Appendix — Jones v. Georgia Pacific Corp.
Supreme Court brief1998
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
i,
‘ A) Supreme Court, U.S,
FILED
98S COS iury 1%
In The
Supreme Court of the United” States
October Term, 1998
*
CLEO JONES, et al.,
FRANCIS PATRICK NORWOOD, et al.,
JAY OTIS MeKELLIPS, et al.,
JERRY PAUL TERRY, et al.,
Petitioners,
VS.
GEORGIA PACIFIC CORPORATION, et al.,
Respondents.
[Four Cases]
+
On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari Or,
In The Alternative, Writ Of Mandamus And/Or
Prohibition To The United States Court Of
Appeals For The Eleventh Circuit
+
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR,
IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
AND/OR PROHIBITION, and APPENDIX
VOLUME II, PAGES H-1 TO I-61
.
ALAN B. Ricu, Esa.
(Counsel of Record)
BARON & Bubb, P.C.
3102 Oak Lawn Avenue,
Suite 1100
Dallas, Texas 75219
(214) 521-3605
Attorneys for the Petitioners
COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO., (800) 225-6964
OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831
H-1
APPENDIX H
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
CLEO JONES, Individually and §
as Personal Representative of §
the Heirs and Estate of ISAIAH §
JONES, JR., Deceased, ET AL., §
Plaintiffs, : CIVIL ACTION
VS. § FILE NO.
GEORGIA PACIFIC S
CORPORATION (successor to §
BESTWALL GYPSUM §
COMPANY), ET AL.; ;
98-CV-745
Defendants. ~
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER
DENYING REMAND, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
FOR CERTIFICATION. UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1292(B)
COME NOW all plaintiffs in the above-styled and
numbered case, and respectfully move the Court to
reconsider its order denying remand entered April 27,
1998. In the alternative, plaintiffs respectfully urge the
Court to certify its order denying remand for immediate
interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
Because a suggestion that these cases should be
transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is
pending before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litiga-
tion, and because tramsfer [sic] would be improper if this
H-2
Court does not have removal jurisdiction over the case,
plaintiffs request expedited consideration of this motion.
Respectful!y submitted,
BARON & BUDD
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
The Centrum
Suite 1100
3102 Oak Lawn Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75219
(214) 521-3605
FAX: (214) 520-1181
By: /s/ Brent M. Rosenthal
Brent M. Rosenthal
Texas State Bar No. 17281075
AND
DOFFERMYRE, SHIELDS, CANFIELD,
KNOWLES & DEVINE
Suite 1600
1355 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
By: /s/ Kenneth S. Canfield
Kenneth S. Canfield
Georgia State Bar No. 10774
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
H-3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
CLEO JONES, Individually and §
as Personal Representative of
the Heirs and Estate of ISAIAH
JONES, JR., Deceased, ET AL.,
CIVIL ACTION
Plaintiffs, FILE NO.
: 98-CV-745
VS.
GEORGIA PACIFIC
CORPORATION (successor to
BESTWALL GYPSUM
COMPANY), ET AL.;
MMMM MM MM MM GN Ww)
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER
DENYING REMAND, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
FOR CERTIFICATION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1292(B)
On March 9, 1998, Defendant General Motors Corpo-
ration (“GMC”) removed this action to this Court on the
basis of diversity of citizenship, despite the presence of
Georgia-Pacific Corporation as a local defendant, on the
theory that plaintiffs’ answers to interrogatories estab-
lished that plaintiffs had fraudulently joined Georgia-
Pacific and that the case was therefore properly remov-
able under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Plaintiffs filed an emergency
motion for remand, pointing out that their interrogatory
answers, although arguably uninformative, did not estab-
lish that plaintiffs had “no possibility” of recovering from
Georgia-Pacific Corporation under their product liability
H-4
or civil conspiracy theories. On April 27, 1998, the Court
overruled plaintiffs’ motion for remand based on its
observation that “the plaintiffs have come forward with
no specific factual allegations against Georgia-Pacific
whatsoever,” Order at 6, and on its determination that
“conspiracy itself is not a tort under Georgia law.” Id. at
fe
The Court should rescind its order, and should
remand these cases to Georgia state court immediately,
for three reasons.
First — although the law regarding removal and
“fraudulent joinder” does not require them to do so -
plaintiffs have attached to this motion the precise factual
basis for their indisputably actionable allegations that
they were injured by exposure to Georgia-Pacific
asbestos-containing products. This documentation estab-
lishes beyond question that the allegations of each plain-
tiff’s exposure to Georgia-Pacific products were not only
not “fraudulent,” but were viable at the time that they
were made.
Second, should the Court choose not to consider the
evidence submitted with this motion, the Court should
reconsider its denial of remand because the Court did not
apply the correct burden of proof in accepting GMC’s
claim of fraudulent joinder. The law in the Eleventh Cir-
cuit, and nationwide, places the burden on defendants to
establish fraudulent joinder, not on the plaintiffs to
defend the viability of their suit against the local defen-
dant. Neither the nonspecific nature of the complaint
itself, nor plaintiffs’ method of responding to premature
: H-6
overt act by one of the co-conspirators in furtherance of
the conspiracy injured the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs clearly
made the necessary allegations in their complaints, and
these allegations should defeat any contention that Geor-
gia-Pacific has been fraudulently joined.
Finally, in the event that the Court declines to recon-
sider its order denying remand, plaintiffs ask the Court to
certify the order for permissive interlocutory appeal!
under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
I. THE EVIDENCE ATTACHED TO THIS MOTION
SHOWS THAT THE COURT ERRED IN CONCLUD-
ING THAT PLAINTIFFS “FRAUDULENTLY
JOINED” GEORGIA-PACIFIC.
As shown below, plaintiffs continue to maintain that
GMC did not bear their heavy burden of demonstrating
that plaintiffs fraudulently joined Georgia-Pacific in this
litigation. Plaintiffs’ product liability allegations, while
nonspecific, did not itself indicate that the claim against
Georgia-Pacific lacked factual or legal merit, and plain-
tiffs’ answers to interrogatories did not estabiish or sug-
gest that plaintiffs would be unable, following an
adequate time for discovery, to prove that they were
exposed to and injured by defective Georgia-Pacific prod-
ucts. The Court should have granted plaintiffs’ emer-
gency motion to remand on the record before it.
Nevertheless, plaintiffs attach documentation of each
plaintiff's exposure to Georgia-Pacific products —- in the
form of either a complete work history sworn to by the
individual plaintiff, or an attorney’s affidavit indicating
with specificity the evidence of Georgia-Pacific exposure
a ieaenaeiatiiniaitilaeeninneniena iam
H-7
that plaintiffs’ counsel expects to develop - to this mem-
orandum, along with a chart summarizing the evidence
of Georgia-Pacific exposure for each plaintiff. The infor-
mation attached to this motion for reconsideration con-
firms that the product libility claims asserted against
Georgia-Pacific in the original complaint were not fraud-
ulent or factually baseless. Plaintiffs reiterate that they
should not be required to come forward with such infor-
mation to defeat GMC’s allegation that plaintiff fraudu-
lently joined Georgia-Pacific in this litigation, but
Produce it to demonstrate that-their product liability
claims against Georgia-Pacific are clearly viable. The
information attached to this memorandum absolutely
precludes a finding that there is “no possibility” that
plaintiffs can recover on their product liability theories
against Georgia-Pacific. The Court should therefore
reconsider and reverse its finding that plaintiffs fraudu-
lently joined Georgia-Pacific, and should remand these
cases to the circuit court of Fulton County, Georgia for
disposition on the merits.
Il. THE COURT ERRED IN SHIFTING THE BURDEN
TO PLAINTIFFS TO ESTABLISH THAT GEOR-
GIA-PACIFIC WAS NOT FRAUDULENTLY
JOINED IN THESE CASES.
Plaintiffs also urge the Court to reconsider its conclu-
sion that remand should be denied because plaintiffs
“presented no facts whatsoever to show that they have a
cause of action against Georgia-Pacific.” Order at 7. In the
Eleventh Circuit, as in every other circuit, the burden is
not on plaintiffs to present facts Showing that they have a
cause of action, but on defendants to show by “clear and
H-8
convincing evidence” that plaintiffs do not have a cause of
action. El Chico Restaurants, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and
Surety Co., 980 F. Supp. 1474, 1478 (S.D. Ga. 1997). The
Eleventh Circuit has made clear that the focus is on the
plaintiffs’ complaint, not on the plaintiffs’ ability to prove
the allegations in the complaint: “If there is even a possi-
bility that a state court would find that the complaint states
a cause of action against any one of the resident defen-
dants, the federal court must find that joinder was proper
and remand the case to state court.” Crowe v. Coleman, 113
F.3d 1536, 1538 (11th Cir. 1997) (emphasis added), quoting
Coker v. Amoco Oil Co., 709 F.2d 1433, 1440-41 (11th Cir.
1983). Only after defendants make an initial showing that
plaintiffs cannot prevail — such as showing that plaintiffs’
complaint does not allege a viable cause of action! or
presenting facts afttirmatively showing that plaintiffs’
allegations could not be true,? - do plaintiffs need to
respond with an evidentiary showing supporting their
claims.
1 See, e.g., Cabalceta v. Standard Fruit Co., 883 F.2d 1553,
1561-62 (11th Cir. 1989) (affirming finding that defendant had
been fraudulently joined under Florida law, because Florida did
not recognize alter ego theory alleged by plaintiffs; reversing,
however, because district court did not consider whether Costa
Rica law applied and viability of theory under Costa Rica law).
2 See, e.g., El Chico Restaurants, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and
Surety Co., 980 F. Supp. 1474, 1477-81 (S.D. Ga. 1997) (finding
fraudulent joinder in case alleging wrongful conduct in Georgia
because defendants submitted affirmative, unrebutted proof
that non-diverse defendant did not issue any policy covering
Georgia risks and did not engage in any conspiracy regarding
Georgia rates).
arr eeseenieneenenseinaeees
Sr ats ct de Ge A 0
H-9
In this case, the defendants did not dispute that
plaintiffs’ complaint stated a viable cause of action
against Georgia-Pacific. See Notice of Removal at 3 (from
the complaint itself, “the case did not appear remov-
able”). Indeed, if removal is based to any degree on
deficiencies in plaintiffs’ complaint, the removal was
untimely, because GMC concededly removed the case
more than 30 days after it was served with the complaint.
28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Thus, the “shotgun approach” and
“careless draftsmanship” in the complaint condemned by
the Court (Order at 4 & n.2) do not provide a basis for
finding that plaintiffs’ cannot recover from, and therefore
fraudulently joined, Georgia-Pacific.
Defendants’ only showing that plaintiffs fraudulently
joined Georgia-Pacific, then, is the plaintiffs’ refusal, or
plaintiffs’ interrogatory answers — even if characterized
as unresponsive, evasive, or an outright abuse of discov-
ery — do not establish that their claims cannot ultimately
be proved, particularly in the absence of any order compelling
discovery or the expiration of a discovery deadline. Any inad-
equacy in plaintiffs’ discovery responses can be remedied
through motions to compel. Careless or inadequate
responses to discovery do not confer federal jurisdiction.
To be clear, plaintiffs are not taking the position that a
plaintiff in an asbestos case could invariably defeat fed-
eral jurisdiction by merely alleging exposure to the prod-
ucts of the local defendant. Removal might have been
appropriate here if GMC had come forward with proof
that plaintiffs could not have been exposed to Georgia-
H-10
Pacific's product because, for example, Georgia-Pacific’s
products were manufactured after the period of plaintiffs’
exposure or Georgia-Pacific’s products could not have
reached the locations where plaintiffs were exposed. But
GMC has not attempted to make such a showing, because
they could not do so. Georgia-Pacific is a routine defen-
dant in asbestos litigation across the country, and has
sold asbestos products since the mid-1950’s. See Georgia-
Pacific’s Answers to Interrogatories attached to Emer-
gency Motion for Remand.
The Eleventh Circuit has expressly counseled that
“{iJn the remand context, the district court’s authority to
look into the ultimate merit of the plaintiff’s claims must
be limited to checking for obviously fraudulent or frivolous
claims.” Crowe, 113 F.3d at 1542 (emphasis added). The
very purpose of limiting the trial court’s inquiry in this
area is to ensure that the court is “certain of its jurisdic-
tion before embarking on a safari in search of a judgment
on the merits.” Id. at 1538. But the Court’s demand for
specific factual corroboration of plaintiffs’ general allega-
tions of exposure to Georgia-Pacific products in this case
is inconsistent with this limited role. There are scores of
similar asbestos cases pending in Fulton County, with
similar claims against Georgia-Pacific. Unless the Court
modifies the reasoning expressed in its order denying
remand, each of these cases will require the Court to
embark on a “safari,” scrutinizing detailed evidence simi-
lar to that attached to this motion, to determine whether
the plaintiffs have sufficiently documented their allega-
tions of exposure to Georgia-Pacific products to avoid a
finding that they fraudulently joined Georgia-Pacific as a
defendant. This time-consuming exercise is unauthorized
SA ei AE hii ti A NEBR LAER Ni RAL RE A NA IAI
H-il1
by the federal law governing removal as described by the
Eleventh Circuit in Crowe. So long as plaintiffs alleged a
viable claim against Georgia-Pacific (here, they indisputa-
bly did or else the removal was untimely) and so long as
the defendants have not shown that there is no meaning-
ful possibility that plaintiffs will be able to recover on
that claim (here, the defendants made no such showing),
plaintiffs’ choice of a state forum cannot be disturbed.
Ill. THE COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PLAIN-
TIFFS’ CIVIL CONSPIRACY ALLEGATIONS
AGAINST GEORGIA-PACIFIC ARE SO LACK-
ING IN FACTUAL OR LEGAL BASIS AS TO REN-
DER JOINDER OF GEORGIA-PACIFIC
“FRAUDULENT.”
The Court rejected plaintiffs’ alternative coritention
that their allegations that Georgia-Pacific is liable under
the theory of civil conspiracy precluded a finding of
fraudulent joinder, reasoning that “conspiracy itself is not
a tort under Georgia law.” Order at 7. While plaintiffs do
not dispute the Court’s statement in isolation, it is an
incomplete statement of Georgia’s law of conspiracy.
Although a conspiracy standing alone does not give rise
to a cause of action, a conspiracy, coupled with an overt
tortious act in furtherance of the conspiracy, does furnish
a cause of action against all co-conspirators; “the fact of
conspiracy, if proved, makes any actionable deed by one
of the conspirators chargeable to all.” Cook v. Robinson,
116 S.E.2d 742, 745 (Ga. 1960). As plaintiffs pointed out in
their reply in support of remand, the “actionable deed”
supporting liability under the conspiracy theory was the
tortious marketing of unreasonably dangerous asbestos
H-12
products by all of the co-conspirators. Reply at 5; see
complaint at ¥67(d) (alleging that defendants intended
“to induce the Plaintiffs to rely upon said false and fraud-
ulent representations, omissions, and concealments, to
continue to expose themselves to the dangers inherent in
the use of and exposure to Defendants’ asbestos-contain-
ing products”). The court “must evaluate these factual
allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and
must resolve any uncertainties about state substantive
law in favor of the plaintiff.” Crowe, 113 F.3d at 1538. The
Court erred in finding that plaintiffs’ allegations did not
state a claim for conspiracy against Georgia-Pacific under
Georgia law.
Moreover, it is far from certain that Georgia law
would govern plaintiffs’ conspiracy claims. Plaintiffs are
citizens of Alabama, and it is possible that Alabama sub-
stantive law will apply in these cases. Under Alabama
law, a defendant that is part of a conspiracy is liable for
torts committed by its co-conspirators in furtherance of
the conspiracy. Jones v. BP Oil Co., 632 So.2d 435, 439 (Ala.
1993). Plaintiffs’ original complaint clearly alleges facts
that would impose liability on Georgia-Pacific under Ala-
bama conspiracy law. See Original Complaint at [J 65-70
(alleging that all defendants, including Georgia-Pacific,
concealed and misrepresented medical information con-
cerning the hazards of asbestos, and that these acts prox-
imately caused plaintiffs’ injuries). Other jurisdictions,
applying the same law of conspiracy, have found that
asbestos companies (including, in one case, Georgia-
Pacific itself) were potentially liable to injured plaintiffs
under the conspiracy theory. See Central Wesleyan College
v. W.R. Grace & Co., 6 F.3d 177, 183, 187 (4th Cir. 1993)
H-13
(finding plaintiff’s conspiracy allegations against Geor-
gia-Pacific and other members of the asbestos industry
“non-frivolous” and holding that Georgia-Pacific and
other defendants were potentially liable based on plain-
tiff’s allegation that the defendants “cooperated and
assisted each other in the suppression and active conceal-
ment and misrepresentation of the relationship between
asbestos and various diseases as early as the 1930's”); see
also Adcock v. Brakegate, Inc., 645 N.E.2d 888, 891 (Ill. 1994)
(complaint alleging that asbestos manufacturer engaged
in a conspiracy “to suppress information about the haz-
ards of asbestos exposure and to assert positively claims
that the conspirators knew were false” stated “a legally
recognized cause of action”), and Nicolet, Inc. v. Nutt, 525
A.2d 146, 147 (Del. 1987) (holding that “a cause of action
exists against a party whose asbestos products did not
cause the purported injury, but who allegedly conspired
with other manufacturers to actively suppress and inten-
tionally misrepresent medical evidence warning of the
health hazards of asbestos”). In light of this precedent,
plaintiffs’ conspiracy allegations against Georgia-Pacific
cannot be characterized as “obviously fraudulent or friv-
olous,” Crowe, 113 F.3d at 1542, and require the Court to
remand the case to state court for resolution of these
legally viable claims against Georgia-Pacific on the
merits.
—_—
IV. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE COURT SHOULD
CERTIFY ITS ORDER DENYING REMAND FOR
IMMEDIATE INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL.
Should the Court decline to reconsider its order
denying remand, plaintiffs respectfully urge the Court to
H-14
certify its order for immediate interlocutory appeal pur-
suant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). That statute permits the
prosecution of an appeal of an interlocutory order if the
order “involves a controlling question of law as to which
there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion”
and if “an immediate appeal from the order may mate-
rially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.”
28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The order denying remand satisfies
both of these prerequisites. Plaintiffs respectfully submit
that there is a “substantial ground for difference of opin-
ion” on the “controlling question of law” of whether a
defendant may satisfy its heavy burden of proving fraud-
ulent joinder by alleging general deficiencies or omis-
sions in plaintiffs’ pleadings and discovery responses
without making an affirmative showing by “clear and
convincing evidence” that plaintiffs have “no possibility”
of prevailing on their claims against the local defendant.
And immediate review of an order denying remand “may
materially advance the ultimate termination of the litiga-
tion,” because reversal of an erroneous denial of remand
will terminate the case in federal court. The Eleventh
Circuit, as well as the other federal courts of appeals,
have routinely reviewed orders denying remand by per-
missive interlocutory appeal. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc.
v. Murphy Bros., Inc., 125 F.3d 1396, 1397 (11th Cir. 1997)
(accepting interlocutory appeal from order denying
remand); see also Carpenters Health and Welfare Trust Fund
for California v. Tri Capital Corp., 25 F.3d 849, 852 (“Where
a motion to remand is denied, the propriety of removal is
reviewable [(i)] on appeal from the final judgment or [(ii)]
by interlocutory appeal if the refusal to remand is certi-
fied.”). Plaintiffs urge the Court to permit interlocutory
H-15
review of its order accepting federal jurisdiction over this
case.
Respectfully submitted,
BARON & BUDD
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
The Centrum
Suite 1100
3102 Oak Lawn Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75219
(214) 521-3605
FAX: (214) 520-1181
By: /s/ Brent M. Rosenthal
Brent M. Rosenthal
Texas State Bar No. 17281075
AND
DOFFERMYRE, SHIELDS, CANFIELD,
KNOWLES & DEVINE
Suite 1600
1355 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
By: /s/ Kenneth S. Canfield
Kenneth S. Canfield
Georgia State Bar No. 10774
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
H-16
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
CLEO JONES, Individually and
as Personal Representative of
the Heirs and Estate of ISAIAH
JONES, JR., Deceased, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION
FILE NO.
ie 98-CV-745
GEORGIA PACIFIC
CORPORATION (successor to
BESTWALL GYPSUM
COMPANY), ET AL.;
Defendants.
MMMMMMMMmM Mm MM MN
AFFIDAVIT OF BRENT M. ROSENTHAL
STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF DALLAS §
BEFORE ME, the undersigned notary public in and for
the aforesaid county and state, personally appeared
BRENT M. ROSENTHAL, who, after being duly sworn by
me, on oath states:
“My name is BRENT M. ROSENTHAL. I am over 18
years of age and being of sound mind, am competent to
make this affidavit. I am an attorney with the firm of
Baron & Budd, P.C., counsel for plaintiffs. Along with
other counsel in the firm, I am participating in the litiga-
tion of the above-entitled and numbered proceeding. I
H-17
have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein, all of
which are true and correct.
"The attached chart reflects detailed information
compiled by the firm of Baron & Budd, P.C. supporting
each plaintiff’s allegation of exposure to asbestos-con-
taining products made and sold by Georgia-Pacific Cor-
poration. For most plaintiffs, the information on the chart
is corroborated by work history forms, based on the
plaintiffs’ own personal knowledge, verified by the plain-
tiff and attached to this affidavit, listing the jobsite, dates,
and asbestos products (including Georgia-Pacific prod-
ucts) to which the plaintiff was exposed. Where the chart
lists a co-worker, the plaintiff expects to demonstrate
exposure to Georgia-Pacific products at the specified
place and time through the testimony of the co-worker.
The information for each Plaintift from which the chart is
compiled is also attached to this affidavit. This prelimi-
nary exposure information indicates beyond question
that plaintiffs did not fraudulently join Georgia-Pacific
Corporation as a defendant in this litigation.”
ee ee
Further affiant sayeth naught.
By: /s/ Brent M. Rosenthal
BRENT M. ROSENTHAL
H-18
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me, on this
the 7th day of May, 1998, to certify which witness my
hand and seal of office.
(SEAL)
/s/ Phyllis G. Grauke
Notary Public in and for
the State of Texas
/s/ Phyllis G. Grauke
(Printed Name of Notary)
My Commission Expires:
12/31/98
_H-19
Jones.1 Group
Plaintiff Co-Worker Jobsite Common Years Georgia Pacific Product
Identified by euher the
Plainuff or Co-Worker
Annie Patton, dec’d William Mathers Brookley Field 1968-1973 All Purpose Joint Compound
Mobile, Alabama
Garland Woods Phillip Kelley Oak Grove Mines 1969-1977 Jout Compound
Re. Oak Grove, Alabama
Isiah Jones, dec'd Dannie Kennedy U.S. Steel 1941-1983 Jount Compound
Fairfield, Alabama
Claude M. Pike, dec'd | Guy Needham Anniston Army Depot 1962-1975 All Purpose Joint Compound
Sims Coats Richard Jackson Alabama State Docks 1953-1959 Jot Compound
Mobile, Alabama
Ruben Robinson Richard Jackson Alabama State Docks 1953-1962 Joint Compound
Mobile, Alabama
Nebraska Greer various sites for Tennesse Valicy 1960-1975 Jomt Compound
Authority see work history
Clayton L. Hall Redstone Arsenal 1965-1980 Jount Compound
Huntsville, Alabama
Barbara Hoffman personal residence 1961-1964 Jomnt Compound
through her father, James Edwards, dec’d, 1964-1967
at US. Steel in Fairfield, Alabama
George W. Raye James River Paper Mill 1960-1990 Jount Compound
Pennington, Alabama
Ray H. Hollingsworth various see attached work history 1963-1975 Jot Compound
mie Ju ~~ e. » - “~@ oe Ae
1 4 Y 4 ; , , 7 Pex:
§ = é bed > :
A _ a Pd S| ¥ * » P|
¥ :
; | : ° ‘ ‘ } t | é
‘ ; he Ps ; - : :
r 3 % ;
LA 4 re a
we “" 4
5 i : ;
’ i p<
4 * !
r ae
th
ae, »
d : 4 :
' - y
\
:
:
F
’
:
; ; ]
i
ee
i
P’
, ‘ . .
R d
F
‘
4 u) uf ,
ts: i
‘ j i
> *
é
rs
‘
;
‘
> 1 1
i
A, Ae i
ee ee ——— me 4 7
ee rare: Ne ny lt > i ot ait mt Ek ha bg - ee ko ae ee a ee > . ey 7 ee
ee ee ger Simei eee = = Se ee ee
a ed 6 ane ete ey Ey os ah I er A hg = —— — : pe em
a ew Pe wn at Wa ne = ? 2 aces eae i, a
H-20
Annie Patton, Dec’d
VERIFICATION
STATE OF Alabama
COUNTY OF Mobile
I, the undersigned, state under oath that I am the
Plaintiff in the above-entitled and numbered cause and
that the Supplemental Answers to Master Discovery
Requests (Work History) are within my personal knowl-
edge, and are true and correct to the best of my knowl-
edge.
/s/
EVELYN V. PATTON
Personal Representative of the
Heirs and Estate of
ANNIE KIRKSEY PATTON, Deceased
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, the
undersigned authority on the 5th day of May, 1998, to
which witness my official hand and seal of office.
My Commission expires: /s/ Mary Middleton
Notary Public in and for
td the State of Alabama
H-21
NAME: ANNIE PATTON, DECEASED
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Lear Siegler, Inc.
JOB SITE: Brookley Field
CITY, STATE: Mobile, Alabama
DATE OF JOB: 1968-1973
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: _ 5 years
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Stripper, Sprayer
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION ;
REPAIR ; or BOTH
WAS JOB INDOORS? .
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH
REASON FOR LEAVING:
WAGE RATE/HOUR:
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK:
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS:
ot ee
H-22
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLEs:
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO
FUMES YES NO
GASES YES NO
CHROMIUM YES NO
CADMIUM YES NO
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES
LIST:
NO
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: Nu:
See eee
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
SE Le ee ae ae ee
H-23
NAME: William B. Mathers, Sr.
NICKNAME: “Bill” “Billy”
GROUP NAME: Mathers. W
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER:
JOB SITE: Brookley Air Force Base
CITY, STATE: Mobile, Alabama
DATE OF JOB: 1942-1980
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB:
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Aircraft Engine Mechanic/Equipment Specialist
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION ;
REPAIR WORK ; or BOTH X
WAS JOB INDOORS? :
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH X
REASON FOR LEAVING: Retired
WAGE RATE/HOUR:
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
Bornis E. Johnson
Gerald Dixon
James R. Ray
Charles C. Ray
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES rae:
FUMES YES xX NO
GASES YES xX NO
CHROMIUM YES NO xX
CADMIUM YES NO xX
ANY OTHER PRODUCT syEs NO xX
|
LIST: Unknown
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: X NO:
(3M Mask - early 70's)
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
SEE ATTACHED LIST.
H-25
NAME: William B. Mathers, Sr.
NICKNAME: “Bill” “Billy”
GROUP NAME: Mathers. W
WORK HISTORY SHEET |
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED |
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND |
INSULATING CEMENT:
Vermont Asbestos 7M
Johns-Manville
Grefco
Quik-Set
Zonolite High Temperature
REFRACTORY CEMENT:
Plastic Chrome Ore xX
FIREPROOFING:
|
~ KK OK OK
Monokote Xx
GASKETS:
Armstrong
Garlock
Victor
ROPE PACKING:
Garlock X
PIPE COVERING: |
Unibestos X :
Pabco X
FIREBRICK: :
A.P. Green Xx
JOINT COMPOUND:
Georgia-Pacific All Purpose X
BOARDS AND PANELS:
Ruberoid
~ <<
H-26
Garland Woods
VERIFICATION
STATE OF Alabama
COUNTY OF Walker
I, the undersigned, state under oath that I am the
Plaintiff in the above-entitled and numbered cause and
that the Supplemental Answers to Master Discovery
Requests (Work History) are within my personal knowl-
edge, and are true and correct to the best of my knowl-
edge.
/s/
GARLAND EDWARD WOODS
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, the
undersigned authority on the 5th day of May, 1998, to
which witness my official hand and seal of office.
My Commission expires: /s/ Barbara Wilson
Notary Public in and for
oS the State of Alabama
H-27
NAME: GARLAND EDWARD WOODS
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Alabama Power Company
JOB SITE: Gorgas Steam Plant
CITY, STATE: Gorgas, Alabama
DATE OF JOB: —_ 1955-1959
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 3'/2 years
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Laborer
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION
REPAIR ;or BOTH X —
WAS JOB INDOORS? ;
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH xX
REASON FOR LEAVING:
Better Job
WAGE RATE/HOUR: Union Scale
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
H-28
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO xX
FUMES YES NO xX
GASES YES NO xX
CHROMIUM YES NO xX
CADMIUM YES NO X
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES NO xX
LIST:
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO: xX
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
H-29
NAME: GARLAND EDWARD WOODS
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: P.L. Winters Coal Co.
JOB SITE: Sipsey Mine
CITY, STATE: Sipsey, Alabama
DATE OF JOB: 1959
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 2 weeks
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Laborer
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION :
REPAIR WORK ; or BOTH X
WAS JOB INDOORS? :
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH X
REASON FOR LEAVING: Better Job
WAGE RATE/HOUR: Union Scale
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
ESN AOE LI IOTEOR I 2 TR TIS ct
H-30
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO X
FUMES YES _X NO
GSES YES X NO
CHROMIUM YES NO xX
CADMIUM YES NO X
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES xX NO
LIST: Unknown
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO: X
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
H-31
NAME: GARLAND EDWARD WOODS
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Natco Corp
JOB SITE: Cordova Brick Plant
CITY, STATE: | Cordova, Alabama
DATE OF JOB: 1959
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 4 months
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Laborer
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION ;
REPAIR ; or BOTH xX
WAS JOB INDOORS? __;
OUTDOORS? ;or BOTH X
REASON FOR LEAVING:
Better Job
WAGE RATE/HOUR: Union Scale
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
H-32
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO xX
FUMES YES NO xX
GASES YES NO xX
CHROMIUM YES NO xX
CADMIUM YES NO xX
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES NO xX
LIST:
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO: 4
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
H-33
NAME: GARLAND EDWARD WOODS
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Joy Manufacturing
JOB SITE: Mine — name unrecalled
CITY, STATE: Berry, Alabama
DATE OF JOB: 1959, 1963
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 2 weeks, 3 months
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Laborer
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION ;
REPAIR ; or BOTH X
WAS JOB INDOORS? -
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH X
REASON FOR LEAVING:
Better Job
WAGE RATE/HOUR: Union Scale
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
H-34
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO xX
FUMES YES NO xX
GASES YES NO xX
CHROMIUM YES NO xX
CADMIUM YES NO xX
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES xX NO
LIST: Unknown
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO: X
ce aD
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
H-35
NAME: GARLAND EDWARD WOODS
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Bell and Howell Company
JOB SITE: Lynn’s Plastic
CITY, STATE: Chicago, Illinois
DATE OF JOB: — 1960
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 2 months
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Shipping Department, Laborer
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION ;
REPAIR _;0r BOTH X_
WAS JOB INDOORS? ___;
OUTDOORS? __;o0r BOTH X __
REASON FOR LEAVING:
Better Job
WAGE RATE/HOUR: Union Scale
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
H-36
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO xX
FUMES YES NO xX
GASES YES NO xX
CHROMIUM YES NO xX
CADMIUM YES NO xX
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES NO xX
LIST: as
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO: Xx
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
Ab sj
H-37
NAME: GARLAND EDWARD WOODS
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Debardeleben Coal Corp.
JOB SITE: Riverbank Mines
CITY, STATE: Tuscaloosa, Alabama
DATE OF JOB: 1960-1961
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 1 year 3 months
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Drill Operator
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION ,
REPAIR ; or BOTH X 7
WAS JOB INDOORS? ‘
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH X
REASON FOR LEAVING:
Job Complete
WAGE RATE/HOUR: Union Scale
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
scsi
H-38
SUFERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO xX
FUMES YES NO xX
GASES YES NO xX
CHROMIUM YES NO xX
CADMIUM YES NO xX
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES X NO
LIST: Unknown
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO:
a
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
H-39
NAME: GARLAND EDWARD WOODS
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
PP Te ee ee a ee ee ee eT ee
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Peabody Coal Company
JOB SITE: Oak Grove Mine/Riverbank Mine
CITY, STATE: Warrior, Alabama/Tuscaloosa, Alabama
DATE OF JOB: 1962-1968, intermittently
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 4 years
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Drill Operator
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION ;
REPAIR _;0r BOTH =X |
WAS JOB INDOORS? __ ;
OUTDOORS? _;or BOTH X_ |
REASON FOR LEAVING:
Better Job
WAGE RATE/HOUR: Union Scale
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO xX
FUMES YES NO xX
GASES YES NO X
CHROMIUM YES NO X
CADMIUM YES NO X
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES xX NO
LIST: Unknown
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO: X
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
H-41
NAME: GARLAND EDWARD WOODS
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HiSTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Ensor Const. Co.
JOB SITE: Various Residences
CITY, STATE: Huntsville, Alabama
DATE OF JOB: 1962
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 1 month
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Laborer
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION 7
REPAIR ; or BOTH xX
WAS JOB INDOORS? :
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH xX
REASON FOR LEAVING:
Better Job
WAGE RATE/HOUR: Union Scale
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
eel
H-42
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO XxX
FUMES YES NO xX
GASES YES NO xX
CHROMIUM YES NO xX
CADMIUM YES NO xX
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES xX NO
|
LIST: Unknown
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO: xX
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
H-43
NAME: GARLAND EDWARD WOODS
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: United States Pipe and Foundry Co.
JOB SITE: USS. Pipe
CITY, STATE: Birmingham, Alabama
DATE OF JOB: 1963-1964
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 9 months
MY DUTIES AT, THIS JOB SITE:
Laborer
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION :
REPAIR ;or BOTH X sso
WAS JOB INDOORS? ,
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH X
REASON FOR LEAVING:
Better Job
WAGE RATE/HOUR: Union Scale
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/ WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO xX
FUMES YES NO xX
GASES YES NO X
CHROMIUM YES NO xX
CADMIUM YES NO X
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES xX NO
LIST: Unknown
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO: X
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
H-45
NAME: GARLAND EDWARD WOODS
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Bollmeir Construction Co.
JOB SITE: Warrior Mine
CITY, STATE: Jefferson County, Alabama
DATE OF JOB: 1966-1967
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 6 months
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Laborer, Drill Operator, Dozer Operator
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION ;
REPAIR —_;or BOTH X_
WAS JOB INDOORS? __;
OUTDOORS? _; or BOTH X_
REASON FOR LEAVING:
Better Job
WAGE RATE/HOUR: Unknown
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
H-46
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
|
CHEMICALS YES NO xX
FUMES YES NO _X
GASES YES NO _X_
CHROMIUM YES NO —X
CADMIUM YES NO —X
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES ~ x NO
LIST: Unknown
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO: X
re eater
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
H-47
NAME: GARLAND EDWARD WOODS
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Peabody Coal Company
JOB SITE: Riverbank Mines/Oak Grove Mines
CITY, STATE: — Tuscaloosa, Alabama/Warrior, Alabama
DATE OF JOB: 1968-1977
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 7 years
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Drill operator, Laborer, Dozer Operator
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION ;
REPAIR =; or BOTH =X __
WAS JOB INDOORS? __ |;
OUTDOORS? _;or BOTH X__
REASON FOR LEAVING:
Better Job
WAGE RATE/HOUR: Union Scale
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
H-48
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO xX
FUMES YES NO X
GASES YES NO xX
CHROMIUM YES NO X
CADMIUM YES NO xX
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES X NO
LIST: Unknown
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING.
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO: xX
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
H-49
NAME: GARLAND EDWARD WOODS
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Nutmeg Coal Company
JOB SITE: Warrior River Mine
CITY, STATE: Jefferson County, Alabama
DATE OF JOB: 1977
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 4 months
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Drill Helper, Laborer
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION ;
REPAIR ; or BOTH X
WAS JOB INDOORS? :
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH X
REASON FOR LEAVING:
Better Job
WAGE RATE/HOUR: Union Scale
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NOX
FUMES YES NO _X
GASES YES NO X_
CHROMIUM YES NO _X
CADMIUM YES NO _X
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES —X NO
LIST: Unknown
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO: X
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
icici Na
H-51
NAME: GARLAND EDWARD WOODS
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Russell Coal, Inc.
JOB SITE: Gorgas Strip Mine
CITY, STATE: Gorgas, Alabama
DATE OF JOB: 1977-1978
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 2 years
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Laborer, Drill Helper
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION ;
REPAIR ;or BOTH X
WAS JOB INDOORS?
OUTDOORS? :or BOTH X
REASON FOR LEAVING:
Better Job
WAGE RATE/HOUR: Union Scale
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES
FUMES YES
GASES YES
CHROMIUM YES
CADMIUM YES
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES xX
LIST: Unknown
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
NO:
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
H-53
NAME: GARLAND EDWARD WOODS
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Arch of Alabama, Inc.
JOB SITE: Walker County Mines
CITY, STATE: Walker County, Alabama
DATE OF JOB: 1978-1987
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 9 years _
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Dozer Operator, Laborer
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION ;
REPAIR ; or BOTH X
WAS JOB INDOORS? .
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH X
REASON FOR LEAVING:
Better Job
WAGE RATE/HOUR: Union Scale
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
H-54
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO xX
FUMES YES NO xX
GASES YES NO xX
CHROMIUM YES NO X
CADMIUM YES NO xX
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES xX NO
LIST: Unknown
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO: xX
re ee
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
H-55
NAME: PHILLIP GRAHAM KELLEY
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: CONNER. J
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: USX Corporation
JOB SITE: See attached list.
CITY, STATE: See attached list.
DATE OF JOB: 1969-1989
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 20 years
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Supervisor
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION ;
REPAIR WORK ; or BOTH X
WAS JOB INDOORS? ;
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH xX
REASON FOR LEAVING: Resigned
WAGE RATE/HOUR:
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
H-56
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
SEE ATTACHED LIST.
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO xX
FUMES YES X NO
GASES YES X NO
CHROMIUM YES NO xX
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES
LIST: Unknown
CADMIUM YES NO xX
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS {OB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES NO xX
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USE WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
SEE ATTACHED.
H-57
NAME: PHILLIP GRAHAM KELLEY
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: CONNER. J
WORK HISTORY SHEET
JOBSITES:
Coal Mining Division
Wenonah, Alabama
Dolonah Mine
Bessemer, Alabama
Concord Mine os
Hueytown, Alabama
Oak Grove Mine
Oak Grove, Alabama
Gurnee Mine
Shelby County, Alabama
Cumberland Mine
Pennsylvania
Maple Creek Mine
Washington, Pennsylvania
Shawnee Mine
West Virginia
#50 Mine
Zinc Mine
Jefferson City, Tennessee
H-58
NAME: PHILLIP GRAHAM KELLEY
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: CONNER. J
WORK HISTORY SHEET
CO-WORKERS:
Jimmy Burgett, Deceased
Dan Vinston
Johnny Benson
Robert Goggins
Bud Petty
B.W. Hardin
Neil Lawrence
NAME: PHILLIP GRAHAM KELLEY
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: CONNER. J
WORK HISTORY SHEET
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
GASKETS:
Armstrong X X
Anchor X X
Flexitallic X X
Victor X X
PACKING:
Anchor X
Armstrong X
H-59
CEMENTS:
Johns-Manville
Flintkote Fibrex
Perf-A-Tape
Pabco
Delta Maid One Shot
Quik Set
A.P. Green
PLASTIC CEMENT:
Certainteed
JOINT COMPOUND:
Durabond
Gold Bond
Georgia Pacific
Triko
PIPECOVERING:
Unibestos
Kaylo
Carey
Pabco
REFRACTORY CEMENT:
Vee Block Mix
GUN MIX:
Narco
TAPE:
Unknown
WIRE & CABLE:
Okonite
Rockbestos
General Electric
Reliance
Westinghouse
~~ KK mK mK OK OK
~
a mK mK mK OK
—-
H-60
Isaiah Jones, Dec’d
VERIFICATION
STATE OF Alabama
COUNTY OF Jefferson
I, the undersigned, state under oath that I am the
Plaintiff in the above-entitled and numbered cause and
that the Supplemental Answers to Master Discovery
Requests (Work History) are within my personal knowl-
edge, and are true and correct to the best of my knowl-
edge.
/s/
CLEO JONES
Personal Representative of the
Heirs and Estate of
ISAIAH JONES, JR., Deceased
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, the
undersigned authority on the Sth day of May, 1998, to
which witness my official hand and seal of office.
My Commission expires: /s/ Sherry H. Thomas
Notary Public in and for
ae(5e i>? the State of Alabama
H-61
NAME: ISIAH JONES, JR., DECEASED
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Tennessee Coal and Iron
JOB SITE: U.S. Steel
CITY, STATE: Fairfield, Alabama
DATE OF JOB: 1940-1983
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 43 years
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Brickmason/ Laborer
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION
REPAIR ___; or BOTH
WAS JOB INDOORS? )
OUTDOORS? ___ ; or BOTH
pana |
REASON FOR LEAVING:
WAGE RATE/HOUR:
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK:
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: d
H-62
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO
FUMES YES NO
GASES YES NO
CHROMIUM YES NO
CADMIUM YES NO
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES NO
LIST:
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO:
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
H-63
NAME: DANNIE OTHAL KENNEDY
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: KNOX
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Tennessee Coal & Iron/USX Corporation
JOB SITE: U.S. Steel
CITY, STATE: Musgota, Alabama; Fairfield, Alabama
DATE OF JOB: 141-1983
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 41 years
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Electrician
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION :
REPAIR WORK ; or BOTH X
WAS JOB INDOORS? ‘
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH X
REASON FOR LEAVING: Retired
WAGE RATE/HOUR:
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
See Attached List
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO_ xX
FUMES YES NOX
GASES YES NOX
CHROMIUM YES NOX
CADMIUM YES NO X
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES NO xX
LIST:
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO: X
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
SEE ATTACHED LIST
NAME:
NICKNAME:
H-65
DANNIE OTHAL KENNEDY
GROUP NAME: KNOX
WORK HISTORY SHEET
Co-Workers:
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED
ON THIS JOB:
FELTS/CLOTH:
Asten
GASKETS:
Armstrong
Flexiallic
Garlock
Victor
CEMENTS:
Johns-Manville
Perf-A-Tape
Calsilite
Pyroscat
Super 711
Pabco
Grefco
Sam Browning
Howard Whaley
Jack Chastain
Merrell Killingsworth
Ray LaBorde
Earl Watson
Ed Brown
William Coleman
John Adams
Roy Flack
A.B. Jones
Raymond Howard
Clay Blake
George Crane
WORKED
WITH AROUND
X
~K KK OK
KK KK OK OK OK
H-66
Quik Set
A. P. Green
Kast-O-Lite
JOINT COMPOUND:
Durabond
Gold Bond
Georgia Pacific
Napko
x KX
x KK OX
NAME: DANNIE OTHAL KENNEDY
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: KNOX
WORK HISTORY SHEET
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
FIREPROOFING:
Zonolite
Cafco Heat Shield
PIPECOVERING:
Unibestos
Kaylo
Pabco
Thermasil
REFRACTORY CEMENT:
Vee Block Mix
Micacrete
GUN MIX:
Narco X
x &<
x KK XX
H-67
NAME: DANNIE OTHAL KENNEDY
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: KNOX
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Personal Use
JOB SITE: Various Residences, Farms
CITY, STATE:
DATE OF JOB: 1946-1980
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB:
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Carpenter
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION __ ;
REPAIR WORK ; or BOTH X
WAS JOB INDOORS? ;
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH xX
REASON FOR LEAVING: During lay offs-strikes
WAGE RATE/HOUR:
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 20-40
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
SUPERVISOR:
H-68
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO xX
FUMES YES NO xX
GASES YES NO xX
CHROMIUM YES NO xX
CADMIUM YES NO xX
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES NO xX
LIST:
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO: X
es EEE
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS Jos: WITH AROUND
ROOFING /SIDING:
Gold Bond X
Flintkote X
Johns-Manville X
PLASTIC CEMENT:
Certainteed X
H-69
Claude M. Pike, Dec’d
NAME: CLAUDE MORRIS PIKE
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Kilby Steel Co., Inc.
|
|
|
JOB SITE: Kilby Steel
CITY, STATE: Anniston, Alabama
DATE OF JOB: 1943-1944
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 4 months
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Steelpress Operator
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION ;
REPAIR ; or BOTH xX
WAS JOB INDOORS? ;
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH X
REASON FOR LEAVING: Better Job
WAGE RATE/HOUR: Union Scale
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
H-70
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO xX
FUMES YES xX NO
GASES YES xX NO
CHROMIUM YES NO X
CADMIUM YES NO xX
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES xX NO
—_—_—— —
LIST: Unknown
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO: x.
oe —_—_—_— ——_
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
H-71
~
NAME: CLAUDE MORRIS PIKE
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Anniston Army Depot
JOB SITE: Anniston Army Depot
CITY, STATE: Anniston, Alabama
DATE OF JOB: 1951-1975, intermittently
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 14'/2 years
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Heavy Equipment Operator, Mechanic
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION ,
REPAIR WORK ; or BOTH X
WAS JOB INDOORS? ;
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH X
REASON FOR LEAVING: Better Job
WAGE RATE/HOUR: Scale
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
H-72
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO xX
FUMES YES NO xX
GASES YES NO x
CHROMIUM YES NO xX
CADMIUM YES NO xX
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES NO xX
LIST:
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO: Xx
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
H-73
NAME: CLAUDE MORRIS PIKE
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Macrae Midas Co
JOB SITE: Midas
CITY, STATE: Birmingham, Alabama
DATE OF JOB: 1962-1962
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 9 months
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Mechanic
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION ;
REPAIR X ; or BOTH
WAS JOB INDOORS? ;
OUTDOORS? ; or BOT xX
REASON FOR LEAVING: Better Job
WAGE RATE/HOUR: Scale
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
H-74
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO X
FUMES YES NO xX
GASES YES NO X
CHROMIUM YES NO xX
CADMIUM YES NO X
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES NO X
LIST:
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO: xX
es eae
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
H-75
NAME: GUY ALFRED NEEDHAM
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: LANG. J
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: General Motors Corporation
JOB SITE: GM Plant-Chevrolet Division
CITY, STATE: Detroit, Michigan
DATE OF JOB: 1954
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 1 month
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Laborer
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION : |
REPAIR WORK ; or BOTH X :
WAS JOB INDOORS? ;
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH X
REASON FOR LEAVING: Better Job
WAGE RATE/HOUR: Scale
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: — 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
H-76
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO xX
FUMES YES NO xX
GASES YES NO xX
CHROMIUM ee ci). Ce,
CADMIUM YES NO xX
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES NO xX
LIST:
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO: X
oumewwre cettiD
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
H-77
NAME: GUY ALFRED NEEDHAM
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: LANG. J
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Hoechst Celanese Corp.
JOB SITE: Celanese Plant
CITY, STATE: Rome, Georgia
DATE ‘OF JOB: 1955-1956
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 1 year
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Sheetmetal Worker
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION ;
REPAIR WORK ; or BOTH X
WAS JOB INDOORS? :
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH X
REASON FOR LEAVING: Better Job
WAGE RATE/HOUR: Scale
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
one
H-78
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO X
FUMES YES xX NO
GASES YsS xX NO
CHROMIUM YES NO xX
CADMIUM YES NO xX
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES NO xX
LIST: Unknown
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: Xx NO:
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
SEE ATTACHMENT “A”
FOR PRODUCTS USED AT VARIOUS
MANUFACTURING PLANTS AND OTHER SITES
H-79
NAME: GUY ALFRED NEEDHAM
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: LANG. J
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: General Electric Company
JOB SITE: General Electric
CITY, STATE: Rome, Georgia
DATE OF JOB: 1956-1957
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 1 year; 6 months
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Welder
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION ;
REPAIR WORK ; or BOTH X
WAS JOB INDOORS?
OUTDOORS? ;or BOTH X
REASON FOR LEAVING: Better Job
WAGE RATE/HOUR: Union Scale
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
sensilla
H-80
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO xX
FUMES YES xX NO
GASES YES xX NO
CHROMIUM YES NO xX
CADMIUM YES NO X
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES NO xX
LIST: Unknown
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO: X
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
H-81
NAME: GUY ALFRED NEEDHAM
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: LANG. J
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Woodward Corporation Trial Mobile
Leasing Corp.
JOB SITE: Pullman Standard
CITY, STATE: Bessemer, Alabama
DATE OF JOB: 1963
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 1 year
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Welder
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION ;
REPAIR WORK ; or BOTH X
WAS JOB INDOORS? :
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH X
REASON FOR LEAVING: Better Job
WAGE RATE/HOUR: Union Scale
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO xX
FUMES YES X NO
GASES YES X NO
CHROMIUM YES NO xX
CADMIUM YES NO xX
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES NO X
LIST:
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO: X
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
H-83 |
NAME: GUY ALFRED NEEDHAM |
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: LANG. J
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Anniston Army Depot
JOB SITE: Anniston Army Depot
CITY, STATE: Anniston, Alabama
DATE OF JOB: 1962-1987
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 25 years
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Welder
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION ;
REPAIR WORK ; or BOTH X
WAS JOB INDOORS? -_ ;
OUTDOORS? ;or BOTH X
REASON FOR LEAVING: Retired
WAGE RATE/HOUR: Scale
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
H-84
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
G.L. McCaun
Ernest G. Brown
Hoyt Burns
James B. McIntyre
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO xX
FUMES YES xX NO
GASES YES X NO
CHROMIUM YES NO xX
CADMIUM YES NO xX
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES NO X
LIST: Unknown
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST CR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: X NO:
—_- +
3M Mask
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
SEE ATTACHMENT “A”
FOR PRODUCTS USED AT VARIOUS
MANUFACTURING PLANTS AND OTHER SITES
H-85
NAME: GUY ALFRED NEEDHAM
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: LANG. J
WORK HISTORY SHEET
ATTACHMENT “A”
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
INSULATING CEMENT:
Johns-Manville
Calcrete
Grefco
Mundet
Quik-Set
Zonolite High Temperature
REFRACTORY CEMENT:
Vee Block Mix
Insulag
FIREPROOFING:
Monokote
GASKETS/SHEET GASKETS:
Armstrong
Flexitallic
Anchor
Victor
ROPE PACKING:
Anchor
PIPE COVERING:
Unibestos
Kaylo
Thermasil
KKK OK OK OK
x Kx mK MK OK ~< ~< X<
x KK XK
BLOCK INSULATION:
K&M Hy-Temp
JOINT COMPOUND:
“USG”
Georgia-Pacific All Purpose
Gold Bond
Paco Quik-Set
PLASTIC CEMENT:
CertainTeed
Flintkote
CLOTH:
Raybestos
Asbeston
BOILERS:
Riley Stoker
~<
x KK
H-87
Sims Coats
VERIFICATION
STATE OF Alabama
COUNTY OF Mobile
I, the undersigned, state under oath that I am the
Plaintiff in the above-entitled and numbered cause and
that the Supplemental Answers to Master Discovery
Requests (Work History) are within my personal knowl-
edge, and are true and correct to the best of my knowl-
edge.
/s/
SIM COATS
Client unable to write -
Mildred Stephens
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, the
undersigned authority on the 6th day of May, 1998, to
which witness my official hand and seal of office.
My Commission expires: /s/ Mildred Stephens
Notary Public in and for
Th the State of Alabama
it hi te ik
|
|
|
H-88
NAME: SIMS COATS
NICKNAM?: “HARDWORKER”
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Various Stevedoring Companies
JOB SITE: Alabama State Docks
CITY, STATE: Mobile, Alabama
DATE OF JOB: 1936-1959
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 23 years
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Laborer, Longshoreman
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION ;
————
REPAIR ; or BOTH X
WAS JOB INDOORS? :
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH X
REASON FOR LEAVING: Retired due to Disability
WAGE RATE/HOUR:
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
H-89
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO xX
FUMES YES NO xX
GASES YES NO X
CHROMIUM YES NO xX
CADMIUM YES NO xX
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES 8 ae
LIST:
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: X NO:
COMMENTS: Mask Worn Occasionally
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
PLAINTIFF DOES NOT RECALL
aetna
H-90
NAME: SIMS COATS
NICKNAME: “HARDWORKER”
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Atlantic Land Corp.
JOB SITE: ADDSCO Shipyard
CITY, STATE: Mobile, Alabama
DATE OF JOB: 1940's
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 1 year
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Laborer
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION
REPAIR -— ;or BOTH X
WAS JOB INDOORS?
OUTDOORS? __; or BOTH X
REASON FOR LEAVING: Completed Job
WAGE RATE/HOUR:
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
H-91
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO X
FUMES YES NO X
GASES YES NO X
CHROMIUM YES NO xX
CADMIUM YES NO xX
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES NO X
LIST:
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO: X
COMMENTS:
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
PLAINTIFF DOES NOT RECALL
H-92
NAME: RICHARD JACKSON
NICKNAME: “IRON JAW”
GROUP NAME: AUSTIN. P
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: See Attached Social Security Print Out
JOB SITE: Alabama State Docks
CITY, STATE: Mobile, Alabama
DATE OF JOB: 1943-1946; 1953-1987
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 35 years
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Laborer, Warehouse Foreman
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION ;
REPAIR ; or BOTH X
WAS JOB INDOORS? :
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH x
REASON FOR LEAVING: Retired
WAGE RATE/HOUR:
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: _ 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
H-93
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
Eugene Witherspoon
Joseph Moore
Tommy Blankenship
Carter Compton
Ted Perryman
Billy Perryman
Richard Perryman
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO X
FUMES YES NO xX
GASES YES NO xX
CHROMIUM YES NO X
CADMIUM YES NO X
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES NO X
LIST:
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: X NO:
Mask Worn Occasionally
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
SEE ATTACHED LIST
NAME: RICHARD JACKSON
H-94
NICKNAME: “IRON JAW”
GROUP NAME: AUSTIN. P
WORK HISTORY SHEET
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED
ON THIS JOB:
INSULATING CEMENTS:
Johns-Manville
Super 711
Grefco
Mundet
Delta Maid One Shot
A.P. Green
Quik-Set
REFRACTORY CEMENTS:
Vee Block Mix
Insulag
GUN MIX:
H-W Chromepak G
Narco
PIPE COVERING:
Featherweight
Unibestos
Kaylo
Thermasil
JOINT COMPOUND:
“USG”
Georgia-Pacific
Gold Bond
Paco Quik-Set
WORKED
WITH AROUND
KK OK OK ~< ~< KKK mK OK OK OK
x KK OK
H-95
MILLBOARD:
Ruberoid X
PLASTIC CEMENT:
Flintkote X
CertainTeed xX
BOILERS:
Babcock & Wilcox
Combustion Engineering
Foster Wheeler
x mK
H-96
Ruben Robinson
VERIFICATION
STATE OF Alabama
COUNTY OF Mobile
I, the undersigned, state under. oath that I am the
Plaintiff in the above-entitled and numbered cause and
that the Supplemental Answers to Master Discovery
Requests (Work History) are within my personal knowl-
edge, and are true and correct to the best of my knowl-
edze.
/s/
Ruben Edward Robinson, Sr.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, the
undersigned authority on the 5th day of May, 1998, to
which witness my official hand and seal of office.
My Commission expires: /s/ Sharen Rockwell
Notary Public in and for
a the State of Alabama
H-97
NAME: RUBEN EDWARD ROBINSON, SR.
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Various Stevedoring Companies
JOB SITE: Alabama State Docks
CITY, STATE: Mobile, Alabama
DATE OF JOB: 1930’s-1962
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: Approx. 30 years
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Laborer, Longshoreman
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION ;
REPAIR ; or BOTH X
WAS JOB INDOORS? ;
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH X
REASON FOR LEAVING: Retired
WAGE RATE/HOUR:
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED, WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIM2 EXPOSED 10 ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
H-98
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO xX
FUMES YES NO X
GASES YES NO xX
CHROMIUM YES NO xX
CADMIUM YES NO X
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES NO X
LIST:
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO: Xx
COMMENTS:
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
H-99
NAME: RICHARD JACKSON
NICKNAME: “IRON JAW”
GROUP NAME: AUSTIN. P
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: See Attached Social Security Print Out
JOB SITE: Alabama State Docks
CITY, STATE: Mobile, Alabama
DATE OF JOB: 1943-1946; 1953-1987
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 35 years
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Laborer, Warehouse Foreman
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION ;
REPAIR ; or BOTH X
WAS JOB INDOORS? ;
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH X
REASON FOR LEAVING: Retired
WAGE RATE/HOUR:
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
H-100
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
Eugene Witherspoon
Joseph Moore
Tommy Blankenship
Carter Compton
Ted Perryman
Billy Perryman
Richard Perryman
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO X
FUMES YES NO X
GASES YES NO xX
CHROMIUM YES NO X
CADMIUM YES NO X
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES NO X
LIST:
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: X NO:
Mask Worn \ ‘ccasionally
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
SEE ATTACHED LIST
H-101
NAME: RICHARD JACKSON
NICKNAME: “IRON JAW”
GROUP NAME: AUSTIN. P
WORK HISTORY SHEET
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
INSULATING CEMENTS:
Johns-Manville
Super 711
Grefco
Mundet
Delta Maid One Shot
A.P. Green
Quik-Set
REFRACTORY CEMENTS:
Vee Block Mix
Insulag
GUN MIX:
H-W Chromepak G
Narco
PIPE COVERING:
Featherweight
Unibestos
Kaylo
Thermasil
JOINT COMPOUND:
“is”
Georgia-Pacific
Gold Bond
Paco Quik-Set
Kx KK mK OK OK OK
~
x
x KK OK
x KK OK
H-102
MILLBOARD:
Ruberoid
PLASTIC CEMENT:
Flintkote
CertainTeed
BOILERS:
Babcock & Wilcox
Combustion Engineering
Foster Wheeler
x *
H-103
Nebraska Greer
VERIFICATION
STATE OF Alabama
COUNTY OF Lauderdale
I, the undersigned, state under oath that I am the
Plaintiff in the above-entitled and numbered cause and
that the Supplemental Answers to Master Discovery
Requests (Work History) are within my personal knowl-
edge, and are true and correct to the best of my knowl-
edge.
/s/
NEBRASKA GREER
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, the
umdcrsigneu authority on the 6th day of May, 1998, to
which witness mv official hand and seal of office.
My Commission expires: /s/ Gayle Littrell
Notary Public in and for
SRE 2 SIZE the State of Alabama
H-104
NAME: NEBRASKA GREER
NICKNAME: “BRASKA”
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Reynolds Metals Co.
JOB SITE: Reynolds Metals Co.
CITY, STATE: Sheffield, Alabama
DATE OF JOB: 1942
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 4 months
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Lavorer
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION ;
REPAIR ; or BOTH X
WAS JOB INDOORS? ;
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH X
REASON FOR LEAVING: Better Job
WAGE RATE/HOUR: Union Scale
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK:
40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
H-105
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO xX
FUMES YES NO xX
GASES YES NO: A
CHROMIUM YES NO xX
CADMIUM YES NO xX
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES NO xX
LIST:
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO: X
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: — WITH AROUND
PLAINTIFF DOES NOT RECALL
H-106
NAME: NEBRASKA GREER
NICKNAME: “BRASKA”
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Nile ELN & Dan B. Yearwood
JOB SITE: Courtland Air Base
CITY, STATE: Courtland, Alabama
DATE OF JOB: 1942
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 3 months
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Carpenter helper
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION ;
REPAIR ; or BOTH X
WAS JOB INDOORS? ;
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH X
REASON FOR LEAVING: Better Job
WAGE RATE/HOUR: Union Scale
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
." “asso. Ue
H-107
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO xX
FUMES YES NO X
GASES YES NO xX
CHROMIUM YES NO xX
CADMIUM YES NO X
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES NO X
LIST:
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO: X
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
PLAINTIFF DOES NOT RECALL
—
H-108
NAME: NEBRASKA GREER
NICKNAME: “BRASKA”
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Reynolds Alloys Co.
JOB SITE: Reynolds Alloys Co.
CITY, STATE: Sheffield, Alabama
DATE OF JOB: 1943
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 4 months
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Laborer
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION
REPAIR ; or BOTH X
,
WAS JOB INDOORS? ;
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH X
REASON FOR LEAVING: Better Job
WAGE RATE/HOUR: Union Scale
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
H-109
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO X
FUMES — YES NO xX
GASES YES NO X
CHROMIUM YES NO X
CADMIUM YES NO xX
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES NO xX
LIST:
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO: X
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
PLAINTIFF DOES NOT RECALL
H-110
NAME: NEBRASKA GREER
NICKNAME: “BRASKA”
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Southern Constructors
JOB SITE: PDW Plant
CITY, STATE: Sheffield, Alabama
DATE OF JOB: 1951-1953
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 3 years
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Laborer, Carpenter Helper
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION ' eae
REPAIR ; or BOTH
WAS JOB INDOORS? ;
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH X
REASON FOR LEAVING: Job Complete
WAGE RATE/HOUR: Union Scale
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
H-111
SUPERVISOR: eal
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO X
FUMES YES NO X
GASES YES NO xX
CHROMIUM YES NO xX
CADMIUM YES NO X
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES NO xX
LIST:
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO: X
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
PLAINTIFF DOES NOT RECALL
H-112
NAME: NEBRASKA GREER
NICKNAME: “BRASKA”
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Tennessee Valley Authority
JOB SITE: See Attached
CITY, STATE: See Attached
DATE OF JOB: 1954, 1960-1975
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 15 years
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Pump Operator
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION ;
—_—
REPAIR ; or BOTH xX
WAS JOB INDOORS? ‘
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH X
REASON FOR LEAVING: Better Job
WAGE RATE/HOUR: Union Scale
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
H-113
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
See Attached
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO xX
FUMES YES NO xX
GASES YES NO xX
CHROMIUM YES NO xX
CADMIUM YES NO xX
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES NO xX
LIST:
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO: X
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
SEE ATTACHED LIST
H-114
NAME: NEBRASKA GREER
NICKNAME: “BRASKA”
GROUP NAME: JONES7T""~
WORK HISTORY SHEET
Jobsites: Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant
Athens, Alabama
Joe Wheeler Dam
Town Creek, Alabama
Wilson Dam
Sheffield, Alabama
Pigwick Dam
Savannah, Tennessee
NAME: NEBRASKA GREER
NICKNAME: “BRASKA”
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
Coworkers: Turner Hannah
Freeman Davis
Tony Holland
Ledgie Grisham
Jack Wilson
Jack Hayes
H-115
NAME: NEBRASKA GREER
NICKNAME: “BRASKA” és:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
INSULATING CEMENT:
Johns-Manville X X
REFRACTORY CEMENT:
Unknown x
GUN MIX: |
Unknown xX
FIREPROOFING:
Unknown X
GASKETS/SHEET GASKETS:
Armstrong X
ROPE PACKING:
Unknown x
PIPE COVERING:
Unknown xX
JOINT COMPOUND:
Durabond xX
Georgia-Pacific X
PLASTIC CEMENT:
Unknown xX
FELT/CLOTH:
Unknown xX
TRANSITE PIPE:
Unknown Xx
H-116
BOILERS:
Foster Wheeler
Babcock & Wilcox
Combustion Engineering
TURBINES:
General Electric
NAME: NEBRASKA GREER
<< &X<
NICKNAME: “BRASKA”
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Farnsworth & Chambers Co., Inc.
JOB SITE: AMOCO Plant
CITY, STATE: Decatur, Alabama
DATE OF JOB: 1954
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 3 months
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Oiler
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION :
REPAIR ; or BOTH X
WAS JOB INDOORS? ;
OUTDOORS? ;or BOTH x
REASON FOR LEAVING: Better Job
WAGE RATE/HOUR: Union Scale
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 404+
H-117
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & jOB TITLES:
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS veo °* NO xX
FUMES YES NO. X
GASES YES NO xX
CHROMIUM YES NO xX
CADMIUM YES NO xX
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES NO xX
LIST:
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO: Xx
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
PLAINTIFF DOES NOT RECALL
H-118
NAME: NEBRASKA GREER
NICKNAME: “BRASKA”
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Forcum James Co.
JOB SITE: Redstone Arsenal _
CITY, STATE: Huntsville, Alabama
DATE OF JOB: 1954-1955
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 1'/2 years
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Mechanic Helper
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION ;
REPAIR WORK ; or BOTH X
—_—
WAS JOB INDOORS? __;
OUTDOORS? ;or BOTH X
REASON FOR LEAVING: Better Job
WAGE RATE/HOUR: Union Scale
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
—e
H-119
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO xX
FUMES YES NO xX
GASES i ae NO xX
CHROMIUM YES NO xX
CADMIUM YES NO xX
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES NO xX
LIST:
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO: X
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
PLAINTIFF DOES NOT RECALL
H-120
NAME: NEBRASKA GREER
NICKNAME: “BRASKA”
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: See Attached
JOB SITE: Reynolds Metals
CITY, STATE: Sheffield, Alabama
DATE OF JOB: See Attached
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 4 years
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Oiler, Construction
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION ;
REPAIR ; or BOTH X
_
WAS JOB INDOORS? ;
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH X
REASON FOR LEAVING: Better Job
WAGE RATE/HOUR: Union Scale
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
H-121
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO xX
FUMES YES NO xX
GASES YES NO xX
CHROMIUM YES NO xX
CADMIUM YES NO: Xx
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES NO xX
LIST:
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO: X
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
PLAINTIFF DOES NOT RECALL
H-122
NAME: NEBRASKA GREER
NICKNAME: “BRASKA”
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
Employers: Moss Thornton Co., Inc.
1956 (7-8 months)
McKinley & McKinley Ptr.
1957 (3 months)
Melvin Ballew & Grace Roberts
1957 (1 month)
Texstar Corp.
1957-1958 (7-8 months)
Eastham Orr, Inc.
1957 (1 month)
Daniel International Corp.
1958-1959 (2 years)
Universal Power Piping, Inc.
1966 (1-2 weeks)
H-123
Clayton L. Hall
VERIFICATION
STATE OF Alabama
COUNTY OF Morgan
I, the undersigned, state under oath that I am the
Plaintiff in the above-entitled and numbered cause and
that the Supplemental Answers to Master Discovery
Requests (Work History) are within my personal knowl-
edge, and are true and correct to the best of my knowl-
edge.
/s/
CLAYTON LEWIS HALL
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, the
undersigned authority on the 6th day of May, 1998, to
which witness my official hand and seal of office.
My Commission expires: /s/ David W. Beddingfield
Ys Notary Public in and for
—— the State of Alabama
H-124
NAME: CLAYTON LEWIS HALL
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: U.S. Navy
JOB SITE: See Attached
CITY, STATE: See Attached
DATE OF JOB: 1942-1951, 1953-1957
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 13 years
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Boiler Operator
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION ;
REPAIR WORK ; or BOTH X
WAS JOB INDOORS? -
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH X
REASON FOR LEAVING: Duty Complete
WAGE RATE/HOUR:
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
SUPERVISOR:
H-125
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO xX
FUMES YES NO xX
GASES : YES NO xX
CHROMIUM YES NO X
CADMIUM YES NO X
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES NO XxX
LIST:
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO: X
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
GASKETS/SHEET GASKETS:
Flexitallic
Armstrong
Garlock
Victor
ROPE PACKING:
Anchor
John Crane
~K KK OK
KK OK MK
x x
~K
H-126
NAME: CLAYTON LEWIS HALL
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
Jobsites: USS Pennsylvania BB-38
Guam
Pearl Harbor, Hawaii
Puget Sound Naval Yard, Washington
Bakia, South Pacific
USS Oregon City CA-122
Newport, Rhode Island
USS Portsmouth CL-102
Norfolk, Virginia
USS Cacapon AO-52
Mare Island, California
Singtown, China
USS Astubula AO-51
San Diego, California
USS Calvin C. Cockrell DE-366
San Diego, California
USS Magoffin APA-199
San Diego, California
USS Oakhill LSD-7
San Diego, California
H-127
NAME: CLAYTON LEWIS HALL
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: American Cyanamid Co.
JOB SITE: American Cyanamid Plant
CITY, STAT®: Arco, Idaho
DATE OF JOB: 1951-1952
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 7 months
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Boiler Operator
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION ;
REPAIR WORK ; or BOTH X
WAS JOB INDOORS? :
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH X
REASON FOR LEAVING: Better Job
WAGE RATE/HOUR: Union Scale
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
H-128
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO xX
FUMES ae
GASES YES i ee
CHROMIUM —_— NO xX
CADMIUM YES NO xX
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES NO xX
LIST:
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO: X
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
PLAINTIFF DOES NOT RECALL
H-129
NAME: CLAYTON LEWIS HALL
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Johns-Manville Products Corp.
JOB SITE: Johns-Manville Products Corp.
CITY, STATE: Long Beach, California
DATE OF JOB: 1952
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 2 Days
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Operator, Coreman
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION ;
REPAIR WORK ; or BOTH X
WAS JOB INDOORS? :
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH xX
REASON FOR LEAVING: Better Job
WAGE RATE/HOUR: Union Scale
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
H-130
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO xX
FUMES YES NO xX
GASES YES NO xX
CHROMIUM YES NO xX
CADMIUM YES NO xX
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES NO xX
LIST:
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO: X
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
PLAINTIFF DOES NGT RECALL
H-131
NAME: CLAYTON LEWIS HALL
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Richfield Oil Corp.
JOB SITE: Richfield Oil Refinery
CITY, STATE: Long Beach, California
DATE OF JOB: 1952
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 2-3 months
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Pipefitter Helper
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION :
REPAIR WORK ; or BOTH X
WAS JOB INDOORS? :
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH xX
REASON FOR LEAVING: Better Job
WAGE RATE/HOUR: Union Scale
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: — 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
H-132
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO xX
FUMES YES NO xX
GASES YES NO xX
CHROMIUM YES NO X
CADMIUM YES NO xX
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES NO xX
LIST:
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO: X
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
PLAINTIFF DOES NOT RECALL
H-133
NAME: CLAYTON LEWIS HALL
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
Jobsites: Shaw Air Force Base
South Carolina
Van Dirma Air Force Base
Ismu, Turkey
NAME: CLAYTON LEWIS HALL
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: U.S. Air Force
JOB SITE: See Attached
CITY, STATE: See Attached
DATE OF JOB: 1957-1964
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 7 years
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Heating Equipment Specialist, Gas Plant Operator
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION ;
REPAIR WORK ; or BOTH X
WAS JOB INDOORS? :
OUTDOORS? ; or BOT X
H-134
REASON FOR LEAVING: Honorable Discharge
WAGE RATE/HOUR:
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
SUPERVISOR: -
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO xX
FUMES YES NO X
GASES YES NO xX
CHROMIUM _.... NO X
CADMIUM YES NO X
ANY OTHER PRODUC” YES NO X
LIST:
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO: x
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
PLAINTIFF DOES NOT RECALL
H-135
NAME: CLAYTON LEWIS HALL
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Civil Service
JOB SITE: See Attached
CITY, STATE: See Attached
DATE OF JOB: See Attached
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 17 years
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Boiler Operator, Mechanic
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION :
REPAIR WORK ; or BOTH X
WAS JOB INDOORS? ;
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH X
REASON FOR LEAVING: Retired
WAGE RATE/HOUR: Union Scale
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
See Attached
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS | | 6ONO Xx
FUMES YES NO” Xx
GASES YES — “x
CHROMIUM oo... NO. x
CADMIUM YES NO x
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES NOx
LIST:
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO: X
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
SEE ATTACHED LIST
ii
H-137
NAME: CLAYTON LEWIS HALL
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
Jobsites: Maxwell Air Force Base
Montgomery, Alabama
1964-1965 (6 months)
Redstone Arsenal
Huntsville, Alabama
1965-1980 (15 years)
NAME: CLAYTON LEWIS HALL
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
Coworkers: Gilbert Edwards
Perry Rolfe
Harold Brookes
Robert Hall
Charlie Cornelism
Fred Swain
Rayburn Smith
Wade Barnes
Bill Barnes
Herman Pardon
Abe Poe
George Pike
Clyde Jean
Raymond Swain
Monroe Dorning
Sinion Martin
Roy King
Junior Prince
Jean Prince
H-138
NAME: CLAYTON LEWIS HALL
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Not Applicable - Household Exposure
from father, James Ruben Hall, who was a
machinist in the Navy. Exposure 1925-1942
JOB SITE:
CITY, STATE:
DATE OF JOB:
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB:
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION
/
REPAIR WORK ; or BOTH
WAS JOB INDOORS? ;
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH
—_—__
REASON FOR LEAVING:
WAGE RATE/HOUR:
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK:
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS:
H-139
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS ee
FUMES Sees”. ay
GASES YES ae
CHROMIUM YES aa
CADMIUM YES NO
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES NO
LIST:
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO: as
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
H-140
NAME: CLAYTON LEWIS HALL
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
INSULATING CEMENT:
Vermont Asbestos 7M X Xx
Johns-Manville X X
Pabco X xX
Grefco X X
Delta Maid One Shot X X
A.P. Green Xx X
Quik-Set X Xx
— REFRACTORY CEMENT:
Vee Block Mix X X
JOINT SEALANT:
Damit xX
FIREPROOFING:
Unknown x
PIPE COVERING:
Featherweight X X
Unibestos X xX
Kaylo X x
Carey X X
Pabco X xX
Thermasil X xX
BLOCK INSULATION:
Unknown X X
FIREBRICK:
Unknown xX X
H-141
FLOOR TILES:
Unknown
JOINT COMPOUND:
Durabond
Georgia-Pacific
Gold Bond
Paco
Triko
CEMENT BOARDS/SHEETS:
Unknown
PLASTIC CEMENT:
Flintkote
ROOF COATING:
Georgia-Pacific
FELT/CLOTH:
Speedlag
TRANSITE PIPE:
Johns-Manville
BOILERS:
Foster Wheeler
Babcock & Wilcox
Combustion Engineering
Cleaver Brooks
TURBINES:
Westinghouse
mx mK mK mK ~
~
x
KKK OK OK
KK KK OK
~<
H-142
Barbara Hoffman
VERIFICATION
STATE OF Tennessee
COUNTY OF Shelby
I, the undersigned, state under oath that I am the
Plaintiff in the above-entitled and numbered cause and
that the Supplemental Answers to Master Discovery
Requests (Work History) are within my personal knowl-
edge, and are true and correct to the best of my knowl-
edge.
/s/
BARBARA EDWARDS HOFFMAN
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, the
undersigned authority on the 15th day of May, 1998, to
which witness my official hand and seal of office.
My Commission expires: /s/ Peggy S. Hall
Notary Public in and for
— the State of Tennessee
H-143
NAME: BARBARA ANN HOFFMAN
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
FIRS AMENDED WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER:
JOB SITE: Personal Residence
CITY, STATE: Birmingham, Alabama
DATE OF JOB: 1961-1964
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB:
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION __;
REPAIR X ; or BOTH
WAS JOB INDOORS? 3
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH
REASON FOR LEAVING:
WAGE RATE/HOUR:
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
SUPERVISOR:
H-144
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO
FUMES YES NO
GASES YES —
CHROMIUM YES NO
CADMIUM YES NO
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES NO
LIST:
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO:
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
JOINT COMPOUND:
Georgia Pacific X
Paco Quik-Set X
ROOFING PRODUCT:
intkote X
ASBESTOS SIDING:
Unknown X
FLOOR TILES:
Unknown _ x
H-145
NAME: BARBARA ANN HOFFMAN
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
FIRST AMENDED WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Baptist Memorial Hospital
JOB SITE: Baptist Memorial Hospital
CITY, STATE: Memphis, Tennessee
DATE OF JOB: 1981-present
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 16 years
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Head Nurse; Staff Nurse; Supervisor
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION ;
REPAIR ; or BOTH
WAS JOB INDOORS? X ;
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH
REASON FOR LEAVING:
WAGE RATE/HOUR:
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
H-146
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO
FUMES YES NO
GASES YES NO
CHROMIUM YES NO —
CADMIUM YES NO
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES — =» NO”
LIST:
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: A.
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
TEAR OUT EXPOSURE
H-147
NAME: BARBARA ANN HOFFMAN
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
FIRST AMENDED WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Not Applicable: Household Exposure
Through Father, James Edwards, Dec’d;
U.S. Steel Mill at Birmingham, Alabama
from 1946 to 1967
JOB SITE:
CITY, STATE:
DATE OF JOB:
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB:
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION ;
REPAIR ; or BOTH
WAS JOB INDOORS? ;
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH
REASON FOR LEAVING:
WAGE RATE/HOUR:
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
H-148
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO
FUMES YES NO
GASES YES NO
CHROMIUM YES NO
CAC MIUM YES NO
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES NO
LIST:
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO:
come eS
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
H-149
George W. Raye
VERIFICATION
STATE OF Alabama
COUNTY OF Choctaw
I, the undersigned, state under oath that I am the
Plaintiff in the above-entitled and numbered cause and
that the Supplemental Answers to Master Discovery
Requests (Work History) are within my personal knowl-
edge, and are true and correct to the best of my knowl-
edge.
/s/
GEORGE WASHINGTON RAYE
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, the
undersigned authority on the Sth day of May, 1998, to
which witness my official hand and seal of office.
My Commission expires: /s/ Nancy Mayfield
99: Notary Public in and for
the State of Alabama
H-150
NAME: GEORGE WASHINGTON RAYE
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER:
JOB SITE: James River Paper Mill
CITY, STATE: Pennington, Alabama
DATE OF JOB: 1960-1990
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 30 years
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Laborer, Clean-up Man, Woodyard Operator, Crane Oper-
ator, Relief Foreman
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION ;
REPAIR ; or BOTH X
—
WAS JOB INDOORS? ;
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH X
REASON FOR LEAVING: Retired due to disability
WAGE RATE/HOUR:
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
H-151
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
S.J. Austin
Quentin Horn
George Minor
Collie Smith
Hardin Ray
J.D. Thompkins
John L. Ward
Paul Bracy
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO X
FUMES YES NO X
GASES YES NO xX
CHROMIUM YES NO xX
CADMIUM YES NO xX
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES NO X
LIST:
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YEX xX ~ NA
COMMENTS: Mask Worn Occasionally
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: = WITH AROUND
SEE ATTACHED LIST
H-152
NAME: GEORGE WASHINGTON RAYE
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
INSULATING CEMENT:
Johns-Manville X
Grefco X
Quik-Set X
REFRACTORY CEMENTS:
Vee Block Mix X
Insulag X
GASKETS:
Armstrong X
Flexitallic X
PACKING:
Garlock X
PIPE COVERING:
Featherweight X
Uniestos X
K. ylo X
JOINT COMPOUND:
Durabond X
Georgia-Pacific X
Triko X
FELT:
Asten X
CLOTH:
Asbeston X
H-153
Raybestos X
BOILERS:
Babcock & Wilcox X
Combustion Engineering X
TURBINES:
General Electric X
H-154
Ray H. Hollingsworth
NAME: RAY HARDIN HOLLINGSWORTH
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: T.R. Williams
JOB SITE: Various Schools and Housing Projects
CITY, STATE: Tuscaloosa, Alabama
DATE OF JOB: 1961-1963
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 2 years
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Painter
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION ;
REPAIR ; or BOTH X
—_—__
WAS JOB INDOORS? ;
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH X
REASON FOR LEAVING: Completed Job
WAGE RATE/HOUR:
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
H-155
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
See Attachment “C”
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO xX
FUMES YES X NO
GASES YES NO xX
CHROMIUM YES NO X
CADMIUM YES NO X
ANY OTHER PRODUCT_ YES NO xX
LIST: Paint Fumes
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO: 4
COMMENTS:
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
SEE ATTACHMENT “A”
FOR PRODUCTS USED ON RESIDENCES
SEE ATTACHMENT “B”
FOR PRODUCTS USED ON COMMERCIAL
& INDUSTRIAL SITES
SPE pee ee we ey ee eee eee
H-156
NAME: RAY HARDIN HOLLINGSWORTH
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. |
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Ralph E. Sutton; W.O. Parker; Douglas
Beasley; Vernon Jacobs
JOB SITE: Various Residences
CITY, STATE: Tuscaloosa, Alabama
DATE OF JOB: 1963-1965; 1971
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTs:
LENGTH OF JOB: 3 years
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Painter
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION
REPAIR ; or BOTH X
—_—__
__
WAS JOB INDOORS? ;
OUTDOORS? ; Or BOTH X
REASON FOR LEAVING: Completed Job
WAGE RATE/HOUR:
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
H-157
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
See Attachment “C”
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO xX
FUMES YES xX NO
GASES YES NO X
CHROMIUM YES NO xX
CADMIUM YES NO X
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES NO X
LIST: Paint fumes
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO: xX
COMMENTS:
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
SEE ATTACHMENT “A”
FOR PRODUCTS USED ON RESIDENCES
H-158
NAME: RAY HARDIN HOLLINGSWORTH
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. |
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Cannon Sline, Inc./O.B. Cannon & Son, Inc.
JOB SITE: See Attached List
CITY, STATE: See Attached List
DATE OF JOB: 1965; 1968
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 9 months
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Painter
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION
REPAIR ; or BOTH X
__
WAS JOB INDOORS? __
OUTDOORS? ;or BOTH xX
REASON FOR LEAVING: Completed Job
WAGE RATE/HOUR:
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/ WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
H-159
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
See Attachment “C”
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO
X
FUMES YES X NO
GASES YES NO X
CHROMIUM YES NO X
CADMIUM YES NO X
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES NO X
LIST: Paint fumes
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO: xX
COMMENTS:
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
SEE ATTACHMENT “B”
FOR PRODUCTS USED ON RESIDENCES
H-160
NAME: RAY HARDIN HOLLINGSWORTH
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
Jobsites: Allied Paper Mill
Jackson, Alabama
Scott Paper Mill
Mobile, Alabama
Shell Chemical Plant
Axis, Alabama
NAME: RAY HARDIN HOLLINGSWORTH
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Crane & Steel Erection Corp.
JOB SITE: Ingalls Shipyard
CITY, STATE: Pascagoula, Mississippi
DATE OF JOB: 1965
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 1 month
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Painter
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION :
REPAIR ; or BOTH X
WAS JOB INDOORS? ‘
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH X
REASON FOR LEAVING: Completed Job
WAGE RATE/HOUR:
H-161
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
See Attachment “C”
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES
LIST: Paint fumes
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
CHEMICALS YES NO X
FUMES YES A NO
GASES YES NQ xX
CHROMIUM YES NO X
CADMIUM YES NO X
YES: NO: X
COMMENTS:
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
SEE ATTACHMENT “B”
FOR PRODUCTS USED ON COMMERCIAL
& INDUSTRIAL SITES
H-162
NAME: RAY HARDIN HOLLINGSWORTH
NICKNAME:
GROUF NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: James A. Boehner
JOB SITE: Berkeley Steel Mill
CITY, STATE: Berkeley, California
DATE OF JOB: 1966
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 3 months
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Painter
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION ;
REPAIR ; or BOTH X
_—_—_—__
WAS JOB INDOORS? ;
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH X
REASON FOR LEAVING: Completed Job
WAGE RATE/HOUR:
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
See Attachment “C”
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO xX
FUMES YS _A NO
GASES YES NO xX
CHROMIUM YES NO xX
CADMIUM YES NO xX
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES NO xX
LIST: Paint fumes
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO: X
COMMENTS:
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
SEE ATTACHMENT “B”
FOR PRODUCTS USED ON COMMERCIAL
& INDUSTRIAL SITES
H-164
NAME: RAY HARDIN HOLLINGSWORTH
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Eureka Marine Co.
JOB SITE: Alameda Naval Shipyard
CITY, STATE: Oakland, California
DATE OF JOB: 1966
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 1 month
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Painter
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION
REPAIR ; or BOTH X
WAS JOB INDOORS? ___;
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH _ X
REASON FOR LEAVING: Completed Job
WAGE RATE/HOUR:
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
H-165
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
See Attachment “C”
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO X_
FUMES YES _X NO
GASES YES NOX
HROMIUM YES NOX
ADMIUM YES NO _X
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES NO _X
LIST: Paint fumes
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: NO: pa
COMMENTS:
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
SEE ATTACHMENT “B”
FOR PRODUCTS USED ON COMMERCIAL
& INDUSTRIAL SITES
H-166
NAME: RAY HARDIN HOLLINGSWORTH
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Allied Industrial Painters
JOB SITE: See Attached List
CITY, STATE: See Attached List
DATE OF JOB: 1966-1971
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 5 years
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Painter
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION ;
REPAIR ; or BOTH X
WAS JOB INDOORS? :
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH X
REASON FOR LEAVING: Completed Job
WAGE RATE/HOUR:
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
H-167
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
See Attachment “C”
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO xX
FUMES YES xX NO
GASES YES NO xX
CHROMIUM YES NO xX
CADMIUM YES NO X
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES NO X
LIST: Paint fumes
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: X NO:
COMMENTS: 3M Mask Worn Occasionally
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
SEE ATTACHMENT “B”
FOR PRODUCTS USED ON COMMERCIAL
z & INDUSTRIAL SITES
H-168
NAME: RAY HARDIN HOLLINGSWORTH
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
obsites: Various Industrial Sites, Including:
gUUIStes g
Scott Paper Mill
Mobile, Alabama
International Paper Mill
Mobile, Alabama
Ingalls Shipyard
Pascagoula, Mississippi
Courtaulds Fiber Plart
LeMoyne, Alabama
Olin Chemical Plant
McIntosh, Alabama
Ciba-Geigy Chemical Plant
McIntosh, Alabama
H-169
NAME: RAY HARDIN HOLLINGSWORTH
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Pullman, Inc./M.W. Kellogg
JOB SITE: Barry Steam Plant
CITY, STATE: Bucks, Alabama
DATE OF JOB: 1968
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 1 month
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Painter
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION :
REPAIR ; or BOTH X
WAS JOB INDOORS? ‘
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH x
REASON FOR LEAVING: Completed Job
WAGE RATE/HOUR:
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
H-170
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
See Attachment “C”
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO xX
FUMES ¥o.. 2 NO
GASES YES NO X
CHROMIUM YES NO xX
CADMIUM YES NO xX
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES
LIST: Paint fumes
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: X NO:
COMMENTS: 3M Mask Worn Occasionally
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
SEE ATTACHMENT “B”
FOR PRODUCTS USED ON COMMERCIAL
& INDUSTRIAL SITES
H-171 -
NAME: RAY HARDIN HOLLINGSWORTH
NICKNAME:
‘GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: RCM Engineering Co.
JOB SITE: Ideal Cement Plant
CITY, STATE: Mobile, Alabama
DATE OF JOB: 1969
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 2 months
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Painter
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION __;
REPAIR ;or BOTH X
WAS JOB INDOORS? ;
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH X
REASON FOR LEAVING: Completed Job
WAGE RATE/HOUR:
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
H-172
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
See Attachment “C”
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO xX
FUMES YES xX ——
GASES YES NO xX
CHROMIUM YES NO xX
CADMIUM YES NO xX
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES = NO X_
LIST: Paint fumes
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: X NO:
COMMENTS: 3M Mask Worn Occasionally
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
SEE ATTACHMENT “B”
FOR PRODUCTS USED ON COMMERCIAL
& INDUSTRIAL SITES
H-173
NAME: RAY HARDIN HOLLINGSWORTH
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Ted Mosley/Marvin Sumlin
JOB SITE: Bryce Hospital
CITY, STATE: Tuscaloosa, Alabama
DATE OF JOB: 1972; 1974; 1981-1982
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 1 year
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Painter
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION ;
REPAIR ; or BOTH xX
WAS JOB INDOORS? :
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH X
REASON FOR LEAVING: Completed Job
WAGE RATE/HOUR:
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
H-174
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
See Attachment “C”
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO xX
FUMES YES xX NO
GASES YES NO xX
CHROMIUM i... oS .
CADMIUM i: Oo =
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES NO xX
wees een
LIST: Paint fumes
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: X NO:
COMMENTS: 3M Mask Worn Occasionally
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
SEE ATTACHMENT “B”
FOR PRODUCTS USED ON COMMERCIAL
& INDUSTRIAL SITES
H-175
NAME: RAY HARDIN HOLLINGSWORTH
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Maritime Coatings, Inc.
JOB SITE: Addsco Shipyard
CITY, STATE: Mobile, Alabama
DATE OF JOB: 1974
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 2 months
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Painter
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION ;
REPAIR ; or BOTH X
WAS JOB INDOORS? :
OUTDOORS? :or BOTH xX
REASON FOR LEAVING: Completed Job
WAGE RATE/HOUR:
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
See Attachment “C”
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YQU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO x
FUMES YES xX —
GASES YES NO xX
CHROMIUM YES NO xX
CADMIUM YES NO _X_
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES ~ NO xX
LIST: Paint fumes
YES: X NO:
COMMENTS: 3M Mask Worn Occasionally
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
SEE ATTACHMENT “B”
FOR PRODUCTS USED ON COMMERCIAL
& INDUSTRIAL SITES
H-177
NAME: RAY HARDIN HOLLINGSWORTH
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Dixie Paint & Decorating Co.; Melvin
Pierce Painting
JOB SITE: See Attached List
CITY, STATE: See Attached List
DATE OF JOB: 1974-1976
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 2 years
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Painter
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION ;
REPAIR ; or BOTH X
WAS JOB INDOORS? :
OUTDOORS? ; or BOTH X
REASON FOR LEAVING: Completed Job
WAGE RATE/HOUR:
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
SUPERVISOR:
H-178
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
See Attachment “C”
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO xX
FUMES YES xX NO
GASES YES NO xX
CHROMIUM YES NO xX
CADMIUM YES NO xX
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES NO xX
LIST: Paint fumes
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST? 2
YES: X NO:
Sa = @£= = 2 2 =——_iés eee
COMMENTS: 3M Mask Worn Occasionally
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
SEE ATTACHMENT “A”
FOR PRODUCTS USED ON RESIDENCES
SEE ATTACHMENT “B”
FOR PRODUCTS USED ON COMMERCIAL
& INDUSTRIAL SITES :
H-179
NAME: RAY HARDIN HOLLINGSWORTH
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
Jobsites: Scott Paper Mill
Mobile, Alabama
Virginia Chemical Plant
Axis, Alabama
Various Commercial Buildings
Mobile, Alabama
Various Residences
Mobile, Alabama
NAME: RAY HARDIN HOLLINGSWORTH
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
EMPLOYER: Off Shore Trawlers, Inc.
JOB SITE: Graham Shipyard
CITY, STATE: Bayou La Batre, Alabama
DATE OF JOB: 1975
EXPOSURE TO
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS:
LENGTH OF JOB: 1 month
MY DUTIES AT THIS JOB SITE:
Painter
WAS JOB NEW CONSTRUCTION ;
REPAIR ; or BOTH Xx
WAS JOB INDOORS? -
OUTDOORS? > or BOT x
H-180
REASON FOR LEAVING: Completed Job
WAGE RATE/HOUR:
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED/WEEK: 40+
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS: 100%
SUPERVISOR:
NAMES OF COWORKERS & JOB TITLES:
See Attachment “C”
ON THIS JOB SITE WERE YOU EXPOSED ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
CHEMICALS YES NO X
FUMES YES X NO
GASES YES NO X
CHROMIUM YES NO xX
CADMIUM YES NO X
ANY OTHER PRODUCT YES NO X
comm ED
LIST: Paint fumes
DID YOU WEAR A RESPIRATOR, MASK OR OTHER
PROTECTIVE DEVICE ON THIS JOB TO AVOID INHA-
LATION OF ANY DUST OR FUMES INCLUDING
ASBESTOS DUST?
YES: X NO:
a
COMMENTS: 3M Mask Worn Occasionally
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB: WITH AROUND
SEE ATTACHMENT “B”
FOR PRODUCTS USED ON COMMERCIAL
& INDUSTRIAL SITES
H-181
NAME: RAY HARDIN HOLLINGSWORTH
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
ATTACHMENT “A”
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB WITH AROUND
FLOOR TILE:
Armstrong X
JOINT COMPOUND:
Durabond
Georgia-Pacific
Gold Bond
Paco
Synko Triple Duty
Triko
PLASTIC CEMENT:
CertainTeed
Flintkote
KK KK OK RK
»
X
H-182
NAME: RAY HARDIN HOLLINGSWORTH
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
ATTACHMENT “B”
ASBESTOS MATERIALS USED WORKED
ON THIS JOB WITH AROUND
INSULATING CEMENTS:
Johns-Manville
Pabco
Grefco
Delta Maid One Shot
Carey
A.P. Green
Quik-Set
Zonolite High Temperature
REFRACTORY CEMENTS:
Vee Block Mix
Micacrete
Insulag
FIREPROOFING:
Monokote
Cafco
GASKETS:
Armstrong
Flexitallic
Garlock
Victor
PACKING:
Anchor
~ KK KK DK OK OC
~x KX
x XK
~~ KK OX
~<
H-183
PIPE COVERING:
Unibestos
Kaylo
Carey
Calsilite
Thermasil
FLOOR TILES:
Armstrong
JOINT COMPOUND:
Durabond
Georgia-Pacific
Gold Bond
Triko
Paco Quik-Set
Synko Triple Duty
PLASTIC CEMENT:
Flintkote
CertainTeed
FELT:
Asten
CLOTH:
Asbeston
Raybestos
BOILERS:
Babcock & Wilcox
Combustion Engineering
Cleaver Brooks
TURBINES:
General Electric
x KK KK ~< mK XK KK mK KK OK >< Kx KK OK OK
~<
4
¥
5
¥
e
é.
¥
&
E
oe
&
i
>
;
t
H-184
NAME: RAY HARDIN HOLLINGSWORTH
NICKNAME:
GROUP NAME: JONES. I
WORK HISTORY SHEET
ATTACHMENT “C”
Coworkers: Bobby Hamilton
Sherman Smith
Bobby Joe Smith
H. Eugene Powell
Lawrence Pierce
Melvin Pierce
Eddie Lee
Harry Woods
Fred Phillips
Bill Dumas
Lee Grandquest
ee
I-1
APPENDIX I
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
CLEO JONES, Individually §
and as Personal Representative §
of the Heirs and Estate of § CIVIL ACTION
ISAIAH JONES, JR., Deceased, § FILE NO. 98-CF-745
ET AL., 8
Plaintiffs, :
VS. §
GEORGIA PACIFIC §
CORPORATION (successor to §
BESTWALL GYPSUM §
COMPANY), ET AL.; ;
Defendants. S
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR REMAND
(Filed April 13, 1998)
Defendant General Motors Corporation (“GM”) has
filed a lengthy memorandum in opposition to plaintiffs’
emergency motion for remand. Plaintiffs tender to the
Court this brief reply.
I. PLAINTIFFS NEED NOT PROVE THEIR PRODUCT
LIABILITY CLAIMS AGAINST GEORGIA-PACIFIC
TO DEFEAT REMOVAL.
In their memorandum in support of their motion for
remand, plaintiffs noted that their right to remand
I-2
depends not on their current ability to support their
allegations against Georgia-Pacific but on vrhether there
is “no possibility” that they will be able to develop evi-
dence to support their claims against that defendant.
Plaintiffs’ Mem. at 2-3, citing Crowe v. Coleman, 113 F.3d
1536, 1538 (11th Cir. 1997). Plaintiffs pointed out that the
Eleventh Circuit has recently noted that the burden for
demonstrating a right to remand is “much lighter” than
that for opposing a summary judgment, and that the
Eleventh Circuit has also pointed out that “the party
opposing a motion for summary judgment should be
permitted an adequate time to complete discovery prior
to consideration of the motion.” Plaintiffs’ Mem. 3, citing
Crowe, 113 F.3d at 1541-42; Plaintiffs’ Mem. 5, citing Jones
v. City of Columbus, Georgia, 120 F.3d 248, 253 (11th Cir.
1997).
GM's response completely ignores these principles.
Instead, GM essentially repeats the non sequitur asserted
in its notice of removal, arguing that plairsi‘is, by stating
their intent to conduct discovery and further investiga-
tion on the issue of product identification, “have effec-
tively admitted that they have no grounds for suing
Georgia-Pacific individually.” GM Mem. 12. Of course,
plaintiffs have admitted no such thing; all they have
“effectively admitted” is the difficulty of providing speci-
fic product exposure and work history information for
workers who were exposed over decades (often ending
many years ago) to hundreds, or perhaps even thou-
sands, of products. Their inability to provide product
information at this early Stage in the litigation does not
conceivably provide a basis for a finding that plaintiffs
I-3
have “no possibility” of developing this information
within a reasonable time through discovery.
GM analogizes its allegation of “fraudulent joinder”
in this case with the motion for summary judgment based
on inadequate product identification granted by the dis-
trict court and affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit in Black-
ston v. Shook & Fletcher Ins. Co., 764 F.2d 1480 (11th Cir.
1985). Of course, as the Eleventh Circuit made crystal
clear in Crowe, different legal standards govern the dispo-
sition of fraudulent joinder and summary judgment
claims. Crowe, 113 F.3d 1541-42. Moreover, the court in
Blackston explicitly recognized that “plaintiffs who did
not work directly with asbestos, but instead were
exposed to it because it was used in proximity to their
workplace, face formidable proof problems in their
attempts to show causation.” Blacxston, 764 F.2d at 1485. It
therefore affirmed summary judgment only after noting
that the district court had “provided every opportunity
for Blackston to produce such evidence” of exposure to
the moving defendant’s product. Id. at 1484. Neither
Blackston, nor any other case cited by GM, suggests that
plaintiffs may be deprived of the opportunity to develop,
through formal discovery, evidence of their exposure to
Georgia-Pacific products.
GM nevertheless claims that the Court should find
that plaintiffs fraudulently joined Georgia-Pacific because
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
“governing rules” of Georgia procedure “do not allow
plaintiffs to bring claims against any defendant without
having a reasonable factual basis to support that claim.”
GM Mem. 9. But neither Rule 11 nor any other rule of
procedure requires the plaintiff in an asbestos case to
ee EE eSreEsE=SEOarrrrrrrrree—eeee eae ee eer
I-4
possess proof of exposure to each defendant’s products at
the time of filing. Obviously, the plaintiff in Blackston did
not possess such proof, yet there is nothing in Blackston
suggesting that the plaintiff was guilty of a Rule 11
violation. Instead, “in view of the length of time between
exposure and perceived injury and the migratory nature
of much of the employment involving asbestos expo-
sure,” (Blackston, 764 F.2d at 1486), the rules require only
that the plaintiff has a good faith basis to believe that
discovery might reveal exposure to each defendant's
products. The Rule 11 cases cited by GM are patently
distinguishable, and do not support removal in this case.
See Jones v. Int'l Riding Helmets, Ltd., 49 F.3d 692 (11th Cir.
1995) (Rule 11 sanctions warranted by counsel’s knowl-
edge when he filed complaint that defendant could not
have manufactured the sole product that injured plaintiff
because defendant came into existence after helmet was
manufactured); Albright v. Upjohn Co., 788 F.2d 1217 (Rule
11 sanctions warranted because plaintiff’s attorney knew
that medical records revealed that the products to which
the plaintiff was exposed were manufactured by com-
panies other than the moving defendants); Kendrick v.
Funderburk, 1998 WL 128476 (Ga. Ct. App. Mar. 2, 1998)
(recognizing — in language omitted by GM in its quota-
tion from the case — that sanctions are appropriate “where
a claim having arguable factual or legal support is filed in
good faith for the purpose of pursuing discovery, but contin-
ued by the attorney after discovery reveals there is no
basis for the claim.” (emphasis added))
Finally, GM seems to argue that because plaintiffs’
answers to GM’s discovery requests were allegedly eva-
sive and inadequate, plaintiffs’ inability to prove their
I-5
allegations of exposure to Georgia-Pacific products must
be conclusively presumed. GM-Mem. 9, quoting Atlanta
Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 61 F.R.D.
115, 119 (N.D. Ga. 1972) for the proposition that “[i}]ncor-
poration by reference of the allegations of a pleading is
not a responsive and sufficient answer to an interroga-
tory.” The proper course for a party aggrieved by an
opponent's failure to respond properly to discovery is to
file a motion to compel. If GM desired an early deadline
by which plaintiffs must complete all investigation and
discovery concerning the products to which plaintiffs
were exposed, they were free to seek one from the state
court. Removal is an inappropriate “discovery sanction”
to impose on plaintiffs — and indirectly on the federal
courts — for serving allegedly unresponsive answers to
discovery requests.
A trial on the merits, or even a summary judgment
proceeding, on plaintiffs’ allegations of exposure to Geor-
gia-Pacific products would be premature and inappropri-
ate. GM has failed to carry its heavy burden of
establishing that plaintiffs have “no possibility” of estab-
lishing exposure to Georgia-Pacific products. The motion
for reinand should be granted on that basis.
il. PLAINTIFFS HAVE ADEQUATELY ALLEGED A
VIABLE CIVIL CONSPIRACY CASE AGAINST
GEORGIA-PACIFIC.
As GM admits, under Georgia law a conspiracy is “a
combination between two or more persons either to do
some act which is a tort or else to do some lawful act by
methods which constitute a tort.” GM Mem. 13, quoting
Pe eS aa ee ee ere yet es
pe a ae, ©
1-6
Savannah College of Art & Design, Inc. v. School of Visual
Arts of Savannah, Inc., 464 S.E.2d 895, 896 (Ga. Ct. App.
1995). The rule is the same in Alabama, Jones v. BP Oil Co.,
632 So.2d 435, 439 (Ala. 1993), and in Texas (Massey v.
Armco Steel Co., 652 S.W.2d 932, 934 (Tex. 1983)). Unques-
tionably, the marketing of an unreasonably dangerous
product is a tort. And although it is true that the underly-
ing tort in a conspiracy case must be intentional in
nature, GM Mem. 13, there is no doubt that a manufac-
turer can intend to market an unreasonably dangerous
product. In this case, plaintiffs have alleged that Georgia-
Pacific, with other manufacturers, conspired to manufac-
ture and market intentionally defective and unreasonably
dangerous products. Complaint, [] 67-72.
The viability of this conspiracy theory is demon-
strated by a recent asbestos case tried by plaintiffs’ coun-
sel in Texas. In Mary Beth “Maisie” Wheat v. Raymark Corp.,
et al., No. 95-12812-D, in the 95th District Court of Dallas
County, Texas, the plaintiff sued Raymark for fatal
asbestos-related injuries sustained by her husband. The
plaintiff was unable to develop evidence that her dece-
dent was exposed to a Raymark product, but alleged that
Raymark was nonetheless liable for the death because (1)
Raymark had conspired with Johns-Manville to suppress
medical and scientific data concerning the hazards of
asbestos, (2) Johns-Manville’s act of marketing its
asbestos products with an “intentional defect” was a
tortious overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, and (3)
the decedent’s death was proximately caused by Johns-
Manville’s overt act in furtherance of its conspiracy with
Raymark. See Judgment (Amended) in Mary Beth “Maisie”
Wheat v. Raymark Corp. signed Mar. 3, 1998 (copy attached
SAMMI SI tre
I-7
hereto as Exhibit “A”) at 2-3. The jury found for the
plaintiff on this theory, and the trial court entered judg-
ment on the verdict. Id. Raymark has since filed for
protection under the Bankruptcy Code.
Neither the Georgia nor the Alabama courts have
addressed the viability of the type of conspiracy theory
upon which the plaintiff prevailed in the Wheat case. The
very existence of the Wheat case, and the legion of other
cases which recognize the viability of the theory of civil
conspiracy for marketing an asbestos product with an
intentional defect, (see cases cited in plaintiffs’ Memoran-
dum in Support of Motion for Remand at 6-7), simply
forecloses the contention that plaintiffs have “no possi-
bility” of recovery on the conspiracy theory alleged in
their complaint. See Lane v. Champion Int'l Corp., 827 F.
Spp.. 701, 706 (S.D. Ala. 1993) (“If plaintiffs’ allegations
set forth a good faith claim under state law, no matter
how doubtful, the presence of the non-diverse defendant
will defeat removal.”).
The potential viability of plaintiffs’ civil conspiracy
claims against Georgia-Pacific is further demonstrated by
the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Central Wesleyan College v.
W.R. Grace & Co., 6 F.3d 177 (4th Cir. 1993). In that case,
the plaintiff college sought to serve as a representative
plaintiff in a property damage class action brought by
colleges and universities against suppliers of asbestos
products. 6 F.3d at 183. The defendants claimed that the
college did not meet the prerequisites for serving as a
representative plaintiff, because the evidence indicated
that the products of only one manufacturer, which had
filed for bankruptcy, were used in its buildings. Id. & n.1.
The district court, and the Fourth Circuit on appeal,
I-8
rejected the defendants’ objection, in part because the
college’s allegation that the defendants “cooperated and
assisted each other in the suppression and active conceal-
ment and misrepresentation of the relationship between
asbestos and various diseases as early as the 1930's,” id.
at 187, stated “non-frivolous conspiracy claims that gave
[the college] standing against all members of the asbestos
industry.” Id. at 183. Georgia-Pacific is identified as a
defendant in that case. Id. at 178-79.
GM asserts that plaintiffs’ allegations of conspiracy
against Georgia-Pacific are ineffectual because plaintiffs
did not plead any acts of fraud with Specificity as
required by both Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and its Georgia analog. Contrary to GM’s
assumption, however, fraud is not a necessary component
of plaintiffs’ civil conspiracy claim. Rather, as plaintiffs
explain above, the conspiracy as alleged in plaintiffs’
complaint was to suppress knowledge of the hazards of
asbestos from the consuming public (for the Purpose of
maximizing profits from the Sale of asbestos Products),
and the tortious acts undertaken by the conspirators was
to market intentionally defective Products (i.e., products
without adequate warnings). These allegations are
unquestionably actionable without Proof of fraud and,
under the literal language of the federal and Georgia
rules, need not be pleaded with specificity.
GM’s emphasis on the failure of plaintiffs to provide
details of “all statements or omissions of Georgia-Pacific
Corporation (including precise time, place and content)
claimed to have harmed [plaintiff]” (GM Mem. 19) only
highlights its misunderstanding of plaintiffs’ conspiracy
theory. Plaintiffs’ claim here is not that the defendants
1-9
affirmatively made fraudulent statements, but that they
wrongfully suppressed information regarding the hazards
of asbestos. Rule 9(b) and its Georgia analog do not, and
cannot require plaintiffs to allege the circumstances of
these “non-statements” with particularity. !
Finally, plaintiffs would alert the court to information
that they have recently obtained indicating that Georgia-
Pacific Corporation was indeed engaged in a conspiracy
to suppress the hazards of asbestos from the general
public, and that plaintiffs were injured as a result of the
conspiracy.
As plaintiffs pointed out in their initial memorandum
in support of remand, Georgia-Pacific Corporation manu-
factured asbestos-containing wallboard and gypsum
1 Because plaintiffs’ conspiracy theory is based not on
defendants’ statements but on their “non-statements,” the only
facts that plaintiffs could conceivably plead relate to
defendants’ conduct within the conspiracy. It is obvious that,
contrary to GM’s assertion, these facts would not be “uniquely
known to plaintiffs prior to filing the complaint” (GM’s Mem.
19); therefore, they cannot be required to plead them with
particularity.
2 GM asserts that the Court should disregard any
additional material that plaintiffs provide to the Court to rebut
GM’s claim that plaintiffs fraudulently joined Georgia-Pacific,
because plaintiffs did not provide the material to GM in
response to the state court discovery requests. GM Mem. 20.
Contrary to GM’s assumption, however, the record is not closed;
plaintiffs are entitled to provide information to the Court
establishing the viability of their claims. Crowe, 113 F.3d at 1538.
And even if plaintiffs’ failure to provide this information to GM
upon its initial request was improper, which plaintiffs deny, GM
cites no case holding that the consequence of such a discovery
violation is automatic federal jurisdiction.
paso PE eb a
Red
By
¥
if
I-10
products, and, along vith other manufacturers of
asbestos products, was a member of the Gypsum Associa-
tion since the mid-1960’s. Minutes of the Gypsum Asso-
ciation confirm that the members of the Association were
aware of the relationship between asbestos and lung can-
cer as early as 1967, and worried that related pollution
problems might have “a dramatic effect on all indus-
tries.” Minutes of the Safety Committee Meeting of the
Gypsum Association, September 19, 1967 (Ex. “B” to this
Reply). In 1973, representatives af the Gypsum Associa-
tion attempted, without success, to convince OSHA rep-
resentatives to relieve manufacturers of asbestos-
containing joint compound from the requirements of
placing warning labels on their products and monitoring
the job sites where joint compound products were used.
Report of Special Task Force on Joint Treatment Com-
pound, November, 1973 (Ex. “C”). In November of 1973,
the Gypsum Association conducted a study “to determine
the concentrations of airborne asbestos to which workers
were exposed during mixing and sanding of joint cement
compounds and to interpret the results in terms of poten-
tial health hazards with Particular reference to regula-
tions promulgated” under OSHA. Evaluation of Exposure
to Asbestos During Mixing and Sanding of Joint Com-
pounds, Gypsum Association, November 19, 1973 (Ex.
“D” to this Reply), at 1. The study concluded, inter alia,
that “[i]t is clear that persons engaged in the mixing and
sanding of joint compounds similar to those used during
this test would be exposed to concentrations of airborne
asbestos in excess of two fibres per cubic centimeter
during the entire course of their work,” which was the
Proposed acceptable limit to become effective July 1,
I-11
1976. Id. at 6. Nevertheless, in August of 1976, members
of the Association suggested preparing a “position
paper” showing that “to the best of our information,
there is no carcinogenetic relationship with gypsum,” and
advising that the industry should establish a position that
any blanket mineral fiber standard is totally out of
order.” Special Meeting, Manufacturing and Mining Com-
mittee, August 10, 1976 (Ex. “E”). These facts establish at
least a “possibility” that Georgia-Pacific conspired with
other manufacturers to suppress from the public informa-
tion concerning the hazards of asbestos, and that the
conspiracy caused injury to the plaintiffs.
Georgia-Pacific has already been found to have con-
spired with other members of the Gypsum Association. In
the early 1970’s, Georgia-Pacific, along with three other
companies, was convicted of having “engaged in a
nationwide conspiracy to fix the prices, the terms and
conditions of sale, and the method of handling gypsum
board products.” United States v. United States Gypsum
Co., 600 F.2d 414, 416 (3d Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S.
884 (1979). It is certainly reasonable to expect that these
- same companies conspired to promote the sale of their
asbestos-containing products by concealing the hazards
of such products from the public. Further discovery may
or may not reveal such information, but for purposes of
deciding the motion for remand, all that is important is
that defendants have not shown there is “no possibility”
that plaintiffs can recover from Georgia-Pacific under
their conspiracy theory.
I-12
Ill. THE LYONS OPINION DOES NOT SUPPORT
REMOVAL IN THIS CASE.
GM relies heavily on the recent decision of this Court
in Lyons v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., Civil Action
No. 97-CV-1850-CC (N.D. Ga. Mar. 23, 1998), but the case
is clearly distinguishable. Lyons was a class action on
behalf of all Georgia residents who are cigarette smokers
or survivors of cigarette smokers against the tobacco
industry. In addition to the cigarette manufacturers and
their trade associations, the plaintiffs also sued an indi-
vidual who was a former tobacco executive and three
local distributor defendants. The individual and distribu-
tor defendants were the only Georgia residents named in
the complaint. The district court found that the plaintiffs
had fraudulently joined the Georgia residents because
“the distribution Defendants have nothing to do with the
manufacture or advertising of cigarettes, or the conceal-
ment of the products’ allegedly hazardous effects” and
because the plaintiffs’ “general allegations of fraud and
RICO violations” against the individual tobacco executive
“are wholly insufficient to Satisfy the pleading require-
ments of either the federal] (or Georgia) rules or the RICO
Statute, not to mention the obvious statute of limitations
Problems that arise when a corporate officer is sued over
eight years after he held the Position at issue.” Lyons, slip
op. at 7-8.
In contrast, Georgia-Pacific is an undisputed member
of the asbestos industry and is alleged to be liable to
plaintiffs for Precisely the same reasons that all the other
defendants are alleged to be liable. The only alleged
problem with plaintiffs’ joinder of Georgia-Pacific is that
plaintiffs have not yet proved that Georgia-Pacific is
I-13
actually liable for their injuries. This is an insufficient
basis upon which to find fraudulent joinder.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, and for the reasons stated
in plaintiffs’ motion for remand and supporting mem-
orandum, plaintiffs respectfully urge the Court to remand
this case to the Superior Court for Fulton County, Geor-
gia, and to award such fees and costs as it deems just.
Respectfully submitted,
BARON & BUDD
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
The Centrum
Suite 1100
3102 Oak Lawn Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75219
(214) 521-3605
FAX: (214) 520-1181
By: /s/ Brent M. Rosenthal
Brent M. Rosenthal
Texas State Bar No. 17281075
AND
DOFFERMYRE, SHIELDS,
CANFIELD, KNOWLES &
DEVINE
Suite 1600
1355 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
By: /s/ Kenneth S. Canfield
by #750415
Kenneth S. Canfield
Georgia State Bar No. 10774
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
=
a
Es
*
we
:
ie
e
I-14
NO. 95-12812-D
MARY BETH “MAISIE” WHEAT, § IN THE
Individually and as Personal § DISTRICT
Representative of the Heirs and § COURT
Estate of SAMUEL JOE WHEAT, §
Deceased, ET AL.: §
Plaintiffs pony
; COUNTY, TEXAS
VS.
RAYMARK CORPORATION (as
successor to ASBESTOS
LITIGATION MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION); and
RAYMARK INDUSTRIES (as
successor to RAYMARK
FRICTION COMPANY, INC. and
UNIVERSAL FRICTION
COMPOSITES), ET AL.;
Defendants.
95TH JUDICIAL
DISTRICT
PAM nn nn an Mn aM un En nr
JUDGMENT (AMENDED)
CAME ON FOR TRIAL BY JURY the claims of Plain-
tiffs MARY BETH “MAISIE” WHEAT, Individually and as
Personal Representative of the Heirs and Estate of SAM-
UEL JOE WHEAT, Deceased, and KENNETH WHEAT,
TAMARA MOORE, TARA MARTZ, and NINA MAE
WHEAT, Individually as Heirs and Beneficiaries of SAM-
UEL JOE WHEAT, against Defendants Raymark Corpora-
tion and Raymark Industries, who all appeared in person
and by attorney of record and announced ready for trial.
All matters of fact and things in controversy were submit-
ted, and a jury having been Previously demanded, a jury
TA REN tae OA es 7
NE aad *t
I-15
consisting of twelve good and lawful jurors was duly
empaneled, and the case proceeded to trial.
The claims of WILLIAM LUTHER DOUGLAS,
LAURA JO HERRIDGE, ROBERT EARL STEEL, EFFIE
JEAN EURINE, Individually and as Personal Representa-
tive of the Heirs and Estate of ANTHONY RAY EURINE,
Deceased and MATTIE CHARLENE ALLEN did not pro-
ceed to trial, as the claims of these Plaintiffs against all
Defendants were settled and dismissed prior to trial. At
the conclusion of the evidence, in the first phase of this
bifurcated trial, the Court submitted the case to the jury
on special issues. The jury deliberated and announced its
verdict to the Court on February 19, 1998, as follows:
1. Do you find SAM WHEAT sustained an
asbestos-related injury or disease that
caused his death?
Answer “YES” or “NO”.
YES NO
xX
If you have answered Question No. 1 “YES,”
answer Question No. 2; otherwise, do ot
answer Question No. 2.
2. Was there an intentional defect in
Johns-Manville’s marketing of an asbestos-
containing product at the time the product
left the possession of Johns-Manville that
was a proximate cause of the death of SAM
WHEAT?
A “defect in the marketing” with respect to
the product means the failure to give ade-
quate warnings of the product’s dangers
I-16
that were known or by the application of
reasonably developed human skill and fore-
sight should have been known or failure to
give adequate instructions to avoid such
dangers, which failure rendered the product
unreasonably dangerous as marketed.
“Adequate” warnings and <astruction mean
warnings and instructions given in a form
that could reasonably be expected to catch
the attention of a reasonably prudent person
in the circumstances of the product’s use;
and the content of the warnings and instruc-
tions must be comprehensible to the average
user and must convey a fair indication of
the nature and extent of the danger and how
to avoid it to the mind of a reasonably pru-
dent person.
An “unreasonably dangerous” product is
one that is dangerous to an extent beyond
that which would be contemplated by the
ordinary user of the product with the ordi-
nary knowledge common to the community
as to the product's characteristics.
Answer “YES” or “NO”.
YES NO
xX
(If you have answered Question No. 2
“YES,” then answer Question No. 3; other-
wise, do not answer Question No. 3.)
Do you find that Raymark part of a conspir-
acy with Johns-Manville to suppress medi-
cal and scientific data concerning the
hazards of asbestos?
I-17
“Conspiracy” is defined as a combination by
two or more persons to accomplish an
unlawful purpose or to accomplish a lawful
purpose by unlawful means.
The elements of a conspiracy are: 1) two or
more persons; 2) an object to be accom-
plished; 3) a meeting of minds on the object
or course of action; 4) one or more unlawful
overt acts, and 5) damages as the proximate
result. “Unlawful” means violative of either
criminal or civil law. Marketing an unrea-
sonably dangerous product can be an
unlawful act.
Answer “YES” or “NO”.
YES NO
X
(If you have answered Question No. 3
“YES,” then answer Question No. 4; other-
wise, do not answer Question No. 4.)
Was Johns-Manville’s marketing of defective
asbestos-containing products an overt act in
furtherance of the conspiracy described in
Question No. 3?
Answer “YES” or “NO”.
YES NO
X
(If you have answered Question No. 4
“YES,” then answer Question No. 5; other-
wise, do not answer Question No. 5.)
What sum of money would have fairly and
reasonably compensated SAM WHEAT for -
i-18
Pain and Mental anguish.
“Pain and mental anguish” means the con-
scious physical pain and emotional Pain,
torment, and suffering experienced by SAM
WHEAT before his death as a result of his
asbestos-related injuries.
Answer in dollars and cents for damages, if
any.
Amount $1,500,000
(If you have answered Question No. 4
“YES,” then answer Question No. 6; other-
wise, do not answer Question No. 6.)
What sum of money, if paid now in cash,
would fairly and reasonably compensate
MARY BETH “MAISIE” WHEAT, KEN-
NETH WHEAT, TAMARA MOORE, TARA
MARTZ, and NINA MAE WHEAT for their
injuries, if any, that resulted from the death
of SAM WHEAT?
Consider the elements of damages listed
below and none other. Consider each ele-
ment separately. Do not include damages
for one element in any other element. Do
not include interest on any amount of dam-
ages you find.
a. Loss of companionship and society.
“Loss of companionship and society”
means the loss of the Positive benefits
flowing from the love, comfort, compan-
ionship, and society that the Plaintiffs
would, in reasonable probability, have
received from SAM WHEAT had he
lived.
I-19
Mental anguish.
“Mental anguish” means the emotional
pain, torment, and suffering experi-
enced by the Plaintiffs because of the
death of SAM WHEAT.
In determining damages for elements a
and b, you may consider the relation-
ship between each of the Plaintiffs listed
below and SAM WHEAT, their living
arrangements, any extended absences
from one another, the harmony of their
family relations, and their common
interests and activities. You are
reminded that elements a and b, like
other elements of damages, are separate,
and, in awarding damages for one ele-
ment, you shall not include damages for
the other.
Answer, with respect to the elements lis-
ted above, in dollars and cents for dam-
ages, if any, that -
MARY BETH “MAISIE” WHEAT
sustained in the past; Answer
$ 750,000
in reasonable probability will
be sustained in the
future. Answer
$ 750,000
KENNETH WHEAT
sustained in the past; Answer
$ 200,000
¥
¥.
~
<
E 3
;
&
a
a
=
:
Sas einm
PE TEY
I-20
in reasonable probability will
be sustained in the
future. Answer
$ 50,000
TAMARA MOORE
Sustained in the Past; Answer
¢% 200,000
in reasonable probability will
be sustained in the
future. Answer
$ 50,000
TARA MARTZ
sustained in the past; Answer
$ 200,000
in reasonable probability will
be sustained in the
future. Answer
$ 50,000
(If you have answered Question No. 4
“YES,” answer Question No. 7: other-
wise, do not answer Question No. 7.)
Do you find by clear and convincing evi-
dence that the death of SAM WHEAT
resulted from malice on the part of
Raymark?
“Clear and convincing evidence” means the
measure or degree of proof that Produces a
firm belief or conviction of the truth of the
allegations sought to be established.
I-21
“Malice” means
(a) a specific intent by the Defendant to
cause substantial injury to the Plaintiff;
(b)
or
an act or omission by the Defendant,
(i)
(ii)
which, when viewed objectively
from the standpoint of the Defen-
dant at the time of its occurrence,
involved an extreme degree of risk,
considering the probability and
magnitude of the potential harm to
others; and
of which the Defendant had actual,
subjective awareness of the risk
involved, but nevertheless pro-
ceeded with conscious indifference
to the rights, safety, or welfare of
others.
Answer “YES” or “NO”.
YES
X
NO
The jury having found by clear and convincing evi-
dence that the death of Sam Wheat resulted from malice
on the part of Raymark, the Court proceeded to the
second phase of the trial concerning punitive damages.
At the conclusion of the evidence of the second phase, the
Court submitted the case to the jury on special issues.
The jury deliberated and announced its verdict to the
Court on February 20, 1998, as follows:
What sum of money, if any, should be
assessed against Raymark and awarded to
I-22
Plaintiffs as exemplary damages for the
death of SAM WHEAT.
“Exemplary damages” means any damages
awarded as a penalty or by way of punish-
ment.
Exemplary damages includes punitive dam-
ages.
Factors to consider in awarding exemplary
damages, if any, are:
a. The nature of the wrong.
b. The character of the conduct involved.
c. The degree of culpability of the wrong-
doer.
d. The situation and sensibilities of the par-
ties concerned.
e. The extent to which such conduct
offends a public sense of justice and pro-
priety.
f. The net worth of Raymark.
Answer in dollars and cents, if any.
Amount $ 500,000
(If, in your answer to Question No. 1, you
have entered any amount of exemplary
damages, then answer Question No. 2; oth-
erwise, do not answer Question No. 2.)
How do you apportion the exemplary dam-
ages between MARY BETH “MAISIE”
WHEAT, TARA MARTZ, TAMARA MOORE,
and KENNETH WHEAT?
I-23
Answer by stating a percentage for each
person named below. The percentages you
find must total 100 percent.
MARY BETH “MAISIE”
WHEAT 100 %
TARA MARTZ 0 %o
TAMARA MOORE 0 %
KENNETH WHEAT 0 %o
TOTAL: 100 %
Plaintiffs thereafter represented to the Court the fol-
lowing amounts as settlements with other Defendants
sued in the action:
CENTER FOR CLAIMS RESOLUTION $200,000.00
A.P. Green Refractories
Armstrong World Industries
CertainTeed Corporation
Dana Corporation
Flexitallic Gasket Company, Inc.
GAF Corporation
Gasket Holding, Inc.
National Gypsum Company
Quigley Company, Inc.
T&N
United States Gypsum Company
ACandS 10,000.00
ANCHOR PACKING 500.00
BABCOCK & WILCOX 160,000.00 -
COMBUSTION ENGINEERING 15,000.00
CROWN CORK & SEAL 7,500.00
M.H. DETRICK 325.87
I-24
FIBREBOARD CORPORATION (cash)
FIBREBOARD CORPORATION (note)
FLINTKOTE
GARLOCK
GENERAL REFRACTORIES
GEORGIA-PACIFIC
INDRESCO
KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL
KELLY-MOORE
JOHNS-MANVILLE (cash)
METROPOLITAN LIFE
OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS
OWENS-ILLINOIS
PITTSBURGH CORNING
PROKO
RAPID-AMERICAN
SYNKOLOID
UNARCO
UNIROYAL HOLDING
U.S. MINERAL PRODUCTS CO.
W.R. GRACE & CO.
TOTAL
24,500.00
24,500.00
2,500.00
7,500.00
12,000.00
15,000.00
15,000.00
7,500.00
93,000.00
20,000.00
1,900.00
100,000.00
45,000.00
110,000.00
5,950.00
175,000.00
175,000.00
5,912.00
6,000.00
15,000.00
140,000.00
1,394,587.87
Plaintiffs also submitted for the Court’s consideration
their offset and pre-judgment interest calculations appor-
tioned among the Estate of Sam Wheat and the Plaintiffs /
Beneficiaries, as follows:
iantintepaiiiisineeen dae aan ee
ee: ee Bem A ARE 2k 8 OO a
I-25
€COLL6'IZE’E ZB IEL‘SSIL ZS IEl’Ssl ZS I€I’ssl €6°062'8Z9'l €6'06Z’8ZI'T }S919}UT
3u13 p{-aid
+ ywi3pl [ejoy
1Z'S$9S'99F Se FOl'le Se POLI S€e'POL' le 80°9Z9’98I 80°979’98I ‘yur
yw3pl-aig
ZUZIb‘SS8’Z = LF LZO’LZSI LELZO'LSI =—s-s LH LZO'LSI SS PO ZhP I «6S8'POL‘ZH6 jSaJa}Ul
3/q
sa8ewep aN
00°000’00¢ 00°000’00S aayrund
— ~PIpsaA
ZUZIPSSE’Z } = LA LZO’LST LVLZO'LSI =—s-_—« LE LZO'LSI SS PIl'7Z6 «= ss SB HOT’ZH6 113 pf
‘duio> 38N
88 ZEc’P6e’l (€S°726'Z6) (€S°'7Z6'%6) (€S°7Z6'Z6) (SI'se9’Zss) (SI'SEs’ZSs) SJ9S}JO
00°0000SZ’€ 00°000’0SZ 00°000‘0SZ 00°0000SZ 00°000’00$’I 00'000 ‘00S‘T ‘duo
‘PIPsaA
[2IOL ZyIePW eiel s100O/ZFW eIeUWel yPOUM yyoUuUsy yPOUM yeOUM wes
%0Z JO ‘gq Arey jo
e/, sya3 “ey | %OF 9321S %OF
I-26
Accordingly, based on the verdict of the jury as
recited herein, the Court’s rulings during trial, the appli-
cable law, and taking into account the prior settlements
received by Plaintiffs listed herein, as well as offset calcu-
lations, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
1. That Plaintiff MARY BETH “MAISIE” WHEAT, as
Personal Representative of the Heirs and Estate of SAM-
UEL JOE WHEAT, Deceased, shall have and recover from
Defendants Raymark Corporation and Raymark Indus-
tries compensatory damages in the amount of
$942,164.85.
2. That Plaintiff MARY BETH “MAISIE” WHEAT,
Individually, shall have and recover from Defendants
Raymark Corporation and Raymark Industries, compen-
satory damages in the amount of $942,164.85.
3. That Plaintiff KENNETH WHEAT, Individually,
shall have and recover from Defendants Raymark Corpo-
ration and Raymark Industries, compensatory damages
in the amount of $157,027.47.
4. That Plaintiff TAMARA MOORE, Individually,
shall have and recover from Defendants Raymark Corpo-
ration and Raymark Industries, compensatory damages
in the amount of $157,027.47.
5. That Plaintiff TARA MARTZ, Individually, shall
have and recover from Defendants Raymark Corporation
and Raymark Industries, compensatory damages in the
amount of
$157,027.47.
1-27
6. That Plaintiff MARY BETH “MAISIE” WHEAT,
Individually, shall have and recover from Defendants
Raymark Corporation and Raymark Industries, punitive
damages in the amount of $500,000.00.
7. That Plaintiff NINA MAE WHEAT, Individually,
shall take nothing on her claims against Defendants
Raymark Corporation and Raymark Industries.
8. That pursuant to Tex.R.Civ.Stat.Ann. Art.
5069-1E.101, et seq., (formerly Art. 5069-1.05 § 6), Plaintiff
MARY BETH “MAISIE” WHEAT, as Personal Representa-
tive of the Heirs and Estate of SAMUEL JOE WHEAT,
Deceased, shall recover prejudgment interest at the rate
of 10% per annum from March 6, 1996, the date the suit
was filed, until the date vefore this judgment was signed,
in the amount of $186,626.08.
9. That pursuant to Tex.R.Civ.Stat.Ann. Art.
5069-1E.101, et seq., (formerly Art. 5069-1.05 § 6), Plaintiff,
MARY BETH “MAISIE” WHEAT, Individually, shall
recover prejudgment interest at the rate of 10% per
annum from March 6, 1996, the date the suit was filed,
until the date before this judgment was signed, in the
amount of $186,626.08.
10. That pursuant to Tex.R.Civ.Stat.Ann. Art.
5069-1E.101, et seq., (formerly Art. 5069-1.05 § 6), Plaintiff,
KENNETH WHEAT, Individually, shall recover prejudg-
ment interest at the rate of 10% per annum from March 6,
1996, the date the suit was filed, until the date before this
judgment was signed, in the amount of $31,104.35.
11. That pursuant to Tex.R.Civ.Stat.Ann. Art.
5069-1E.101, et seq., (formerly Art. 5069-1.05 § 6), Plaintiff,
a
I-28
TAMARA MOORE, Individually, shall recover prejudg-
ment interest at the rate of 10% per annum from March 6,
1996, the date the suit was filed, until the date before this
judgment was signed, in the amount of $31,104.35.
12. That pursuant to Tex.R.Civ.Stat Ann. Art.
5069-1E.101, et seq., (formerly Art. 5069-1.05 § 6), Plaintiff,
TARA MARTZ, Individually, shall recover prejudgment
interest at the rate of 10% per annum from March 6, 1996,
the date the suit was filed, until the date before this
judgment was signed, in the amount of $31,104.35.
13. That postjudgment interest on the amounts
owed by Defendants to Plaintiffs shall accrue at the rate
of TEN PERCENT (10%) per annum, compounded annu-
ally, from the date the judgment is signed until it is
Satisfied pursuant to Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. Art.
5.069-1E.001-5069-1E.006 (formerly Art. 5069-1.05 §§ 2
and 3).
14. That Plaintiffs’ claims against all other Defen-
dants in this action have been settled and Dismissed.
15. Costs of this suit shall be taxed against each
Party as incurred by them.
16. All other relief not expressly granted herein is
hereby denied.
LET EXECUTION LIE IF NOT TIMELY PAID.
1
|
+
|
1-29
SIGNED this 3 day of March, 1998.
/s/ Sally T. Montgomery
THE HONORABLE
JUDGE SALLY MONTGOMERY
AGREED AS TO FORM:
DEFENDANT:
RAYMARK CORPORATION &
RAYMARK INDUSTRIES
* /s/ Mike Maddox
Mike Maddox
William Sxepnek
SKEPNEK & MADDOX
Mercantile Bank Tower, Ste. 601
900 Massachusetts
Lawrence, KS 66044
Phone No: 785-331-0300
Fax No: 785-331-0303
PLAINTIFFS:
/s/ Brent M. Rosenthal
Lisa Blue
Brent M. Rosenthal
Lisa Kivett
Michael L. Kaeske
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
3102 Oak Lawn, Suite 1100
Dallas, TX 75219-4281
Phone No: 214-521-3605
Fax No: 214-550-1181
*
objects to punitive damages
I-30
MINUTES OF THE
SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING
SEPTEMBER 19, 1967
Mr. F.H. Zimmerman, Chairman of the Gypsum
Association Safety Committee, called the meeting to
order at the Marriott Motor Hotel, Saddle Brook, New
Jersey, at 8:30 a.m. Those in attendance were:
C. J. Saturnia Celotex Corporation
M. F. Fink Georgia-Pacific Corporation
Gypsum Division
J. Gregg Kaiser Gypsum Company,
Inc.
R. W. Henly The Flintkote Company
J. Tuffy The Flintkote Company
T. D. Tolin National Gypsum Company
F. H. Zimmerman National Gypsum Company
P. Kipp United States Gypsum
Company
A. V. Abnee, Jr. Gypsum Association
F. J. Rogers Gypsum Association
1. GYPSUM ASSOCIATION SAFETY BULLETIN
A. The chairman requested that the secretary relate
the member company response for Safety articles to be
used in the Bulletin. Following a brief discussion by the
3
I-31
committee, it was their recommendation that each mem-
ber company stimulate employee participation by urging
the plant employees to write and submit safety articles to
the Association.
B. The committee reviewed the Bulletin format and
it was the consensus that it was satisfactory in its present
form. One member suggested that a possible change be
considered when the next Bulletin mast head is printed.
The secretary indicated that present Bulletin stock supply
would be depleted at the end of the fiscal year, and at
that time, committee suggestions would be solicited.
The committee requested that the secretary construct
a chart showing the industry frequency rating over the
past four years, as related to the all industry frequency
rating reported by the National Safety Council, and print
this chart in the Safety Bulletin. The secretary indicated
that such a chart was already being considered for the
October issue.
The committee directed that this item be carried on
the docket.
2. “CERTIFICATE OF MERIT” AWARD
The secretary submitted a “Certificate of Merit”
award plaque for committee investigation. He informed
the committee that the award cost the Association $20.00
to purchase and mail, and requested that they might
consider adopting an award that might have greater util-
ity for the winner, such as an ash tray or pen set. the
committee, after much discussion, directed the secretary
I-32
to obtain a les costly certificate and also purchase an ash
tray for the award winners.
Following a thorough review of the last three edi-
tions of the Safety Bulletin, the committee selected one
article by ballot. The article “Did You Bet Your Life?” by
Val Robertson, Assistant Production Superintendent, The
Flintkote Company, Blue Diamond Gypsum Division, Fre-
mont, California (August 1967) won the award. Mr.
Robertson will receive a certificate and inscribed ash tray
for his contribution to safety.
3. AIR AND STREAM POLLUTION
The chairman cited a few pollution problems involv-
ing plants on a local level. He stressed the importance of
all committee members keeping abreast with local, state,
and federal pollution programs.
One member noted a recent problem involving the
asbestos industry where a number of lung carcinoma
cases had been reported by inhabitants of the neighbor-
hood surrounding an asbestos plant. It was further noted
that clinical tests and investigations had resulted in legal
action against the manufacturer by the claimants.
The chairman indicated that air and water pollution
problems would have a dramatic effect on all industries
and that the committee should take the initiative to meet
any such problems head on if they should occur in the
gypsum industry.
Following a discussion of pollution problems in var-
ious industries, it was the consensus that the safety com-
mittee should have a more active program in this area,
i
I-33
outlining the problems that exist and what steps have
been taken to solve them.
On a motion seconded and carried, the committee
recommended that the chairman advise the directors of
the pollution problem, and suggest that they have plant
managers join local groups studying pollution problems,
so as to give our industry greater control of the problems.
The committee directed that this subject be carried on
the docket.
REPORT OF SPECIAL TASK FORCE ON
JOINT TREATMENT COMPOUND
This is the first report on the proceedings and status of
the work being done by the Special Committee on
Asbestos in Joint Compound. As you will recall, a recom-
mendation was made to the Gypsum Association that it
involve itself in the assessment of release of asbestos
fibers during the use of the joint treatment products by
the customer. This recommendation was based on the
stringent regulations of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act. At the annual meeting, all committees and
the Board supported a basic program and funds were
appropriated to conduct a field test program to determine
what level of asbestos fibers are released in mixing and
sanding operations when using joint compound products.
It was further stipulated that an independent laboratory
would serve to monitor this type of program in order to
minimize cost due to duplicate individual efforts by the
membership.
1-34
In May of this year, representatives from the Gypsum
Association met with OSHA representatives in Washing-
ton to discuss regulations pertaining to asbestos. The two
Purposes for this meeting were (1) a hope to obtain an
interpretation of the law which would preclude the need
for placing labels on containers of joint compound if the
asbestos fiber environment generated during its normal
use would not exceed the OSHA limits, and (2) a variance
from the regulations which would eliminate the need for
the contractor to Provide monitoring at each job site.
Although OSHA was impressed with our interest in our
consumers use of the product, they verbally denied any
general relief from either the labeling or the monitoring
requirement.
Subsequent to the meeting with OSHA, a special Associa-
tion committee was formed from member designates who
were skilled in air sampling techniques and evaluations.
This committee formulated a test program and selected
George D. Clayton and Associates as the independent
laboratory to do the monitoring for the test. The actual
test work was conducted by Gardineer Drywall Com-
Pany, Aurora, Colorado, and they provided excellent
cooperation in order that the monitoring of dust and
asbestos fibers could be evaluated.
Ten dry powder and ready mix topping grade joint com-
pounds from five manufacturers were delivered tc the
site by the Association members. Containers were
unmarked except for a code number assigned by the
Association’s confidential depository. Ten test houses, in
close Proximity to each other and of relatively compara-
ble size were designated for the test program. One
me Waren ee
PAAR
0. i Nad a
EAN Ra Re RR NN iy 4
1-35
product was assigned for each house for the mixing and
sanding procedures.
The mixing tests required about 15 minutes per product
and the sanding required an average of one hour per
house; sanding was accomplished in a manner typical of
flat work.
Although a final report has not been submitted by Clay-
ton, there was a special committee meeting held October
3 and a discussion of preliminary results indicated that
there might be some area of inconsistency or incomple-
tion of data obtained from this test program. The Com-
mittee recommends that certain portions of this program
be redone to assure the Association that results which are
to be published in the final report are accurate, complete
and consistent.
The phase II program has already been established and
the Committee is ready td proceed. It is estimated that
this phase will cost no more than $2,000 and it is
requested that the Board of Directors approve such
expenditures. If funds are appropriated, Phase II can
complete their work and submit a comprehensive report
of findings and recommendations by the end of January
1974. It is not possible as of now to predict if additional
testing will be required after Phase II.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ J. Volk
Joseph Volk, Chairman
Special Committee on
Joint Compounds
November 1973
1-36
EVALUATION OF EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS DURING
MIXING AND SANDING OF JOINT COMPOUNDS
GYPSUM ‘ASSOCIATION
Denver, Colorado
November 19, 1973
INTRODUCTION
The Gypsum Association retained George D. Clayton and
Associates to conduct an industrial hygiene Survey at a
test site located in Denver, Colorado. The Purpose of the
survey was to determine the concentrations of airborne
asbestos to which workers were exposed during mixing
and sanding of joint cement compounds and to interpret
the results in terms of potential health hazards with
Particular reference to regulations Promulgated under
authority of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970. This Study was conducted on November 19, 1973 by
Mr. Robert D. Soule of Clayton and Associates. Results of
that study are reported
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.