir? A Not absolutely. Not in any fashion. If you don't know whether I've been exposed to dioxin, and I died from a sarcoma, you don't know whether that dioxin had anything to do with it if you don't know that I've been exposed, do you, sir? It could have caused it and it could not have caused it. You simply don't know. If you don't know my medical history, my exposure history, isn't that correct, sir? A One measure of exposure history-- 35 rolls IL 24 I PENGAD (0.. IIYORNE. NJ. 0100Excuse me, air. If you don?t know whether or not I have been exposed to dioxin, how can you say whether a relationship exists or does not exist between my cancer and the dioxin? A I can't On you. And you can't on any of these one hundred and four, can you, sir? A I don't know how many-- My question is if you don't know the exposure history of these one hundred and four, if you don't know whether they have or have not been exposed to dioxin you cannot then tell whether or not a relationship exists between their death by cancer and the dioxin, can you, sir? A Not accurately. Well, can you in any fashion, if you don't know, sir? You used the word "accurately." If there's a hundred and four names up there, and you see that they all died from cancer, and there's nothing to tell you whether those hundred and four were or were not exposed to dioxin, can you make any statement, any statement at all, as to whether or not their deaths were related to dioxin? A Most of those-- Can you make any statement at all in the hypotheti- cal that I gave you, Dr. Roush? 36 rausw co.. snows. um. 0106': ran-I rL'all. connection, can you, sir? A Not absolutely. Not in any way. Not absolutely, not in any fashion If you don't have the facts, you can't make the so dent.hamaths facts. Excuse me. If you don't. I'm giving you a hypo- thetical. If you don't havo tho facts, you can't make the connection, can you, sir? A A .You cannot. But you do have the facts as to these nine, sir? Yes, air. And the facts are that these nine were exposed to dioxin, weren't they, sir? A A Yosg'sir; And they died from cancer, didn't they, sir? Yss, air. But they wore not included in the doathslisted by Zack?Gaffey-Suskind, or Zack-Gaffsy as having diad from' exposure to TCDD, wars-tho-, sir? A That's right. Doctor, the statement, in the next paragraph than, sir, "specifically, cancer deaths among workers! (nine observed vorsus 10.9% expected)'wero found to be iowar 1 than in the non-exposed grpup (twenty-five observed versus 37 II. RIB FORM PEHGID BIYONNE. 0,002 20.43 sxpectsd)." Isn't that correct, sir? A Yes, sir. How, Doctor, if you take the nine unexposed.snd subtract than from the twenty-five observed-- A Yes, sir. --you would then get sixteen deaths, wouldn't you, sir? Yes. .A As opposed to twenty expected? A Yes. If you canldo that. well, you know these nine were exposed to dinnin, don't you, sir? A Yes. But that would change?- They're called hora-- HR. HEINEMAN: Objection, your Honor. Let the man finish. Can we let the man finish sn- answer before he's interrupted? THE WITNESS: THE COURT: I think tho qusstion was answered. Whethsr they were exposes was the question. You may con- tinue, Mr. Carr. (By Hr. Carr) And they were put, however, id the non-expossd group, weren't they, sir? A Yes. IL 546 raucno- BAYONNE. who: roan All right. How. Dootor, this Press Release also rafsrs to the fact that thsro is a third study?-on the last page, sir.--that there is a third study taking place under the auspices of Honsanto; isn't that correct, sir? A Yes. I . And that's the so called morbidity study? ,1 A Yes, sir. I I And, Doctor, thatimorbidity study was undertaken by Dr. Suskind. and I think we 'va established prior to Our racass andthe vacation that that was paid for by Mbnsanto; isn' that correct, sir? A NIOSH insists that they paid for it as wall. Yas, I I think watt sons all through that. This was a MbnsantoEfinancsd study, was it not, sir? . No. A Sir? A It was a joint-- wall. joint. It Was paid for, at least Dr. Suskind and all of his expanses, I think wa?vs been all through that, I don't need to report it-srapsat it, was paid for in greater part by Monsanto, wasn't it? A Wt didn't pay for their tims. Sir? .A Wt didn?t pay for'their time. 39 II. 243' PENGAD BIYONNE. NJ. OTODI FORM Doctor, you paid for their examinations, for the use of the laboratory, for the regular fees that they i charged for those kind of examinations? i A Yes, sir. Now, those fees include a component.for doctogs time. don't they, air? A. Part of it. yes.' All right. Now, Doctor, this third study, wefve got two studies thus far that we've discussed, the Zach? Suskind study and the Zack-Gaffey study. A Right. And we've examined in detail some of the discrep- ancies in that study. this last study that just came out, that was published again--not again, but it was publishi ed in the spring of 1984, wasn't it, sir? A Yes, sir. And it again is a study, along.with these other two, that Mbnsanto has used and will.use to suggest to the world at large that dioxin is not bad stuff, that it doesn't cause cancer, it doesn't cause a lot of other problems; isn't that right, sir? HR. HEINEMAN: Let no object to the form of the I question, of the suggestion that dioxin is not "bad stuff." I don't think there's ever been-- 40 rum.? 'Pm'om' co.. amount. woo: roan it. MR. CARR: Lot no reform the question. 3 THE COURT: The objection is sustained. You may (By Hr. Carr) You used that study as you hsvo already used the other two studios to support Monsantors position that dioxin does nothing more than cause chlorsono, which is something like tonnage, adolescent that correct, sir? i A .A Those wore the findings. 31:? i Those wars the findings of Suskind. my question, sir, could you respond to my question first, sir. I A i would you road that for ms. (The previous qusstion.wss road back by tho court reporter.) THE WITNESS: Yea. 1 (By Mr. Carr) Doctor. tho--wou1d you mark ?this exhibit. I (Plaintiff?s exhibit 1457 was marked for identification by the court reporter.) 41 IL 313 PENGID BAYONNE. N.J. 07003 (By Mr. Carr) I'll hand you.what's been marked Plaintiff's exhibit 1467, and ask you if that is not a copy of the Suskind so called health or morbidity study published in 1984 in The Journal of the American Medical Association? A Yes, sir. Now. for background of this study the papulation t?at was studied here was actually three hundred and sixty- seven pe0p1e3'correct, air? A Yes. There were two hundred and four in an exposed group I I i and a hundred and in a not exposed group. i A I don?t have that, but that?s supposed to be right. well, if you loo%--did I offer this exhibit, your Honor? THE COURT: No. you haven't. MR. CARR: I offlr this exhibit into evidence. THE COURT: Any objection? MR. HEINEMAN: One moment, your Honor. THE COURT: Sure. MR. HEINEMAN: we have no objection, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. It's admitted without objection. Thank you. i i (By.Mr. Carr) If you look in the first part of it, _this abstract. it sets out the two coharta, the two hundred 42 QINCAO 60.. BAYONNE. NJ. 07003 and four exposed and the hundred and sixty?three unexposed. A Yes. Actually there were four hundred and thirty-six people that were examined, but for one reason or another the study was ultimately reduced to three hundred and sixty- seven . A Right. 1 now, as further background of this study, the body, the group of workers that were involved included retired workers, as well as currently employed workers who were invited to participate from lists furnished and from data furnished by Honsanto. A Yes, sir; And Mhnsanto has-~has an element of control that it can exercise in any study of this kind, if it wished to do so it could give the examiners and investigators a list of people telling them that these people were unexposed when, in fact,the people could be exposed, could have been exposed. we know that they can do that, can't they, sir? A They could, yes. Yes. And of course, we've seen whet-~now, how'euch did Judith Zack have to do with creating the lists of exposed and unexposed people? I think it was Jan Young who did this. 43 (J 11. 245 PENGAD NJ. 01002 and four exposed and tho and sixty-three unexpodod. A Yes. 1 Actually there wore four hundrod and thirty-31x people that wore examined, but for one roaoon or another the study was ultimately reduced to three hundred and sixty- seven . A Right. Now, as further background of this study, the hody, the group of workcro that were involvod included retired workers, as well as currently employed workers who wore: invited to participate-from listo furnished and from data furnished by Honsaoto. A Yes, sir. And Hbosanto hao--has an element of control that it - can oxercioo in any study of this kind, if it wished to do so it could?givo tho investigators a list of people tolling them that those people worn unexposed when. in fact,tho people could be exposed; could have been exposcd. up know that they can do that, can't they. air? A Thcy could, yon. Yes. And of course, wo'vc occn?what--ncW3 how'ouch did Judith Zack havo to do pith creating the lists of cxposod and unexposed people? i A I think it was JaniYoung who did this. . 1 I 43 PENGID 60.. NJ. 0?00: FORM llquestion is hOW'much did Judith Zack have to do with it. A I don't think anything. 1 1 All right. Jan Young was her replacement? A Not her replacamant. But she took over part of her job. All right. She wrrkad in the sama dapartment and did some of the same functions? A Yes, sir. . And having access to those records, and all of these people were invited to participate, weren't they, sir? A Yes, sir. Having access to medical records, it is1csrtain1y possible that you could not invite people that had serious problems, couldn?t you, sir? A Yes. If knaw--for instance, if I knew that John Jonas had rsported to the company physician that he had a skin cancer and had retired, and had moved to Florida, or sons place like that, with his skin cancer, if I wanted to aifact the outcome of this study, I could fail to tell by accident or by deliberate intent, I. could fail to tell the investiga? tor, I could fail to givn than the mama of John Jones, I couldn't I, sir? 44 PENGAD (0.. BIVONNE. NJ. 0,001 FORM could thereby affect the results of the study, couldn't I, sir? A Yes. And I could do that not just one time, but a dozen times, couldn't I, sir, or a hundred times, couldn't I, sir? A Yes. But Jan Young wouldn?t do that. Excuse me, Dr. Roush. And thereby I could-- MR. HEINEMAN: I beg your pardon. Excuse me. :You don't want to hear the rest of his answer? I I?m. No, I don't. 5 MR. HEINEMAN: I object, your Henor. MR. CARR: No, bessuse he responded to my question. THE coves: Objection is overruled. (By Mr. Carr) And I could thereby influence the outcome of the study, couldn't 1, sir? i Now, and it means, therefore, that the integrity A Yes. or the honesty of the person supplying the raw data, supply- ing the oohart, if you wiJl, supplying the names of the workers who have these various problems, that that beeches an important factor in any study like this, doesn't it? sir? .A I'm.not sure how?mnch it would influence it. 5 Whll. Dr. Roush,:if I knew, if I'm Monsanto, and I 45 II. 246 C0.- NJ. 03001 know that I've got one hundred employees who have got cancer in one form or another, and I'm interested in seeing a fever- able outcome of this investigation, and I just supply them to Dr. Suskind, the names of fifty, I don't supply the James of the hundred. I just supply the names of the fifty. pr. Suskind would never be the wiser, would he. sir? MR. HEINEMAN: Object to the form of the questJon. It's asking a hypothetical based not on any facts in evidence. THE COURT: Objection is overruled. i THE WITNESS: It dould. (By Mr. Carr) Yes. And that could radically influence or affect the results of the investigation, couldn't 'it, air? A If there was a significant number that you took out, yes. well, if I took out-~1f I had a hundred cancers and I took out fifty, that's significant. Just as if I had eighteen cancers and I take out nine, that's significant, isn't it, sir? A I'm not sure thatis significant. You're not sure that half of the cancers are not significant, fifty percent?of the total cancers are noti significant? What becomes significant if fifty percent; 1 isn't significant, Doctor? Seventy-five percent? Ninety 46 PENGAD BIYONNE. NJ. 0,001 percent? What is the cut off figure of significant if half isn?t significant? i A But when you change-- . What becomes significant, Doctor, if half isn't? significant? A It's not half. - i Nine is half of eighteen, isn't it, sir? A Yes . There were eighteeh cancers, weren't there? Cancer deaths, weren?t there, sir? A Out of ninety. There were eighteen deaths, weren't there, sir? A Yes. I And only nine were reported upon, weren't they, sir? A Yes. . Doctor, back to is fifty percent, significant? A Yes. I Yes. time. not to THE COURT: Is this a good point for a short break? MR. Yes, yohr Honor. THE COURT: Okay. We'll take a short break at this Ladies and gentlemen, I would remind you that you.ere discuss this matter among yourselves, with anyone: 47 ll. 24 FENGAD 60.. BAYONNE. NJ. OTOOK outside the jury panel, or as of yet form any opinions or conclusions about the matters on trial. The Court is in recess a (At this time a short recess was taken.) (The following proceedings were held in the presence and hearing of the jury:) THE COURT: Gentlementhe bench for a minute? (A discussion was held at the bench off the record and out of the hearing of the jury:) (The following proceedings were held in the presence and hearing of the jury:) . THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, two things I want to announce before we go back into the testimony. First of all, today we will end at three o'clock instead of four o?clock, and secondly, on July 19 we will not have court. So put that down, if you would, on your records. Okay, Mr. Carr, you may proceed. 48 OTOOI FOIH ll(By Mr. Carr) Dr. Roush, that last report, exhibit 146?, last study, rather, is also important, has been uLed already by Mbneanto to support the position that you have taken relative to the health effects of TCDD on those pLople who had exposure; isn't that correct, sir? A Yes, sir. And, Doctor, the very first table in that report, .Table number 1, deals with, among other things, cancer,lthat is those of the workers who have had a history of cancer, skin cancer and all other types of cancers, isn't that correct, among other things? A Yes. And Dr. Suskind, of course, got that from medical records and from those things that had been reported to he and his investigators by the workers, the names of whom had been given to Dr. Suakind by Mbnsanto; isn't that correct, sir? A Yes, sir. I MR. CARR: Could pou.mark this, the group exhihit, Plaintiff's group exhibit 1468. I (Plaintiff?s group exhibit 1&68'waa marked for i identification by the court reporter.) 49 NJ II il? IllNN(By Mr. Carr) Doctor, I'll hand you what's been marked Plaintiff's group exhibit 1468, which has been presented to us to be the results of the Suskind interviews and laboratory reports on Ehese group of sorkers who hahe cancers. I'd like to establish with you some pertinent data relative to those cancers, and to do that I'd like to further establish some heads for that. MR. CARR: would you mark this exhibit number-- (Plaintiff's exhibits 1469 and 1470 were marked for identification by the court reporter.) (By Mr. Carr) Doctor, I'll now hand you Plaintiff's exhibit 1469, which is a letter to some other of your attorneys to Dr.--from Dr. Suskind, and 1470 which is one of the attachments to that IJtter which we'll use to further identify these people. MR. CARR: I offer these exhibits at this time, your Honor. 2 THE COURT: All three? MR. CARR: Yes, your Honor. MR. HEINEMAN: Could I have an explanation again of what 1468 purports to be? . MR. CARR: 1468 are the Suskind records dealing 50 PENGLD BAYONNE. NJ. 0,001 FORM with those people who reported to have cancer. THE COURT: Do you have any objections to anyiof the three? HR. HEINEMAN: Your Honor, for the record, we?d like to object to these e?hibits on the basis of hearsay, on the basis of lack of foundation, and we obviously have no idea--I certainly as I'm.sitting here have no idea who says these are the people that reported cancer. Obviously that is something that Mr. Carr has made a determination of. That's not a fact in the case. I don't think it's an adequate foundation for the admission of these exhibits for that purpose. THE COURT: You are objecting to all three; is that correct? MR. HEINEMAN: I'm objecting to all three, yes, sir. MR. CARR: Your Honor, the offer is not for the purpose of my assertion that these are what have been re- ported to have cancer. That will be established by the. records themselves. Thesegare the records of the morbidity study furnished to us by Mhnsanto relating to the workers study investigated by Dr. Suskind. we will establish whether these people do or do not have cancer, as I exa?ine MR. HEINEMAN: I think, your Honor, that these the Doctor. are PENGID BAYONNE. NJ. 0,003 FORM IIexhibits that were made available to us by Dr. Suskind, and I hints turned over to Mr. Carr pursuant to an order of this Court requiring Dr. Suskind to turn them over. I think, therefore, I still maintain the same objection. THE COURI: All right. I'm going to admit all three over objection. I think they are admissible. So 1468 group exhibit, 1469 and 1470 are all admitted over objection. i (By Mr. Carr) Doctor, I intend to go through these records that you have with you. Have you ever seen these records before, air? A No, sir. ,Then I could help you to identify these records. There are numbers on them that give the identities of the different people, and you can refer to the records that I have given you. For instance, the first record you?ll see has a number 407 in the right-hand corner of it. A Yes, sir. If you look to exhibit 1470, at number 407, what's called new i.d. number, you'll see the new i.d. number is 407, is Paul T. Bricker. Do you see that, sir? A Yes. All right. And by using these documents in that fashion we can determine the name of the people involved. I All right? FOIIH II. 3? PENGIO BAYONNE. NJ. 0700But there's no name on the Suskind form here. That is correct. There is no name on it. There is only the identification number. i A That 407 is the only identification? That is correct. And the first one listed there, the first on the stack is Bricker; right? Do you see that, Doctor? A Yes, sir. I.D. number 407. I'd like now for you to go to the history of Brisker, and first of all tell me whether or not-- I?ll give you the assistance, of course, as to whether or not he has a history of being exposed or unexposed. A I?m sorry? I didn't get the question. I'd like for you to go to his history records;- A Right. --and determine it you would whether or not he has a history of being exposedsor a history of being unexposed to TODD. A From the medical history? Yes. From the history you have in your hands, sir. You get that from the occupational history. Doctor, the occupational history is the second page-- Yes, sir. I 0:90 ?-of this document. IL 24 PENGID BITONNE. NJ. 0,002 Yes, sir. would you look at that, sir? i A The second page? I Yes, sir. I A All right. I And tell me whether or not you get from that a history that he is exposed or unexposed to one of the departments where TCDD could be a contaminant. MR. HEINEMAN: Your Honor, I'll object to this as calling for sheer speculation and conclusion on the part of this witness. This witness didn't prepare these documents. He's never seen them before. They were done by Dr. Suskind. Dr. 'Suskind is the one that took the occupational histories. _How in the world can this men say whether or not this fellow was exposed according to this document, which he's neyer seen before? Sheerly speculation on his part. I MR. CARR: Your Honor, these records are all the records that Dr. Suskind had, occupational records at least, to determine whether the person was or was not exposed: The study shows that, and I intend to demonstrate. I intend to classify, show what Dr. Suskind has said about these persons in his report, whether they're exposed, whether they have a history of skin cancer, and so on, and demonstrat 54 PENGID BAYONNE. NJ. 0,001 FORM these records either the truth or the falsity of Dr. Suskind's conclusions from these records, which are the sole records that Dr. Suskind has given. THE COURT: Objection is overruled. You may proceed, Mr. Carr. I wili take your objections as a I continuing objection to this line of testimony, to this course of questioning. MR. CARR: And could I have another exhibit number, please, for the next exhibit number? (Plaintiff's exhibit 1471 was marked for identification by the court reporter.) (By Mr. Carr) Doctor, do you recognize exhibit 1471 as a blow?up of Table 1 that is in the Suskind Morbidity Study? A Yes, sir. Yes. And it states, its caption is History of Medical Problems versus Exposure Status and by Age, does it not, sir? I Yes. And it, of course, refers to the fact, as you Fan see it, that it refers to the interview and the physicai examination program, and that?s made clear from the report - PKNIJID (0.. DIIONNE. 01003 itself, from the study itself that Dr. Suskind interviewed, took occupational histories and medical histories from each of these persons that participated in this program; isngt that correct, air? A Yes. Yes. And as far as cancer is concerned, he had two categories for cancer, skin cancer and cancers of all other sites except skin, doesn't he, sir? A Yes. I Yes. How, BriCker has no history from these records of ever having been exposed to the manufacturing process of thatJ4that is the manufacturing process that would have isn't that correct, air? A. I would assume that's right. At least so far as you can tell-- A Yes. I 3-from the records that you have in front of you. He has no history there ofiever having been exposed to any- thing that could be called: A Right; 1 And he then, we could put a check under the on this which stands for unexposed; correct, sir? MR. HEINEMAN: Objection. your Honor. He's ashing this witness to comment on whether or not Hr. Bricker was PENGIIO (0.. NJ. 0,002 FORK actually exposed-- MR. CARR: No. I'm asking whether or not this record reveals exposure or a possibility of exposure or' unexposure. This record. sir. MR. HEINEMAN: HOT can one--your Honor. my objection goes to the fact how-can one tell either way whether or'not this man was exposed basediupon this second page? THE COURT: That objection has already been made as to the use of this. I told you that it would be a continuing objection, and the objection is overruled again. Yen may proceed, Hr. Carr. MR. CARR: And for the record, your Honor, the statement that Mt. Heineman made, if true as he's made, is extremely injurious to the Suskind Morbidity Study. I'm sure he said it without thinking because these records con- stitute the totality of Dr. Suskind used to determine-- unless there was a medicallhistory in the medical records that he used--the totalityito determine Whether or not the man was or was not exposed, and if these records cannot reveal to Dr. Suskind or tolthis witness, a competent medical 'physician, whether or not this person was or'uas not exposed, then the entire Suskind study is in jeopardy. Because he I classified based upon theselrecords all of the three hundred and sixty-seven peeple that participated in this study, he I 57 venom co.. anon-?it. NJ. mooclassified each of those persons as either being exposed or unexposed based upon these records. HEINEMAN: Your Honor, I think that's not i accurate. I think if Mr. Carr were to examine either Dr Suskind's deposition or this witness, he would perhaps learn that Dr. Suskind conducted interviews, extensive interviews with these people, and my understanding is that he had--he had work histories available to him from the plant, which I believe Mr. Carr has. MR. CARR: well, we had--these are the records,lyour Honor, of the interview. This is the actual interview con? ducted by Dr- Suskind that Counsel refers to. THE COURT: Okay. As I said before, the line of questioning is proper. 13m taking it as a continuing ob- Jection to the line of question. So the objectianhas been made, has been ruled upon, and would apply to any and all individuals that Hr. Carr in the course of his questioning singles out for consideration in this line of questioning. Mr. Carr, you may proceed. (By Mr. Carr) Yes. But further for the record, the-very first page, Dr. Roush, gives the interviewer number, does it not? A Yes. Number 16? 58 Pillth 30.. BIYDNNE. Nul- 0?OYes. Bricker? A Right. And it gives the date of the interview, doesn'tgit, sir? i A Yes. I And if you look through, it gives medical history, it tells where they were hospitalized, it gives the phy?ioel exam, it gives the lab reports, it gives the brother and sister, it gives smoking background. It is a complete history, is it not, Doctor? I I A Quite complete. Yes. And, Doctor, would you now turn for Bricker to the page that has the yellow tab on it, I think I'vel marked it for you for your benefit, to the personal medical history to determine whether or not this person had a history of cancer. And Bricker does have a history of cancer, doesn't he, sir? i A Yes. i I As reported by Dr. Suskind or the interviewer for Dr. Suskind, correct, sir? i A Yes, sir. And we'll put: a ch'eck then in the colmnn for canines: for Bricker. He hes--end it's a skin cancer, is it not, sir? I RIB PENGAD BIYONNE. N.J. 0,002' FORK llYes. and if you'll now turn to the next one, this group exhibit number 325 is Estep, number 325. And again if you'll look to his history of working at Monsanto on the second page, he worked in the laboratory, in the drafting depart? ment, design engineering, and there is nothing there to: suggest that he had any exposure; isnlt that correct, 31%? A I would assume so, but I would check if I were gping 11 through this with the plan to make sure what they mean by laboratory. I I Ybu might.' But there's no evidence that Dr. Suskind-- there's nothing in his reports to suggest that he did? A Nothing in the report. So he went on this record, and again that is an - unexposed worker. If you'll turn to the one with the yellow tab, you'll find again that he had a history of a mlignht mole removed from his shouhder. So he again has a history of cancer, daesn't he, worker with a cancer? I I i A Yes, sir. And that would be classified as a skin cancer, wouldn't it, sir? 1 I A Yes. The next person we have is Runyon. It's number 87. 60 co.. anon?. am. orooz ronu And again, on the second page of his histOry of working ith Mbnaanto, while he worked in the yard at one time at Mbnaanto, and he worked as a helper in the Santamer'a Liquid Detergent I department. Again, there's no history there that he had any' exposure to any TODD formation process; would that be a fair i estatement. Dr Roush? A I would think so. I Yes. And looking again to his hiatory, he has a; history on the part with the tab on it of again, skin cancer,_ doesn't he, air? A Yes. Next one is number 22, which would be Finch. And as far as his history is concerned, he has a history of working in the departments where might be made, does he not? A I think. yes. . i But if you'll turn 40 the history part and you'li find that he had--you'11 find that he had cancer as well: won't you. sir? i I A I?m not there yet. The part with the yellow tab. Yes. And it is again a skin cancer? Yes. But now to be fair and not to take advantage, thib 61 62 skin cancer was removed in 196?. If you?ll turn back to his :2 history you'll find that "he worked in the departments where -3 he might be involved in dioxin subsequent to 1967. 4 A Where did you get that? On the second psgew air. 6 A Yes. i . 7 I You'll see there that he worked there in 3 1972. The fourth entry on the history. 9 A Yes. I J. I 10 And where he worked prior to 1972 was as a helper in the begging and as an operator in the Drumming of Awsdexl 12 and that's where he worked in '67 at the time he had his 13 malignant mole removed, therefore the mole that he had, or P4 the skin cancer that he had removed in-l967 could not have 5 15 been caused by exposure to dioxin in 1972, could it, sir? 16 A No. 17 And, therefore, he nould be properly put in the '8 unexposed group, wouldn't he, sir, es far as this canceriis 19 concerned? 90 A YesDr. Suakind as will be reveeled 22 later. But I want to demonstrate that while he had this] cancer, and he was exposed, his exposure was not relatedlto 24 the cancer. The next one we'll take will be number 36, which f?k. II. 2.6 PENGIO 60.. ENIONNE. NJ. 0,003 cancer. The next one would be Rogers, number h22. And if will be Reynolds. And his number is 36. And if you'u?; look . . I at his history on the second page, he was foreman of jahitors starting in 1960, and in '39 auto clave operator, but ih 1960 he was a foreman of janitors, and he circulated through- out the plant, in 1974' he handled all chemicals} Therefore, he would hate exposure, would he not, air? A Yes. 1 And as we turn to the history ef cancer-- A '60--yes. Return to the history of cancer, he had a bladder you'll look at his history on the second page, he was a shipping foreman. He was responsible for the transportation of all raw materials and finished products, responsible for receiving raW'materials and containers, and therefore, he had--he would have had a history of exposure, would he not, air? A Pessible. I'm not sure. Yes. Possible exposure? A ?But I can't be sure that that's correct. well, from the history given to you, you can con- clude that he was possibly exposed,.if he handled all ofihis responsible foreman-wresponsible for transportation of all raw materials and finished products, and he was a warehouse I .I -t 63 PENGAD C0.. BIYONNE. NJ. 0'00! FORK IIman, a shipping foreman after three years in the warehouse. he certainly would have had an opportunity to be exposed to would he not, sir? . A It depends if it was in some kind of closed package. It may not be. Hell, it may not be. A It's possible. No one knows for chrtain that anyone even working in the department has absoiutely touehed the stuff. But he has the opportunity for exposure, doesn't he, air? .A I would have to talk to the plant to find out. I know you would, to be absolutely certain. But based on this record, sir,ithat you have in front of you, he has a possibility of exposure, doesn't he, sir? A Yes. As you turn to the history that he gave on the first yellow tab, you'll find that he has a recurrent skin cancer, surgery performed a couple of times on his nose, nine times on his back, one time on his right hand. three times on his left ear, once in the fossa; isn' that correct, sir? i A Yes. And further history in the next tab, he has cancers removed there as described. 30 he has skin cancer. does he not, sir? 64 II. :45 fall "new woothan the other. sir? sir? I can't Gorrell. Sir? I'm trying to read it on--this is a different form Yes. But it clearly says skin cancer, doesn't it, That's on the review of systems and physical exam? No. The page with the first tab, sir. I see it} All right. MR. HEINEMAN: Will you givo us the page number, CARR: Well, they're not numbered. Counsel, so very well give it to. THE WITNESS: Yes. MR. HEINEMAN: They!are here. MR. CARR: They're not on mine. MR. HEINEMAN: The one you gave me have got numbers MR. CARR: Well, this page doesn't have a number (By Mr. Carr) The next one would be 128, that is And he has a history that he was a utilities . 1 supervisor, starting in 197?, and that be operated the utilities,in 1967 he was the utilities worker and a staff engineer. And if he's a utility worker, he was a worker that would have gone throughout the plant, all departments, 65 II. 248 PENGAD BIYONNE. NJ. 0,002 65A would he not. air? A I don?t know. Not necessarily. well- 1 . A It's-- -Q well, the history that you have here is that this man, if he was the supervtsor for utilities and operated the utilities, he was a man that had a potential for exLosure to TODD. I A I don't know that. i wall, you can deduce that from this record, can you not. air? No, air. You cannot. i . i No, sir. A A. What does a utility worker do, air? .A One who runs a power plant. And they have power plants in every department. don't they, air? A No, sir. One power plant. Do they not furnish power to each department? Sure. Doctor? Yes, sir. And isn't that the only way the department can operate PENGAD Nul. 0,002 FORM 'erposure? is by power that's given by the utility workers? A I don't know whether you could say with any assurity that he had exposure. In my opinion that would be minimal 110113 . well, look to the next page where he talks about-? I don't know the next page" it doesn't have a number on:it. I It's four pages farther on, where he gives work hygiene at Monsanto. He talks about-ears you with me? I A NO, 811'. There's no number on this page. It says work hygiene at Monsanto. A All right. Yes. You see where he states that he works with--he wears raincoats for ammonia protettion, he wears coveralls when he sometimes works on boilers and tanks, and then look on the next page where he talks about working-~he has colds from exposure to NHS and other gases. chlorine. He has sporadic exposure from 1945 to 1976. You see that, sir?' A Yes. wouldn't that suggest to you, sir, that he has th I A It's possible. That's what I?m asking you, Doctor. from these records you can deduce that the man possibly had exposure to TODD, 66 PENGAD BAYONNE. NJ. 0,003 FORM can you not, sir? A Yes. Yes. And as far as his history of cancer is coh- cerned, he too had a history of skin cancer, did he notL sir? A Yes. And a prostate tumor in l970--prostate trouble, I'm sorry. That's not a tumor. The history of a skin cancer, is it not, sir? . A Yes. Now, Doctor, we have here a total of one, two, three, four, five, six, seven people who have histories of can?er, four of whom were clearly, from their history, unexposed, and three of who were exposed; is that correct, sir? Or I A Based on our assum?tion of what those classifications potential for exposure. Yes. well, and thak's--you have all the history here and all the records here, Doctor, that we have? A Yes. Because we asked for everything that was supplied to Dr. Suskind and we have everything that was supplied to Dr. Suskind. This is it. ihere is no more. Now, Doctor-- MR. HEINEMAN: Now, your Honor, I'm.not sure that is correct. I want to check on that. That's what I'm asking i 67 Nul. FORM IL ?6 FENEAD BINONNL 10whether this is a complete record. I object to that statements MR. CARR: I'll represent to the Court that this is the complete record that was furnished to us. HR. remakes! Wet about all the-- THE COURT: You may proceed. (By Mr. Carr) DocLor, these cancers, if you'll look at the Table 1 for the number of cancers in the not exposed group, sir. This is by percentage, is it not, sir? The percentage, the number of non-exposed is one hundred and sixty-three. A Yes . i That's the number of workers actually studied, a part of the study. Yes. 2.5-percent of those people had skin cancer, and 1.5 percent had other kinds of cancer; isn?t that correct, sir? A Yes. And that's a total.of 3.7 percent, is it not, str? 4 I A Yes. And if you take percent of one hundred and sixty-three, you'll get the number six, will you not, sir? A Yes. 68 PENGAD (0.. NJ. 0,003 70New, Doctor, Dr. Suskind has reported to the world at large that he has found six cases of cancer among these 1 one hundred and sixty-three unexposed people, has he not, sir? A Yes. When in point of fact, he has found four cancers in unexposed people, has he not, sir? A. That's what were gone through so far. Yes. And that, Dogtor, is all that exists, as I will represent to you and as you will see as_we go farther on. Now, if these figures are correct, if there are only four workers who have had 4ancer and not exposed to then Dr. Suskind himself 13' not telling the truth to the world at large, is he, sir,?when he says there were six that had cancers without being exposed in that group of a hundred and sixty?three? A He was not correct. That's right. That, too, would affect, again you're comparing the exposed group to the unexposed group, aren't you, sir, the skin cancers? A Yes. And it comes out here, you've got 3.7 percent having cancer in the unexposed as opposed to 6.9 percent in thei . exposed group, while there is a difference, it's not near the difference that it would be if it were 3 percent as Opposed . I 69 II. II PENGAD BIVONNE. NJ. 01001 percent, is it, sir? Again, a 50 percent difference. If there's only four people in the unexposed group thatihave cancer, which will represent 3 percent of the total, as opposed to 6.9 percent; nearly 7 percent of the exposed group, and if you add these three to the exposed group, you increase your percentage by another two or three points, don't you, sir? It makes a big difference, doesn't it, Dr, Boush? A If our definition of exposed and unexposed is correct. Yes, indeed. And again, the world at large has to depend upon the honesty of the persons interpreting these records and upon the henesty of the persons supplying the persons who are going to giye the records. So there's two ways you can confound the at large. can confound it by not supplying these people who were in fact exposed, or by calling them uneiposed. And you can confound it by interpreting records where there have been and is potential for exposure, the janitor, the utility foreman, the shipping foreman, by calling thuse people unexposed, you can confound the results, can't you4 air? A If that's correct. Yes. How, Doctor, l'd like to continue with the records that we have of these various cancers to establish the status of'the remaining workers that were described. 70. PINGIO BITONNE. NJ. 01002 FORM 2The next one is crites. It's number 8. And if you'll turn to his history, he has a history of working in the department, does he not, sir? i A Yes. And so he is exposed, is he not, sir? 5 A Yes. And as far as his history of cancer is concerne?, on the page dealing with that, with the next yellow tab,lhe has-a skin cancer, hasn't he, sir? A I don't have that on my next tab. I must be on the wrong page. well, the third tab then. Yes, that's the one. MR. HEINEMAN: Can you give us a page, Hr. Carr? MR. CARR: Fifteen, Counsel. I think it's the history, the personal medical history is on page fifteen. (Hr. Carr) He has the history of skin cancer, does he not? A Yes. The next one is number nine. That would be Miller. As far as his history is concerned-- A This is nine? Is that nine? Number nine. A Right . And he has a history of working as a maintenance nan, 71 PENGAD BAYONNE. NJ. 0,003 FORK not include working in the process, and they were a pump mechanic, all through the plant repairing open lines, opening lines, and he worked as a utility worker in buildings, in production. He worked in the shipping depart- ment, the warehouse, he weighed product for shipping. He was an operator in building 41. He had ample opportunity for exposure, did he not, sir? i i A The question?is the magnitude of his exposure. glt's a questionable one. i The Dr. Suskind study did not deal with the mag%itude of exposure. He simply classified them exposed or not ex- posed. He dealed not with the magnitude. His study, as you can see, if will look at it again, dealt only with did he have a history of exposure or non-exposure. A I think that there?s another group in here that he Yes, indeed. And ?his study that we have here deals dropped out. with those who have exposure by history or not exposure. A No, sir. There's another one in here. On page 27-- i what is it, 2373, it says there are fifty-one subjects whose possible exposure as limited and poorly documented and did I not included in the analysif. well, but these are ones that were included in the analysis, Doctor. 72 73 I 1 A How can you tell? 2 well, because of the tape that was given us, and 3 perhaps I should give that to you also. It will help y?u 4 in interpreting these records. Make this exhibit--I should 5 have given this to you earlier. It would help you interpret 6 these documents, because tLis again is Dr. Suskind's computer 7 record of these exhibits. 8 . 9 (Plaintiff's exhibit 1472 was marked for 10 identification by the court reporter.) i i 12 (By Mr. Carr) Handing you now what's been marked 13 Plaintiff's exhibit 1472, that can help you interpret these 14 I records. For the record, l472 is the computer printout, 9: 15 the tape of which, as shown by exhibit 1469, was furnished 2 16 by Dr. Suskind to the lawyers in the case, and it was 17 subsequently furnished to us. i; 13 A What's 1459? 19 1469 is the letter to those lawyers. .g 20 A I see. i 21 This is from Charl%ston, west Virginia. 22 A I see. 23 Referring to the couputer tape. 24 A All right. I i . I a PENGID BIVONNE. 03003 Iipart is the part thatths conputer spit out. The written i i . I And if you?11--to assist you in the.way Dr. Sus?ind interpreted these records. if you look at the second entry which says "new i.d. masher nine.." and the word "Iiilhr is written above that. A Yes. If you'll read across you'll see that he has a history- he has it marked as exposed, does he not? MR. HEINEMAN: Excuse me, your Honor. Mr. Carr are _you offering 1472? MR. CARR. Yes. Iithought I did. I offer 14723 your Honor. MR. HEINEMAN: Your Honor. the same objection will apply. There's no foundation whatsoever for the same reasons I previously stated. In adhition to that, this document appsars to be written on. don't know*who wrote on it. I don't know whether this was a document produced or whether Mr. Carr had some taps run through a computer and this is generated, or what it is. CARR: The tape that was supplied to us. the computer taps was run through the computer. The printed part is there.?or the assistance of the witness. If he i wants to use it, he may. He doesn't have to use it if he doesn't want to. 74 IL PENGAD BAYONNE. NJ. 0,002 FODI MR. HEINEMAN: Do I understand that the written part was. put on for the assistance of this witness? ME. CARR: Yeswas just now given to him an hour after the examination? MR. CARR: I'm sorry. For my assistance in inter- preting these tapes. And I'm now giving it to- this witness to help him interpret thief date. MR. HEINEMAN: My iobjectiou- stands, your Honor. This is a document generated by Mr. Carr. Alnd there's no foundation for its admission. THE COURT: The objection is overruled. MR. CARR: Your Honor, if Counsel is concerned about thewritten pert going to the jury, because I?m not passing this exhibit to the jury at this time, why ultisntely they will see it, I'll be more than happy to produce a document without the writing on it. THE COURT: Fine. MR. CARR: If Counsel objects to the jury having these writings. THE COURT: Fine. If you would. please. MR. CARR: It's a repetition of what is on the tape itself. THE COURT: Fine. 75 if??lb BAVONNE. NJ. 0,001 FORM (By Mt. Carr) Now. Dr. Roush. to assist you. you'll see the number nine there that we previously identified as Miller. I i I A ?wYes; sir. He's classified as exposed by this computer printout, is he not, air, that Dr. Suskind furnished us? A If that's what that means. There's not much informa? tion to help us understand that. well, this information you have, this information was generated by Dr. Suskind from the other information that you have. This is the totality of the information that Monsanto supplied to us. If it has more information, we Would certainly love to have it. But we asked for and the Court ordered that Monsanto produce all the information. all the data that it gave to Dr. Suakind upon which Dr. Suskind made his conclusion. A. I understand. If we don't have all the data, then we, of course, cannot analyze Dr. Suskind's results. If we have all the. data, as we are supposed to have, then we can analyze the; results as we are doing. A That?s not my question. ?ow, would you assume please. Doctor, that-- A Yes, sir. 76 NJ. 0'00! FORM Dr. Suskind as not exposed. You see that, Dr. Roush? --that this is all the data we've got and all the date that Dr. Snskind? had? I understand. 1 All right. A my question is when you talk about the statement I that it?s exposed, that's one word. Yes. A. I'm not sure what that means. well, look at the equals exposed." Then look at the very next entry, "exposed equals not ei- posed." The next entry in on Finch. we have earlier de- scribed Finch as unexposed because his exposure took place after he had the skin cancer. If you look at all of those, you will find that Dr. Sushind has categorized these by exposed and not exposed. All right. Even to assist you further, you can see. go down to the one called That's on this page. The next one is Runyon. Do you see Runyon? His i.d. number is 37. His says "exposed equals not exposed" and he was listed by .A Yes. i MR. HEINEMAN: Your Honor, 1 object to the character- ization that it's merely been listed by Dr. Suskind as not 77 rmoso to" missus-us. one: ramexposed. I think Hr. Carr has pointed to his own list and 1 .his own characterization. Is that correct? MR. CARR: Does not this tape classify Runyon as-not exposed? Do you see the words "not exposed" there, Cou?scl, sud Dr. Roush? HEINEMAN: I also see "exposed" there. MR. CARR: No. You see "exposed equals not exposed." There's an equals sign these, Counsel. MR. HEINEMAN: Yes. CARR: Exposed equals not exposed. MR. HEINEMAN: certainly not very helpful to me, Mr. Carr. THE COURT: well, the objection is overruled. (By Mr. Carr) well, Dr. Roush, back to the criteria that we have. I'm.giving you this computer tape because the computer tape is the analysis that Dr. Suskind put oh the other records which I've been asking you about. I've lost my exhibit now that I was talking about. Mr. Miller. A. Is there another category that says questionable Iexposure, besides exposed and not exposed? Apparently not thetfs been furnished to us. Doctor. Please, ist.am.misrepressnting something. you will have an opportunity when Mr. Heineman asks you questions to fully I I 1 I 78 PENGID BAYONNE. NJ. 03'002 FORM IIshow and my credibility with the jury. So if I?m doing that. if I'm somsthing, or misleading you in something, you?ll have the full opportunity to expose ms. 1 I'm just asking a question shout that data. I have not that A. I understand. This data. if you'll go back to Miller now. He has a history of sxposurs, doss he not? Hs's listsd in Dr.i Suskind's taps as exposed, is he not? A Yss. And if you'll turn to his history, he has a history of bladdsr cancer, doesn't he, sir? .A Yes. The next ons is Hoin, whoss i.d. number is 26. He has a history of exposure, says that he works throughout the plant instruments. And if you'll look at Suskind?s taps, he calls him exposed, also, in this taps; isn't that correct, Doctor? A Exposed, yes. I And if you look to his history of he has . bowsl does he not, sir? A Yes. next ons is number 32. Ha has history 79 PENGID BAYONNE. NJ. 03001 being exposed. doe. he not. air? A Yaa. I And he has a history of skin cancer, doesn't he; air? A, Yes. The next one ia-dwa already had Reynolds, have 43 not, air? . i A I'm.going by number. Are you talking about 52?! W3 have previously shown that Reynolda--you had! that exhibit aarliar-- . A Those are the ones I haven't looked at yet. All right. Wb?vn Already established that Reynolds-- I'm going to put him out of order at this time--atrika that, let that be. Go to the next one, whioh'would be Vblz, the one I?m going to give you at this time. The next one is number 52 who would be Volz. He has a history of exposure, does he not? .A Are you read -- 1 From tho records. I A From the tape? From the records. 'f you look at the plane where I. the tab 18. I A. All right. I 1' B. worked in a health safety program and plant inspections. He?s the safety director of the Nitro plant. I I 80 The safety director of tho Ritro plant gone throughout tho plant. dons ho not, sir? i .A Yes; And as far as his history is ho has A history of bladder cancer. docs ho not, air? Do you too that on the page numborod 15? .A Yna. That--yoa. i He also has a history, air, of skin cancer, ho? If you look on pago 21 you son that basal coll carcinoma PENGAD BAYONNE. NJ. 0,001 FORM llYou're looking at the old. 1 of the right thorax ton to Fwalvo years ago. .A Yoo; So ho has two cancers. A Bid or. Suakind liot him an exposed on his tape? don't think. Lot to look. Yao. You. hn'a listed as exposed. .A I don't see it. What's his numbor? Fury-two . . A. Fifty-two. 0n tho first page? Yon. number 52. Look on the now i.d. numbers. I A. 1 see. All right. How. ho'o listed at expound. but an Dr. Sunkind't printout hobo-liotod no no history of cancer; isn't ho, air? I A Rhett is this? Fifty-two? IL ?5 BIVONNE. NJ. 0700Vbln, i.d. number 52, skin cancer history. no. Cancer history. no. Do you see that, air? A No, air. You don?t see that? i A. Where are you reading that? I On the Suokind tape, air. A Right. i vole, akin onnoer.ino, i.d. number 52, exposed. He's exposed. Skin cancer, no. Cancer history. no. Do you see that, air? A Yes. And if you would look at HcDade on that some printout . MoDade is also listed by Suakind'e printout-- A What number is that? Number 32, air. In that the next one? A. No. That's the one just above it, air. A All right. He hasn't been exposed. But he had no history of skin cancer. Doesn't show that. air? No history of skin cancer. I A Right. But yet he clearly-has cancer, doesn't he. sir? - 1. Clearly has a history of cancer, doesn't he, air? 3 A Yes. 82 FOIM IL I IENGIO (0.. IIFONNE. NJ. 0100the Suskind records, if you will look at Rein. air. A His number is? It's 26? Number 26. He's exposed. He has a history of cancer in his records that he gave to Dr. Suskind. But Dr. Sunkind has him listed as no cancer. doesn't he, sir? A If those representations are correct. it makes sense what you are saying. But this is the first time I've seen these abbreviations. I understand that. Doctor, but the point I want to make to you, and I'm making to the jury, is that these three men-~end there will be more, many more. Doctor, many more--these three men reported to Dr. Suskind, to their interviewer, that they had history of cancer, and Dr. Suskind on his computer tape, exhibit 1472, listed them as not having a history of cancer. And there will be more, Dr. Roush. MR. HEINEMAN: Your Honor. I'll object to this characterization, and that speech by Mr. Carr, because if you look at number V701 on the printout there, under McDade. it says V701 skin. Under Rein it says V701 bowel. Could that possibly be a reporting of the cancers that Mr. Carr says are not there? MR. CARR: We'll find out, sir. If we have as many 5 IL 2?6 PENGID BIYONNE. NJ. 0,001 Forcancers, just as many cancers as he reported in his table; relatively few, seven percent of two hundred and four, thet's_ fourteen cancers . if we have only fourteen cancers when [we end up. to this, we'll find that he did report all these cancers . However, if we have twenty-five cancers .whenu-vgs end up with this study, we'll discover-that he didn't list all those that had cancers,I won't we, Mr. Heine'msn? 1 MR. HEINEMAN: Well. that's your characterization. Mr. Carr. MR. CARR: And we will see. Mr. Carr. you may proceed. MR. CARR: Yes, your Honor. (By Mr. Carr) Doctor, going to the next person is Honeker. His i.d. number is 53. And he has a history of exposure, does .he not, air? A I would think so. Well. he clearly says it. Yes. cleans them out. 1. would think so. ylee. And-Honcho: also heis a history of two kinds of I censor. doesn't he, sir. leiukemis and prostate cancer. You see that on page 15? You see that. sir? A Yes. Yes. .34 245 . N- PENGIO BIVONNE. NJ. 03003 FORM you look at the printout for Honaker. that is exhibit 1472, for the new i.du number 53, you'll find he has a history of no skin cancer. but he has a cancer history listed there. It just mentions one cancer. doesn't it. air? A well, it lists leukemia and prostate. Well, we?ll pess--we'11 get back to that one, Dr Roush, and we'll demonstrate what he in fact demonstrated in his report. The next one mould be Selby, would it not? That would be number 82. He has a history of exposure,?does he not, sir? .A I can't read it. i He's a pipefitter. He works all over the plant. He's a maintenance and construction foreman. He works in installation of equipment ail over the plant. A Yes. Hie history of cancer, he he -- A Skin cancer. well, there's a bladder tumor removed. that he also-? there's a bladder tumor removed. His history is just of skin cancer. A Where is the bladder removed? I 0n the next page, number 16. Do you see that. where he has a bladder tumor remo?od? A Yes. 1 85 PENGID 60.. amount. N.J. 0,002 IIreports in his history section, or the inter- viewer reports that he has a history of skin cancer; correct? .A Yes. i The next one will be number 89, Mr. What. A Does he list him as exposed on his form? I'm sorry. Who? A The one you just finished. Selby? i Yes. You see theta? A Yes. i . Number 82, expose equals exposed. A Yes . I The next one is What. He has a history of exposure. A Is that 89? Number 89, the second page. He works in department. .A I can't read it on.mine. well. you can see the there. can't you. air? A And he's also listed as exposed in the printout. Is that the last little writing down there? It's Very blurred on mine. It's right on the bottom of it. The Yours is es blurged as mine. i He's also listed in the Suskind printout es exposed. Number 82 exposed. A All right. 86 II. 243 BAYONNE. NJ. 07601 FORM .I'm sorry. I've directed you to the wrong one. It's What, 89, exposed. A .All right. And as far as his history of cancer is concerned, he also has a history of skin cancer, does he not?! i The next one would be number 133, which would be A. Yes. Hill, Keith Hill. I think there's two Hill's. I better put a behind him. He has a history of exposure, does he not, air? He was a maintenance snpervisor--cn page 4 where the tab is--throughout the production supervisor, and the maintenance super?isor in the entire plant. A Yes. i And he has cancer LE the bladder that's shown on the medical records as attached and the very first page of this, papilloma of the bladder neck. Do you see that, air? .A Mine says history of cancer of bladder. Oh, see it. The first page. Right. All right. And he also has a history of skin cancer that's shown on page 21, does he not, sir? Malignant mole on the back of something, his nose, or whatever that isL. I can't make out that word. Are you on page 21? A. Yes, sir. malignant. i I a7 jxr? NJ. 0,001 FORM IL 243 PENGID BIVONNEsays he was told malignant.- Yes. Yes. I .0 39-0 3* The next one would be- 1 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Carr, before you go on to the next one. we'll break for lunch. Ladies and gentlemen. I we'll break for lunch at this time. The admonishments I gave you earlier will apply during this break also. we'll resume again at one o'clock. The Court is in recess. I . I (At this time the lunch recess was taken.) (The following proceedings were had in the presence and hearing of the juryx) (Plaintiff?s 1471A was marked for identification by the court reporter.) (By Hr. Carr) Doctor, the exhibit that I've handed you earlier and had marked 1471A is Table 1 from the Sunkind I Morbidity Study, is it not. and a duplicate of 1471 that_ had been previously admitted into evidence. I A Yes, sir. MR. CARR: I'd like to offer 1471A. your Honor, end 5 N. 348 NJ. 07002 PENGAD co.. snton?.ncglectcd to pass it. pass it numbers Table 1 that was subject of tho study that's on this group exhibit that you have is Msthony. number 133. is it not. sir? .A (I On pogo 8 with tab on it. - A. 89 to the juty, also. I had it this morning. but I THE COURT: Do you have any objection to that? i BEINEMAN: Your Honor, to hoop my exhibit straight. your Honor- MR. CARR: 1471 is the blow?up. 1471A is tho from exhibit 1467. MR. HEINEMAN: Okay. THE COURT: It's ffom the Suskind study. HR. HEINEMAN: And it's the same as 1470? THE GOURI: 71. MR, CARR: 1471. HEINRMAN: Numhcr is the sans as 1471? CARR: That isicorract. MR. HEINEMAN: No objection. THE COURI: Fins. Admitted without objection. (By Mr. Carr) Doctor, the next cmploycs-worksr Yes. sir. And has a history of exposure, docs he nbt? Yes to tho bui1ding at the. II. no PENGAO NJ. 01002 plant . A Yes. I And he has a. history on page 135, the :1th tab,' of bowel cancer, does he not, sir? .A Yes, sir. The cost one wouldfbe Woodsll, number 167. that be. correct, Doctor? A 157, 1 don't know if it's Woodsll. Well, you have the-- A I can go back over this list. If you wish to choick it. It has-- A Right. Wouldn "the list there and you also have the computor printout that shows the 1.3. number 167 Woodsll. A Yes, sir. And you see on page 3 his exposurs history. a maintenance man, electrician in the entire plant. you see that, sir? A .116: ?was working 2,1; ..5-T. I'm sorry. He was working Yes. You ass that now, do you, sir? Yaa a auras-.0 And his history is done of. skin cancer? 1 Ho's Do 90 PENGAD BAVONNE. NJ. 01002 Yes. And you will note on the computer printout of Dr. Suskind that-he's listed as no cancer history, is he not? If you look at exhibit 1472. 1 .A They list him as having skin cancer. If you look there you'll see his computer printout i shows he has not got a history of cancer. A But is shows earlier that he does have skin cancer. Indeed, it does. be, it shows_he has a skin problem. It doesn't show skin cancer. No skin cancer history, no. Cancer history, no. A we.called Vicki He?tzberg at lunchtime from Suskind. Skin cancer history and cancer history, that's not from Cincinnati. That's not Kettering; MR. CARR: Your Honor, I would ask the jury to be instructed to disregard what Dr. Roush has just stated here, unless Dr. Hertzberg-dwell, ultimately on may.produce him for cross examination. But that statement is a volunteered statement. Purely hearsay. I have no way of knowing whether Hertzbarg has described it correctly or not, whether or not Dr. Roush has correctly described what Dr. Hertzberg has said, if anything, at ?unch, to Dr. Roush. THE WITNESS: Yes, lair. MR. CARR: These are the documents that we have been 1 91 as PENGAD HIVONNE. NJ. 07002 FORM given. and they can explain these away at some other point, at some other time. THE COURT: That motion was granted-- . MR. HEINEMAN: Your Honor-- THE COURT: Whit Just a second. Dr. Roush, if you would please confine your answersq-or any statement you make to answers to the questions that are directly asked 63 you. You will have an opportunity in the clarification examina- tion by the attorneys from Mbnsanto to refer back to any . of these matters. So if you.would do that, please, I would appreciate it. The that we have is in response to questions, and not volunteered statements such as that. Is that okay, Dr. Roush? THE WITNESS: Yes; sir. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. HEINEMAN: Your Honor, am I--may I not be per- mitted to respond to Hr. Carr's argument? The Court has already ruled. THE COURT: I have ruled. This was not responsive to any question. There-was no question before the witness, and the matter that was stated was unquestionably improper. The questioner has the right to make that motion, and that motion.was made. You Carr. (By Hr. Carr) Now, Dr. Roush. in that regard,,and 9i PEHGAD NJ. 0?00did you, in fact, talk to during a break of this trial today? A Yes, air. You talked to him personally? I talked to Hartzberg. Did you learn from Hertzberg, did you discuss hum these omissions that we have discovered here? A A No, air. You did not discuss those? No, sir. Dr. Suskind or Dr. Hartzberg I an i 1 Did you discuss with him how this computer printout, 1472, is to be interpreted? the items here. A. Only very briefly. we couldn't go through all of well, did he advise you-- It's her. Did she advise you that_wherc there is--where it says cancer history, no, that if there is something else there that says skin, that history of skin cancer? .A would indicate that there was a She said she didn' knOW'what those two items were on the skin cancer history gor cancer history. well, did she advise you that the items before that-- we're talking about'Wbodalr at this time, and I've lost him 93 II. 243 PENGIO co.. amount. NJ. woo: FORM this printout. Number 167. There it is. --sdvise you that the numbers before that, where is says V701 skin. that that indicates a skin cancer? A. Yes, sir. Then where it says skin cancer history no, cancer history no, it was the advice you received that the figures I before--in front of that, that would be 701 equals skin. indicates that there was a history of skin cancer; is that 1 correct? - 1 .J A Iss. 1 well. Would that he true of, say, the one above, Mstheny, where it says V701 bowel, that would indicate a bowel history? A Yes, sir. And near up where we have 1.d. l18 Scerberry. we haven't talked about Scarberry. It says there. that would be a lung and bowel cancer. I think that's yes. All right. I only got through that first one. I we11-- i But I think that's correct. What you learned from your conversation.wes that the controlling entry than would be the entry that wound say- a . 94 ll. LIB PENGAD BAYONNE. NJ. 07001 FORM lung and bowel; is that correct? A Yes. And Sushind and Hertzberg did not use the part.of the computer printout dealing with the skin cancer history where it says no, and cancer history where it says no; is that correct? A Yes, sir. All right. So the record is clear on that, according to that interpretation, woodall would have been treated . by Dr. Suskind as having had a history of skin caner; is that correct? A What's woodell's number? Number 167. The one we were just talking about. A Yes, sir. And Gorrall would have-~well, there isnft anything for any number there. But there is a skin cancer history, and we do knew that Gorrell had a skin cancer history, don't we, sir? A I don?t remember. well, we jump up to Honaker, Rancher, that's i.d. - number 53. It says leukemia and prostate. Indeed, Honakcr has leukemia and prostateicancer from the records; is that correct? 1 1 A Yes, sir. 95 NJ. 0,001 FORM IL 245 PENGID 10All right. So we can use both of these entries then. to determine just how Suskind, what history Suskind had of these various cancers; is that correct also? 1 MR. HEINEMAN: Objection. your Honor. That's con- fusing to me. Both of what entries? MR. CARR: The entries where it lists like skin. and where it says s?in cancer history yes, or skiL . cancer history. There are entries as you see, Counsel, as you have seen on that line:for all of those items. MR. HEINEMAN: Are you asking him a question? HR. CARR: Yes. (By or. Cert) we use that additional data. information you've received from Dr. to interpret this computer orintout then. A But I don't-I'm not sure where that skin cancer history and cancer history comes from. i well. it comes from Dr. Suskind's documents. This is a Dr. Suckind document.l I 1 i HR. HEINEMAN: Ybur Honor?- 9 (BY Mr. Carr) It is a tape- ME. HEINEMAN: I o?ject. He Just said earlier that he ran that document off 07 a computer. I MR. CARR: No. You completely confused it. we had the computer tape. This is a printout from Suskind's coLputer_ 1 user}: co.. anon?. rm. one: roan ILtape, Counsel. MR. HEINEMAN: That's what I?m saying. THE COURT: Objection is overruled. You may proceed, Mr. Carr. (By Mr. Carr) Noll, Doctor, the next person is martin number 171; is that-correct, sir? And martin has a history of being exposed, does he not? Do you son that on page 3, Dr. Ronsh? He works as anlopsrator out of herbicides, insect- icidas, worked all units as a maintenance nan, sntranco' mechanic in all control units. (You'sos that, sir? A Yes. But that harnicidos, insocticid?s may not be? I The next one where he worked in all units and pro- ducts. That certainly is aihistory of exposure, is it not? A. Yes. Yes, sir. If yon look at the Suskind tape record. he treats Martin as exposed, does he not, sir? A Yes, sir. And on the cancer history, he has a history of bladdsr cancer, does he not, according to this record on page 152 A. Yes, sir. i . I i The next one would be Frank'wnst, number 242; correct, sir? 97 IL 246 PENGID CO.- BAVONNE. NJ. 01003 FORM 10Yon; sir. And he reports that ho was a welder and near the accident in '41. The intatviowor undoubtedly '49. He also repairs in all parts ofi the plant. does he not, sir? I A Yes. That would be a history of exposure. would it not, air? A Yes. As far as his history, he roports a skin cancer on page 15. does he not, siri A. Yes. The non: one is number 247. It would be MoGind. MrcG-i~n-n Miss reporter. And MoGinn has a history of having worked in.those as a maintenance man. plantwids maintenance worker, climbed into tho auto slave. Ho worked mostly building 4592, which has 2.4.5.-T in it. You son that, sit? A ?Yas. So he would have history of having been exposed, would he not. sit? - A Yes . And his history isgono of skin cancer. Three tings. i as of fact. 93 UTOOI {03? II.. no co.. anonurNext one Waldorf . number- 300; is that correct. air? Yee air. And he has a history of exposure, utility production gab-40> worker working all over the plant. Worked in the warehouse as a loader, loaded out maintenance to trucks and railroad care, and maintenance pipefitter, worked all over the plant, maintenance foreman, project scheduler and plant. That I 1 I would be a hiatory of exposure. would it not. air? A Yes, air. And if you'll turn ito his history. we have Waldorf ie with a history of cancer. do we not? A Skin cancer. Skin cancer. Look ?at the next one. which would be Dunn, umber 316. And he was exposed. He made, according to him, he made 2.4.-D, and worked in the building in auto- mated process; is that correct, air? A Yes. So he had a history of exposure, and in his cancer he has a skin cancer, does he not? Does he not? A - You. 4 The next one would be number 324. McClanahang isa that correct, air? I i A As I recall. there'o more than one McClenahan. 99 PENGID BITONNE. 0,002 FORM Whll. there may A I?m talking about appropriate. Look at number 32 William E. MhClanahan, is having worksd in Building a. but this one is-- an initial. if you think it 4 and no can get his initial. 46 and 44, making he not? A Yes, air. He has a history bf haying.skin cancer? I don't have the page marked on mine. A Page 324. A No; no. Look at Suskind's 1 i printout. It will show you he?s exposed and that he has a skin cancer history. A It doesn't havc i Sir? A It doesn't have it on the history form. no cancer. Whll, if you look describes somathing taken on the history form. in that part--on page 21, it It's it not? He has a history o? does 1 I that It says from his forehead, and Dr. Suskind has included him.in the group that has a history of skin cancer. A. Whore? In the computer printout of Dr. Suskind relate i to . 100 PENGID IIVONNE. NJ. 01002 MtClanahan. I.D. number 324. A No, he doesn't. If you will see, skin cancer history yes. Do you see that, sit? A Yes. All right. A But where did that come from? This is from Suskind'e computer printout. This is computer tapes created by Dr. Suskind. A Hertzberg said that's not in her record. Here does not include that statement "skin cancer history." Will, when Hertzberg comes here, she can, if she does come here, she can relate that and demonstrate that is not the data from the tape. The information I have is that this is the tape, data from the tape sent by Suskind. Hr. Heineman; Your Honor, I object to this stete- ment. That isn't evidence that he is putting on. This whole thing is hearsay. What's more different from Dr. Roush telling what Hertzberg told him on the phone then Mr. Carr standing up and saying whet somebody told him? I mean this is just crazy. MR. CARR: The difference is that these are documents created by defendants end they're considered admissions. Counsel, that we can use. They're exceptions to the hearsay 101 PENGJIO BINONNE. NJ. 01001 FORM IIprints it out from the tape. 102 rules because they are things that your agents and your employees have said to us. This document has been given to us. MR. HEINRMAN: This document was created by you. Mr. Carr. i MR. I'm sorry? 1 MR. HEINRMAN: This document was created by you Mr. Carr. MR. CARR: This document was not created by no} The only thing that was created by the people in.my employ was the handwritten portion. The typed portion is a print- out from the computer tap4 given and described in that letter. given to us to be used in analyzing these-data. MR. HEINEMAN: Givhn to you by whom? MR. CARR: Dr. Suskind, your agent. . MR. HEINEMAN: First of all, you haven't provan that. MR. CARR: You have admitted that,-Counso1. MR. HEINEMAN: You told the Court and the jury you had this printout created from a tape. MR. CARR: From the tape that you sent-sll you do is put the tape-ths tape that you sent in the printor._and HR. CARR: As you well know. Counselor. PINGID BAYONNE. NJ. 01001 FOII MR. HEINEMAN: Your representation is that we in this lawsuit gave you the tape. CARR: That is correct. 1 ?ne HEIHEMAN: Fran which this document was created? HR. CARR: That is absolutely correct. How you understand'it. MR. HEINEMAN: Nod I've forgotten. Is there a question? 0r where are we? THE COURT: I think you made your objection or asked your question between questions. So I don't think I I 1 there's a question posed. (By Mr. Carr) we here in the process of identifying history or no history ofiskin cancer; correct, Doctor? A Yes, sir. And because you are not willing to accept this printout dets as skin history one hundred percent, I'll put a question mark on that entry because of that fact. even though it skin cancer history yes. On this printout we'll put a question mark there. .A I understand. All right. Doctor, the next subject is Lewis, ismes Lewis, number 375; is that correct, sir?l Do you see that, sir? A. Yes, sir. .. 103 701 gags 'anaxzoo ?994 ?Axoaaxq sauna: uyas a anq akaq: 993311 seq out? an ano ?au;xd zoandmoo on: no 'xoauw; uxns Jo; ?zaua aq: no ?991 L119 '33u uq saop Ianoq ;o 43mm 9 seq at; WV 'no? mm mm: 1w 0 '33; {:19 '31 'pasodxa ?ataq go.auaxva;nbo an; 9? (3130 53) .3399 ?m ?13?an 91 nomaorqo Immoo m. I 'pws auwmnaop nu: aaqa on 805 p199 s?auaya sq; 'pxna sauamnnop on: sun and? mm m: n05 u'v swim; *m -aa? csauayn aq; *uoyaeanb naqn ssaua;n.aqa adu an 'peaodxu can aq sampsse 1:39 'zouo? :no? ?uonsanb an: 30 we; on: on nonaarqo mammal: "m L119 'aou.?q snap Iomnq go ?zoanzq 9 seq on 'gtg 933d no a; go ?zoasyq pus paaodxa uaq: n.0q puv '89; as 883d no a-?y?z ?uzqnm ?319 'nou an snap ?pusodxa Buxaq go ?xoasyu a BBQ 93331 puv (HlOi 80010 'f'H "03 rcnonb co.. anon?. one: rout Yes. But it's not recorded on page 375. Ybu.mean on page 15? pop- I mean on page 15- He reports the acne that he had on the same page, I however, does he not? That he tried to burn it off inia raw place on his face that would not heal. If you looh'on page 21 he reports akin concer of the left cheek. A Yea. i And so he reported a history of skin cancer onlthe left cheek. did he not, 91:? A Yes. he did. We!ve already sheen the bowel cancer. And Poetlethw white. number 436. has a history of exposure, having been in the 1949 accident. Heiwee on the repair crew. He went into Building 41 to repair it after the erploeion. Right. I, And Pootlethwaite has a history of skin cancer; sir? b.1313 :5 Yes. And the next one is Scarberry. Doctor; correct, air? Number 118. Do you see that, air? A Hot in that form Jet. . I?m sorry? A Not on the printout. Look at the computer printout, 118, and identify 1 PENGID BAYONNE. NJ. 03003 IIyou will please. that Scarborry is number 118. A You, sir. And he has a history of exposure, does he not, air? a Yes. I And on tho-we have the history of having combo: of tumors removed, docs ha not? On page 16. A Yes. And on the computer printout of Scarbarry, ho?oi listed according to the interpretation you got from Dr.i Hortzbarg as having had lung cancer and bowcl cancer; it that correct, sir? i A Yes. I How, Doctor, when uo add to that list tho persons who have had a history of dxposuro that we have pravioualy gone over. from this list we have Raynolda, Rogers and Gorroll, all of whom have had history of exposure, and all of whom have cancer; is that corroct? wo'vo previously establiahad that. Nam HEINEMAN: Objection. your Honor. I don't think that?s boon provioualy established. MR. CARR: It has boon established, your.Houor.II THE COURT: Overrulfd. would you anouurtho question please, Doctor? i THE WITNESS: You're talking about just the first I 5 PENGID NJ. 02002 FORM. ll. Illfour? (By Mr. Carr) No. These bottom three. You said yes, they were exposed and yes, they had these cancers. A Right. Right. Doctor, we have here then listed in the group of 1 workers that were exposed, we have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven eight, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen on that page, nineteen, twenty, teenty-one, twenty-two, twenty; three, twenty-four, twenty-five, twenty-six, twenty-seren, twenty-eight, and we havelquestionable. So we have twenty- eight. That shows by the records that we have twenty-seven cancers, do we not, sir? A Yes. i And of those twenty?seven we had one, two, three, four, five, six-~five, not:eounting the questionable one-- six, seven, eight, ten, eleven, twelve,.thirteen, fourteen, fifteen skin cancers, with one questionsble. _Wb have one, two, three, four bladder cancers, do we not, sir? A Yes, sir. we have one, two, three, four bowel cancers, doiwe not, sir? A If one man has two tumors, you don't count twice. I nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen 107 Punish co.. anon?. woo: ronu IIone has lung cancer and bowel cancer. those are two surgeries, aren't they, air? A Only one man has the cancer. Oh, to be sure. But we are counting the numbe; of cancers. aren't we, Doctor? That's what I'm counting right now is the number of cancers. A A - is that A. A All right. Let?s say we had ebout four cancers. You think that's right? And we have leukemia one, and the prostate one; correct? 1 1 I don't see the leukemia. Where's that? Leukemia and prostate. Yes. Yes. That one in the same person. Non, Doctor, 1'11 hand you-?please mark this exhibit. (Plaintiff's exhibit 1473 wee marked for identification by the court reporter.) (By Mr. Carr) In a moment 1?11 hand you the exhibit. Referring to Table 1. DrciRoueh, for the exposed group of skin cancers, Dr. Suekind reports 3.9 percent having skin cancers. or 3.9 skin cancers. does he not, by history? .A Yes. 108 II. :43 FORM PENGID NJwhich would be eight skin canceis? A Yes. Yaa;b He reports aghaw cancers of 3.0, which would be six other cangara; correct. air? A For a total of cancers altbgathar. correct. ?ir. yea. How much cancers did we add up. Dr. Roush? Ha added up twanty-aavan. did WE not, sir? . ?l A 2&5. i - And he reported ghat Tabla 1 only with regard to fourtaan, didn't he. sirg MR. HEIREHAH: Objaction. your Honor. The table is ciegr. This is a misiaading quaation.\ The table is I clear that it's a percentaga of pacpla. Ha's reportipg peopla. and ha'a reported number of malignancies. That's not saws thing. THE COURT: Objection-- I (By Mr. Carr) How many-people had skin cancef? THE COURT: Objection is ov?rrulad. THE F1_t&an. 1 (By Mr. Caxr) And how many gid ha report had skin cancer? A Eight a '1 I I Now, how can thaxa ba fifteen paopla with skid 109 FORM IL I. PINSID 60.. HIYONNL NJ. 03003 cancer, and a truthful and honest investigator report to the world at large that there's only eight that have skin cancer? A - I can't answer that. Well, the answer is obvious, Dr. Roush. If there? were fifteen people with skin cancer, he should report that there are fifteen exposed people with skin cancer, should he not, air? A Yes. But he reported only eight, didn?t he, sir? Yes. A Nearly fifty percent; isn't that correct, sir? A Yes. Doctor, how many other cancers did we have, other than skin cancers? Cancer of all sites except skin. A Well-- How many did he report? A Six. Fifty percent too light. How can a truthful and honest investigator report only six cancers from all other ?sites, when in fact there were twelve? . I A I can't answer that. -You can't answer that, Dr. Roush? A truthful, honest investigator would not and could not report six cancers of no . A ronu IL a 0,002 PENGAD other sites, when in fact there were twelve from his own records. There were twelye. Isn't that correct, air? A Yes. I reader cancers does he report Doctor, how many as being in the exposed group? There's a footnote at the bottom of the page there. i a Two. I How many bladder cancers were in fact, reported to him? - A One. I don't know--I've forgotten what the question mark was for. The one is for skin cancer. A I see. i This bladder cancer is five. we counted five, Dr. Roush. A Yes. And he reported two, didn't he, sir? A Yes. How can a truthful; honest investigator report only two bladder cancers when, in fact, there were five, sir? 1 A I don't know. He can't, can he, sir? .A I don't know. I don't know the explanation. 111 IL :45 FORM PENGID anaunzYou've seen the record and the history that th?ga". workers at Nitro reported to your paid investigator, Dr. Suakind, have you not, sir? we've gone through those' records, have we not? A Yes. Yes. And they reported?these various cancers to you investigator, didn't theyl sir? i 1 1 A Yes. But he did not inelude those in his Table 1, did he, sir? . A Not all of that. He had the knowledge because they gave him the knowledge, didn't he, air? A Yes. He then, having the knowledge, and he deliberately created this table, did he not, sir? A Yes. Then he intentionally mislead those that were gLing to rely on this tape, having the knowledge that these were, in fact, the cancers that were reported to him; isn't that correct, sir? A I don't know his efplanation to that. Doctor, he knew the facts, did he not, sir? A Yes, he did. I i :112 FORM IL 24 PENGID BIYONNE. NJ. 07002 reported soeething that was not the truth, didn't he, sir? A I don?t know. well, did he not report that there were only two bladder cancers, when, in fact, there were five? Did he not report that there were only two when, in fact, he knew from these records that.there were five? 1 A I don't know what his explanation is. my question is no? what his explanation is, bud my question is did he not know that there were five bladder cancers reported to him and he reported only two, that there were fifteen skin cancers reported to him and he reported sight? All these things are of record, indisputable record. They're in his records. He knew these things. How may leukemias did he report, sir? A I don't see that he recorded any. He did not. How many leukemias were reported to A One or four. One. The bowel is the four. And on the bowels, I on the colon cancer sir, how men bowel cancers were re~ . 1 ported to him? A No. I'm talking about here. No. That's what he reported to us. 113' PENGID BAYONNE. NJ. 0?00} FORH Yes. I wanted to know how many we reported to him. Five . No. It's four. Four, five. Five, four. How many did he report to us. sir? Shoebox)? Three. I He found one prostate cancer. and he reported one prostate cancer. didn't he, sir? A Yes. Now, turning for e- second to the so called unexposed group, sir, how many cancers were there in the unexposed group that he classified as unexposed that were found by the records to be unexposed? A None. How many did he report in this table that there were in the non-exposed group? A Again, he didn't report truthfully, did he, sir? A No. I hand you now manure 8 exhibit 1473 and aski you if that is a correct representation-dot me have 1473A and 14733. Give me two markers please-wstriRe that. 1473A and for now. 114 I ll. 14' NJ. 0?00! 70?? PINGIO exhibit 1473A and (Plaintiff's exhibits 1473A and 14733 were marked for identification by the court reporter.) (By Mr. Carr) Doctor, I've handed you what's been marked Plaintiff's exhibit 1473, I'll ask you if that is an accurate reproduction of the data that appears on what has now been marked Plaintiff's exhibit 1473A and B, with the exception that I don't have a question mark by McClanahan's skin cancer.: And let me put a question math on MtClanahan's skin canc?r. MR. HEINEMAN: Doiyou have a copy for us? MR. CARR: 0h, I'ml sorry. HR. What is this document numbered? MR. CARR: 1473. gee. (By Hr. Carr) Now, this is missing any degree of-- the twentyeeight is Gorrel'. I don't think it's in this exhibit. Yes, I need to put Gorrell in there. Let me put Mr. Gorrell's full name in there, if you would. I've only got part of it. Let me put the rest of it in there. Doctor, have you had an opportunity to check those against the A Yes. 1 And is it an accurate reflection of this exhibi? 1473A and .115 ll. 14' PENGIU NJ. 07003 FORM Yes. MR. CARR: I offer 1473. MR. HEINEMAN: Are you offering A and as well? MR. CARR: Yes; as well. THE COURT: _All three of them? MR. CARR: Yes, your Honor. i MR. Your Honor, I object to all thrbe of the documents. First of all. they' re based upon--pur- portedly to be based uponldooumentary evidence which we ?ve previously objected to onithe basis of lack of foundation. and as to these documents as well. since they' re based entirely on that, there's no foundation for their admission. They're based upon hearsay. There's no evidence about the criteria that Dr. Suskind used in categorizing these people. There's no evidence other than asking this witness to speculate about what Dr. Suskind did or did not mean. or what the document means or doesn't mean. and therefore. I object to it on absolutely no foundation being laid for its admission. THE COURT: I'll incorporate your prior argument as far as the foundation. I think that there is proper foinds- tion. and I?m offering your other objections. 1473, 1473A and 14733 are all admitted over objection. 116 PINGID BIYONNI. NJ. 0,001 F0834 CARR: could I havc 1473c, please? - 0-:1 . .. v. (Plaintiff's 14736 was marked for identification ?by the court reporter.) (By Mr. Carr) D+ctor, is 14736 an accurate ra- production blow?up of 1473 that you have in your hands there? - A Yes, sir. MR. CARR: I offar 14730, if it pleaac the Court. MR. HEINEMAN: The same objections as before, your 'Honor. com: Same ruling. Thank you. MR. CARR: I'll hhve to have the jury's back;'bccauae the question mark is not on tho McClanahan entry. Plaintiff's exhibit 1474 was marked for identification by tho court reporter.) (By Mr. Carr) Doctor, I hand you now'what'a been marked Plaintiff's exhibit 1474, and ask you if that ciao accurately reflects the data shown on 14-? MR. HEINEMAN: What are wo doing now? I MR. CARR: I'm.putting this label over a mianumberod 117 :43 rzucno co.. anon-Ht. rm. one: EoLaccuratc blow-up of exhibit 1474? label. (By Mr. Carr) Now, Doctor, you haven't got your copy yet, Counsel. This is exhibit 1474 that you now have, showing tho data in 1473A.and B. i A I haVa looked at this. - my question is does it accurately reflect the data shown in 1473A and B2 1 A Yos. . MR. CARR: I.offer 1474 into evidence, your Honor. MR. HEINEMAN: Object to it, your Honor, on the same- grounds that we objected td 1473A.and B, and tho documcnta upon which they were based. THE COURT: Fine. Chose objections are incorporated. It's admitted over objectiJn. MR. CARR: hay I have another listed at 1474A, please? (Plaintiff's exhibit 147?A?was marked for -ident1?ication by the court reporter.) (By Mr. Carr) Doctor, doca axhihit 1474A, is it an A Yas. MR. CARR: I offer l474A. MR. HEINEMAN: Sana objection-- 118 PENGID HITONNE.. N.J. 0?00} FORM THE com: Same ruling. MR. HEINEMAN: -was to 1474, your Honor. THE .1'11 incorporate those. The same ruling. (By Mt. Carr) Doctor, 1475 reports only twenty- aeven.canoars. instead o? twentyueight, as shown, and this I. _can be accounted for. or?it will accurately reflect because we have left out by insduertante the questionable skin cancer. All right. wa4 Doctor, the affect??you are shaking your head for the record. You meant to say yes, did you not? A Yes. Q. All right. Doctor, this work study done by Mbnaanto= relating to these various workers, this morbidity study, you announced that to the world at.large with a considerable amount of fanfare, and you had it published, believe. in your Journal of the American medical the dost wide read medical publication. did you not. air? A No, sir. . MR. HEINEHAN: Let me object-~object, please. gLet no object to the form of the question. He said the atde was done by Monsanto. andyobvioualy it wosdt. It was done I by Dr. SMkind. MR. Done by Suekind for Monsanto.' ?w I 11:9 Suskind. was it not, sir? MR. 33mm. Paid for jointly by moss. MR. CARR: He test fied that it was a stud!, 1 they gave the laboratory that was set up, they gave the data. MR, HEINEMAN: Ho was RIOSH and ansant and I- objeot to the statement inl?r. Carr's question obviousl intended to mislead the jury. THE COURT: Objection is overruled. Proper. 1 the question please. Dr..Roush. Answer THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, would you repeat the question. (At this time the previous question was read back by the court reporter.) The answer is no. (By Mr. Carr) Nb. Which part of the question that I asked you do you disagree with? .A It was not our study. It was Sunkind's study. What you're saying is that with my characterization that it was Mbnsanto's study? A Yes, sir. we have established that it was done under contract .A Yes. 120. PENGID (0.. BITONNL NIJ. 0?00! [02Entered into a contract with Suskind to do that study, did you not. air? A Yes. And you agreed under that contract to pay him certain amount of money for each worker examined, did you not, air? . 1 . And you paid him'tor each worker examined, did you A Yes. not, sir? A Yes, sir. And you agreed under that-contract.to give him all the datafthat ho neodod to conduct that study, to cooperate in every way, did you not. sir? A Yes, sir. i And you furnished him employees to perform that study. work with him on study. did you not, air? 1A Yes. sir. A large number of:employoes, did you not, air? A Yes I 3' And those omploycos that worked on this study with Dr. Suakind were paid by Monsanto, were they not, sir71 A Yes. And he sent the draft to you for approval, did he not, sir? 121 PENGIO 50.. anonut. NJ. 03003 did not. He didn't send-~did be send the draft to you prior to the time it was published? 2 A not the final report, he did not send us. He didn't send you?-hs sent you draft reports? A Draft reports, but not of the final. He sent you draftjreports, and you made comments and suggested changes to 1him, did you not, sir? A Yes. And he incorporated your suggested changes, did he not, sir? A I'm not sure he did in the final report. well, have you checked it? A No. Doctor, you made suggested changes to him. How many drafts did you see before the final draft was published? A 1 don't know. One or two. Doctor, your employees were studied,'hs had access to all of your confidential and other plant records, he had a number of your employessiworking with him, he was paid for his examination, you sun the and made suggested changes in the draft reports, all before it was published, how such 1 more-- and it was done under contract with 1 much more do you need before you consider that it is 122 ll. 2?3 promo amount. N.J. orooz roan Monsanto study? What more do you need before you can call p. it yours, sir? A I need access to these records that wt didn't get to sec._ Have to have access to his computer program that I we didn't get to see. Doctor, all these records were sent to your attorney, paid by your attorney, were they not, sir? MR. HEINEMAN: Obqection, your Honor. new, whit a minute. First of all, he cut the witness off while he was in the middle of answering the question. (By Mr. Carr) Did you have more to say? MR. HEINEMAN: Ye I do. THE COURT: No, no, no. Whit a second. I didn't think you cut him off. Dohtor, did you have more to say? THE WITNESS: we were not permitted to look at the records. He wouldn't let us see them. He wouldn't let us look at the definition of exposure. and he had a contract with the workers that he was not going to theseE records. (By Hr. Carr) Where is that contract. Doctor? I A That?s what he told the people when he went to see them. He told the people that he had a contract, that he wasn't going to show it to Mbnsanto? 12'3 II. no PENGAD BIIYONHE. NJ. 03002 FORM physician/patient privilege with respect to those records, A That's right. Doctor, have you ever heard of such a thing.in your life? Have you ever seen such a contract? Who told you that? A He told me that. He told you that he had a contract-- A Not a contract. --with the workers? A He toldthem that he would not let us see the records, and he did not. He told them that he would not let you See the records? A That's right. Dr. Roush, I have docueent dealing with that subject that I'll bring tohorrow. I don't have it here. But we'll examine that sta.ement as well, how that came about. But in point of fact, he gave you these records when your attorney requested them, did he not, sir? MR. HEINEMAN: Your Honor, let no object to that. Mr. Carr knows that Dr. Suskind exercised or asserted 1 and this Court overruled that privilege and ordered those records produced, and pursuant to that. they were sent over to us and we gave them to_Mr. Carr. Now, he knows that's 124 (10.. BAYONNE. NJ. 0?00! FOIH IIyou may proceed. what happened. MR. CARR: Now,'wc will correctly state what occurredJ Counsel. The first records that were given were given in the Federal Court to the attorney's Love. et a1, and you'll see the documents there in which the Federal Court told Monsanto they could not use the results of this study unless Monsanto came up with the data. Because of that condition, I I - Mbnsanto then went to Dr. Suskind and Dr. Suskind agreed to give the data.. This Court did exactly the same thing, told Mbnsanto--this Court has no jurisdiction over Dr. Suskind He is in Ohio. He is not in Illinois. This Court told ansanto that if you want to use the Suskind report, you had better get the data to plaintiff's counsel, and with that having occurred, Monsanto went to Dr. Suskind and said, "give us the data." Dr. Stakind gave you the data. That is an exact statement of what occurred. MR. HEINEMAN: I think my statement is exact. THE COURT: The objection is overruled. Mt. Carr. (By Mr. Carr) Now, Doctor, did you ever request of Dr. Suskind the data, other than under the circumstances that I have suggested occurred? A. Yes. And when did yen do that, sir? 125 II. :43 FORM (0.. BQVONNE. NJ. 03003 When we got-~a11 through the time he was working up the data, from 1979 until last year. we asked him if we could see the data. He said no, because-- MR. HEINEMAN: Objection, your Honor. Will the witness be allowed to answer the question? (By Mr. Carr) Do you have it in writing, sir? 1 THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Carr. THE WITNESS: Why would I get it in writing? (By Mr. Carr) So you'd have a record oi it so when I challenged the circumstance under which that statement was made, you'd have some groof that what you're saying 3 accurate. A This was done longibefore there was a lawsuit. Doctor, I suggest to you that it was not done long before there was a lawsuit. If you'll check the records, it, your morbidity study was published in 1984. This law- suit had been on file for a year prior to that time. MR. HEINEMAN: Objection, your Honor. All Hr. Carr has to do is look at the dates on the interview forms and he'll know when the study began. That's an absolutely his- leading question, or a statement, or whatever it is, andgl object to it. THE COURE: The objection is overruled. 126 PENGAD (0.. BAYONNE. H.J. 0,002 .FORH (By Mt. Carr) Doctor, did you ever request the record of Suakind in writing? A Hes. In writing? A No. You don't do it with someone you knOW?well; do you know Dr. Suakind? A I?ve known him forzyeara. . And he's worked in[cooperation.with Monsanto eince the initial Nitro accident, hasn't he, air? Close coopera- tion with Mbnsanto. Since 1949. A Yes, sir. He has worked regularly and frequently in Mbnoanto since '49, and all through these studies. He's been involved. in all these studies, haan'it he, air? A Yes. HR. HEIHEMAN: Letlme object to the form of the question, your Honor, inao?ar as it uses the term regularly 'with no definition. It's misleading and it's indefinite. THE COURT: Objection is overruled. Proper question. (By my. Carr) Dr. Fouah, you at Honsanto have used this report to announce to the world through the Journal of the American Medical Aaaociation that at least insofar 3% cancer is concerned, that there were only half as many cancers as in fact occurred; have you not, sir? 127 IL Ill PENGID C0.. NJ. 0,002 Ara you talking about cancers or people? Talking about cancers, air. A, He talks about people. not concern. I'm.talking about cancers. H18 tabla talks about cancers. A No, he talks about people. Does the tabla tal%--doaa it llat the number of cancers or not, air? I A. It's people. i Excuse no. Could ion look at tho tabla and see whether it describes cannons. Does it talk about in tho group, bladder cancer. two? Does it talk about akin oancar? Dona it number the canoara, air? A No. Do you read at the bottom of the page thara. employees bladder cancer reported two." .A Yes. And.how many bladder cancers were there, sir? Theta were five. A. Five. 1 I. 1 I i How, Doctor, he has said there were only flva--onhy two--waa ha saying thorn wane only two people that had bladdar cancer? How'many people had bladder cancer? Five paopla had bladder cancer. 128 PENGIO NJ. 07001 FORM Yes. Some of them may hays had more than one cancer. But we've only counted the bladder cancer. They'ne had the skin cancer, perhaps, five times. Some of these people have five skin cancers. we've only counted that once. He's counted them once: How many people had bladder cancers? A Five. i And how many people did he report that hadlbladder cancers? A Two. 1e11, now, 1200.1:on he didn't tell the truth, did he, sir? He told to the world that there were only two bladder cancers, only two people with bladder cancer when in fact there were five. He told khe world that there were only eight skin cancers, eight people with skin cancer. How many people, in fact, had skin cancer?' Fifteen had skin cancer. Fifteen people had skin cancer. How many people did- he report had skin cancer, air? A i Eight. well now, Doctor, he told the world that only eight people had'skin cancer when he knew that only-~that fifteen had-?and possibly sixteen had skin cancer. New, Doctor 1 this is being used, this study goes all around the world, doesn't it, sir? FORM IL 14 I PENGAD BQYONNE. N.J. 0,002 Yes, sir. This study, wherever dioxin is of concern to human beings-- A Yes, sir. -?this study goesiaround and people, doctors go to court because this was,published in an authoritative magazine, that the American Medical Association journal published this table, and so it is accepted as evidence in every single court in this country, and I don't know where else around the world, but every single court where some person comes up and says I was exposed to dioxin and I got bladder cancer, or I got skin cancer, or I got bowel cancer. This study can be used to show-?well, here, look at it. Out of Honsanto, the people working there, only two people had bladder cancer, or eightpeople had skin cancer. It can be used to persuade juries that dioxin doesn?t cause cancer. It can be used in every single--it can be used in the Viet Nah cases to show that dioxin doesn't cause cancer. Doctor, it is a total fraud. Now, Doctor, you know the extent that this can be used for, i i you not, sir? I i I MR. HEINEHAN: I object, your Honor, to that speech. I don't know whether he ought to have a brass band or some violin accompaniment. 130 BIYONHE. NJ. 01001 FORM IL Illthat a fraud to say-- MR. CARR: I wish.ue would have some. How can you sit there and see this thing-- HEINEMAN: Hay I say my objection after you?ve given your jury argument? I object to this as nothing but a speech. It has nothing to do with the following question. It's obviously a jury summation and I object to it. I ask that it be strikan. and I ask that the jury ba instruct?d to disregard it. your Honor. THE COURT: The jury--the question was a proper] question. Your objection is overruled. In the future, I would appreciate your objeotion to be made on the basis of the legal point that you are making. Ht. Carr. you may proceed. (By Mr. Carr) Doctor. do you not agree that this is indeed a fraud. this study relating the cancer is indeed a fraud? A. No. I'd like to hear what Dr. Sunkind says. Doctor, you have read what Dr. Suskind says. you have read whore he recorded eight skin cancers when there were fifteen raportad to him. You'va.seen that, sir. Isn?t A. No. --that one thing is true when, in fact, something else is true? Isn't that a fraud, sir? . 131? FOII II. N. 03002 '15:ch C0 unit-lust l0 l7 [8 I9 23 24 There are five-- Excuse me, sir. Answer that question. 3-0 N03 M. Isn't it a fraud for no to tell you one thing when I know that something else is the truth? Isn't that fraudu- lent, sir? A Yes. Now, Doctor, this study, you know, you have been involved in these cases involving dioxin since you started working for Honsanto, have you, air? A No. I started in about '77. Will, since '77 then. 13 that eight years now to A Yes. You know the power that these studies have. Dr. Suskind. from the University of Cincinnati, the Kettering Institute, dermatologists who has knowledge had an expert on dioxin, in all kinds of circles, that Monsanto has had working on probably--working the earliest scientists, work- ing on dioxin cases in the United States, since 1949, and he reports sonathing to be the case when the facts are some- thing else. You know. do you not know. Doctor. that what he says in this table will be used to support arguments that the dioxin does not cause these cancers? 132 PENGID (0.. NJ. 0,002 '08??ertzberg or Suskind, rather, was not reporting these, was A Yes . Doctor, have you advised the workers at Nitro--strike that. Did you have any discussion with--I think you've already stated that you had no discussion with Zack when she left out the cancers that we have previously shown in her report. Did you have any discussion with Dr. Suskind or Dr. Hertzberg, other than the discussion you had today about their omissions of cancers? A No. i Doctor, when you talked to Dr. Hertzberg today, you knew already, and we have gone through a number of these cases already, and you knew the point I was making in regard to these large number of cancers that existed that were not reported, did you not, sir? A Yes, sir. Did you ask Hertzberg for an explanation at that time, air? A No. Dr. Roush, didn't it concern you that you saw here that these medical records show histories of cancers and not reporting them in the articles that it published? Didn't it concern you, air? A Yes. 133. PINGID BAYONNE. 03001 FORM IIWhy didn't you ask them about it?_ A we didn't have enough time. Doctor, will you agree that leaving out fifty percent--he reporte fourteen and we?ve got twenty-eight.? Do you agree that you couldn't leave out fifty percent~by accident? A They didn't leave out fifty percent by accident. They reported fougteen. we've got twenty-eight. That's fifty percent they deft out. They were a hundred percent in error. Twenty-eight is twice fourteen, 13 it not, sir? i A Yes. But that ienrt what they've done. Doctor, they reported fourteen cancers in the er- posed group, didn't they, eir? A Yes. sir. And we have diecoer twenty-eight cancers in the exposed group, haven't we. air? A. Yea. Teentyfeeven, if you omit MtClenahan. Haven't 11!? A That's whet'e listed there. . i Now. can you leave out fifty percent by eccidenJ, Doctor? A. They purposely left out five; If they have onlyl; PENGAD BAYONNE. NJ. 01001 ll. Illone who gets'oancer, they only count it one cancer, not two for each male that had the cancer. Why wouldn't they report the bladder cancer? They're reporting them separately. If they're just reporting all cancers you might be correct. But they reported separately tie number of skin cancers. A Yes. They made that a starate category. Now. obviously ??lz had skin cancer, and he should.be in that skin cancer category, shouldn't he, air? .A But they told.me--i 'Qv' Excuse me, air. He had skin cancer and he should have been included in the skin cancer category, shoulant he, sir? I MR. HEINEMAN: Let me object to this as calling for:- THE WITNESS: I don't know the purpose. HEINEHAN: Doctor. please lat.mc make my . objection. I'd like to object on the grounds that it's. calling for this witness to speculate as to what is in Dr. Suskind's mind. This witness has already testified in this Court he had nothing to do with the preparation of this material. He had never seen the documents or the reports before, and, therefore, I object to it as calling for speculation. 135' LII Dull" IL NJ. 0'0 naruunl. "new THE COURT: Objection is overruled. I don't think the question?- (By Hr. Carr) Could you answer that question. Doctor, so we can recess for the day? A They decided-- Excuse me, Doctor: my question is Edward Vols had skin'cancer and it should have been reported, should itlnot, air? It should be included in the group that had skin cancer, shouldn't he, sir? A I'm not sure. Is there anything in the documents to suggest to you that they should have not reported skin cancer that the man had? What-?is there a footnote there that says "Volz had skin cancer and bladder cancer and so we decided to just count the bladder cancer?" But, of course, they didn't count the bladder cancer because they only counted two of 1hose when in fact there were five; isn't that correct. sir? I Isn't that correct? A Is which correct, about the bladder cancer? Yes. i A Yes, sir. i And there's nothing to suggest in this table that they reported that one person may have had two cancers, is there, sir? 136 ail PENGAD BIYONNE. NJ. 0?00They didn't state that. They.ehou1d have. MR. Your honor, this is a convenient place for ma. THE COURE: Fine? Ladies and gentlemen, as I told you, we were going to break at three this afternoon. So we'll do that at this time. we'll resume again tomorrow morning at nine. Besides your regular admonishments, remember that you are not to listen to, read or watch any- thing about this case. in particular the subject matter in general. we'll resume at nine o'clock. Thank you. Court is adjourned. (Court adjourned) 137 n. he a: A FENGID (0.. BIVONNE. 0?00! FORM 24. COUNTY OF ST, CLAIR certify that the foregoing; transcript: of proceedings is a ?had before the: Honorable 12'1on r. Goldenhersh, Judge. STATE OF ILLINOIS 1, mm w. 3mm, Can, RPR, Official Court Reporter in and for the menucth Judicial Circuit, do. hereby true and accurate record of the proceedings had in the case of: Frances '13. Kenm?er, er. a1 v. Monsanto Company, case number 80-L-97O had on the 9th day of July, 1985. These proceedings 1 .. Dated this. lg'?Ndsy of July. 1985. OFFICIAL COURI REPORTER KATHLEEN 331mm, csn, RPR 15$ 2 )1 . 1: (STATE or ILLINOIS . 2 COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR 4 I I . I. I, HONORABLE RICHARD P. GOLDENHERSH, Circuit Judge 6 1n and for the Judicial Circuit, do hereby certify I, 7 that the foregoing transcript of proceedings is a Etruc and - .. 3 accurate record of the proceedings had in the case of: 9 Furnaces E. Kenna-?c, at al v. Monsanto dompany, case number 10 haduonzithe 9th day of Jul-3}, 1985. '11: Dated of July, 1985Iz?: 16 :17 19- '21- - I I I gza. CIRCUIT COURI OF THE TWENTIEJB JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ST. CLAIR COUNTY. ILLIHOIS FRANCES E. KENNER. ET AL., Plaintiffs. VI HO. 80-L-970 MONSARTO COHPANY. Defendant. REPORT OP PROCEEDINGS July 22, 1985 Before the HONORABLE RICHARD P. GOLDENEZRSH. Circuit Judge APPEARANCES: 14:. cum and :43. Juan: 5216133113. Attorneya at Lav, on Behalf of the Plaintiffs: and In. IINNETE and MR. 305223 NASSIP on Behalf of the Defendant, Monsanto Company. Kathleen Watson Brunanann Official Cougt Reporter 000235