FILED: ALBANY COUNTY CLERK 07/19/ :49 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 124 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/19/2018

Transcription

1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ALBANY LYNN M. LOCKWOOD as Executrix for the Estate of KATHRYN F. MOHL, NOTICE OF FACT WITNESS, EXPERT WITNESS, AND vs. Plaintiff, EXHIBIT LIST Index No.: /2015 A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS, et al., Defendants, Defendant, WEIL-McLAIN, by and through its attorneys, for its Fact Witness, Expert Witness and Exhibit List, states as follows and reserves the right to supplement at a later date: FACT WITNESSES 1. Paul H. Schuelke, P.E., Director, Technical Services of Weil-McLain: Mr. Schuelke will testify regarding the corporate history, product line, sale and distribution, installation, maintenance, repair and dismantling of Weil-McLain products. 2. Weil-McLain reserves the right to designate representatives of any site, corporation or employer where it is alleged that any Plaintiff was exposed to Weil-McLain products, and/or to designate additional fact witnesses at such time Plaintiffs or any other party offers additional evidence in the form of specific product identification, including the specific model of a Weil-McLain product at a specific location, and/or at such time as additional or different information is offered by Plaintiffs or any other party. 3. Weil-McLain incorporates herein by reference and designates all fact witnesses designated by all other parties and who are not objected to by Weil-McLain. 4. Any present or former employee of Weil-McLain and/or Marley-Wylain Inc. 5. Any co-worker of plaintiff identified in plaintiffs answers to interrogatories, deposition or otherwise. 6. Any present or former employee of any company for whom the plaintiff worked or location where plaintiff performed work. 7. Plaintiffs. 8. Any and all family members, friends or other witnesses disclosed by plaintiff or otherwise revealed in discovery. 9. Any party, including any prior testimony of any party. HURWITZ & FINE,P.C. NY BUFFALD, I 1 of 46

2 10. Any witness whose deposition or other transcript is admitted and/or read into evidence and/or mentioned to the court and/or jury. 11. Any individual named in any of plaintiffs medical records/documents, exhibits introduced into evidence and testimony, live or by deposition, as well as plaintiffs liability and medical experts. 12. Any and all other liability and medical experts identified by the plaintiff in discovery or otherwise. 13. Any and all other treating or examining physicians of the plaintiff identified in discovery or otherwise or not identified as of date. 14. Weil-McLain reserves the right to call all custodians of records or other documents of Plaintiff's unions and locals; Plaintiff's employers; job sites or corporations where/for which Plaintiff worked; supply houses or other entities from which products were purchased for use at the Plaintiffs' locations/jobs where alleged exposure to any Weil-McLain product occurred. 15. Weil-McLain reserves the right to designate and call all witnesses necessary to lay the foundation for and/or authenticate any and all exhibits and all witnesses necessary for rebuttal. EXPERT WITNESSES Weil-McLain expects to call the following expert witnesses at the trial of this matter: FREDERICK WILLIAM BOELTER, C.LH. 333 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700! Chicago, IL Mr. Boelter is a certified industrial hygienist and registered professional engineer. He will provide testimony regarding his experience and his testing of this defendant's products or type of products and will provide opinions that these products have been used safely in a workplace environment, that they are not unreasonably dangerous, that they do not pose an occupational hazard and that no warning label is required to be placed on them. He will give testimony on the fiber release from this defendant's products in the occupational setting. He will testify regarding exposure assessments performed on this defendant's products or similar products, including assessments and testing he has performed on this defendant's products. He has been or will be provided with product exposure information and other case specific data in this case, including, but not limited to, plaintiff's(s') deposition (s) and co-worker depositions. He will review plaintiff's(s') exposures, if any, to this defendant's products as well as plaintiff's(s') exposure to other manufacturers' products. He will quantify plaintiff's exposure to the asbestos-containing products of this defendant, as well as exposures to asbestos containing products manufactured by other companies, and provide opinions regarding the significance of each exposure. He has also reviewed and will rely upon air sampling data and other literature regarding exposure to other asbestos-containing products. He will companies' discuss historical uses of both Weil-McLain's and other asbestos containing products and how they are manufactured. He will quantify exposures to all asbestos-containing products to which plaintiff(s) may have been exposed and discuss the distinction between friable and non-friable products. Mr. Boelter's opinion is that Weil-McLain's products do not create an occupational hazard. Mr. Boelter will testify that foreseeable use of Weil-McLain's products does not cause any occupational hazard. He HURWITZ & FINE,P.C 2 BUFFaLO, NY of 46

3 will provide testimony about the type of asbestos fiber and other fiber used in this defendant's products as companies' applicable to this case. He will also testify about the types of asbestos fibers found in other products. He will discuss ambient air exposure to asbestos, the sources of ambient air asbestos exposure, quantification studies and the presence of asbestos in drinking water and provide his opinion that these exposures, if any, are not harmful or hazardous. He may discuss reentrainment and fiber drift. He will further provide testimony about the role of the industrial hygienist in assessing risk, generally, and with respect to asbestos-containing products. He will provide current and historical information regarding air and dust sampling methods for asbestos in occupational settings, including, but not limited to, the NIOSH 7400 and 7402 methods, the OSHA reference method, as well as EPA, AHERA and ASTM methods. He will provide expert testimony on the proper use and application of all such methodology. He will also provide testimony regarding the proper and improper methods for plaintiffs' occupational sampling of asbestos and may comment on the methods employed by experts as it relates to any evidence offered against this defendant. He will provide testimony that the standard and accepted occupational exposure methodologies for asbestos require the use of validated scientific air sampling and analytical methods. He will testify that the standards for occupational exposure determination to asbestos are the NIOSH and OSHA established methods. In this methodology, air samples are collected in conformance with the OSHA methodology which has specific criteria for air sampling, filter preparation and fiber counting rules. Scientifically "direct" "indirect" reliable samples are prepared by preparation techniques as opposed to preparation techniques and are counted by phase contrast microscopy (PCM). He will further provide testimony regarding governmental regulations affecting maximum allowable concentrations or asbestos exposures in an occupational setting. He will also provide testimony regarding the ACGIH threshold limit values. He will testify that the current regulation for the industry is found at 29 CFR and the regulation for construction trades is found at 29 CFR The current OSHA permissible exposure level, published in 1994, is 0.1 fibers per cubic centimeter (f/cc), as an eight-hour time weighted average. The OSHA permissible level from 1986 to 1994 was 0.2 f/ce, as an eight-hour time weighted average. The OSHA permissible level from 1976 to 1986 was 2 f/ce, as an eight-hour time weighted average. The OSHA permissible level from 1971 to 1976 was 5 f/ce, as an eight-hour time weighted average. He will also provide testimony regarding historical literature and other applicable government regulations of asbestos and their importance to this defendant's products, including, but not limited to the EPA and NESHAP. He will provide an opinion that thermal insulation products are unreasonably dangerous and that this defendant's products are not. He will provide an opinion that, unliked this defendant's products, certain non-friable materials do release significant fiber concentrations under certain normal conditions. The basis for his testimony will be his experience, his education, research, testing, review of the appropriate scientific literature and, review of case materials supplied to him. Mr. Boelter will give testimony on the typical methods for installation, repair and removal of this defendant's products. For further clarification of Mr. Boelter's testimony, he will be made available for deposition at a mutually convenient time by contacting Defendant's counsel. HURWITZ & FINE,P.C 3 BUFFALD, NY of 46

4 JAMES RASMUSON, C.LH West 43rd Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO Mr. Rasmuson is a certified industrial hygienist and a toxicologist. He will provide testimony regarding. his experience and his testing of this defendant's products or type of products and will provide opinions that these products have been used safely in a workplace environment, that they are not unreasonably dangerous, that they do not pose an occupational hazard and that no warning label is required to be placed on them. He will give testimony on the fiber release from this defendant's products in the occupational setting. He will testify regarding exposure assessments performed on this defendant's products or similar products, including assessments and testing he has performed on this defendant's products. He has been or will be provided with product exposure information and other case specific data in this case, including, but not limited to, plaintiff's(s') deposition (s) and co-worker depositions. He will review plaintiff's(s') exposures, if any, to this defendant's products as well as plaintiff's(s') exposure to other manufacturers' products. He will quantify plaintiff's exposure to the asbestos-containing products of this defendant, as well as exposures to asbestos containing products manufactured by other companies, and provide opinions regarding the significance of each exposure. He has also reviewed and will rely upon air sampling data and other literature regarding exposure to other asbestos-containing products. He will companies' discuss historical uses of both Weil-McLain's and other asbestos containing products and how they are manufactured. He will quantify exposures to all asbestos-containing products to which plaintiff(s) may have been exposed and discuss the distinction between friable and non-friable products. Mr. Rasmuson's opinion is that Weil-McLain's products do not create an occupational hazard. Mr. Rasmuson will testify that foreseeable use of Weil-McLain's products does not cause any occupational hazard. He will provide testimony about the type of asbestos fiber and other fiber used in this defendant's products as applicable to this case. He will also testify about the types of asbestos fibers found in other companies' products. He will discuss ambient air exposure to asbestos, the sources of ambient air asbestos exposure, quantification studies and the presence of asbestos in drinking water and provide his opinion that these exposures, if any, are not harmful or hazardous. He may discuss reentrainment and fiber drift. He will further provide testimony about the role of the industrial hygienist in assessing risk, generally, and with respect to asbestos-containing products. He will provide current and historical information regarding air and dust sampling methods for asbestos in occupational settings, including, but not limited to, the NIOSH 7400 and 7402 methods, the OSHA reference method, as well as EPA, AHERA and ASTM methods. He will provide expert testimony on the proper use and application of all such methodology. He will also provide testimony regarding the proper and improper methods for occupational sampling of asbestos and may comment on the methods employed by plaintiffs' experts as it relates to any evidence offered against this defendant. He will provide testimony that the standard and accepted occupational exposure methodologies for asbestos require the use of validated scientific air sampling and analytical methods. He will testify that the standards for occupational exposure determination to asbestos are the NIOSH and OSHA established methods. In this methodology, air samples are collected in conformance with the OSHA methodology which has specific criteria for air sampling, filter preparation and fiber counting rules. Scientifically "direct" "indirect" reliable samples are prepared by preparation techniques as opposed to preparation techniques and are counted by phase contrast microscopy (PCM). HURWITZ & FINE,P.C. 4 NY BUFFALO, 4 of 46

5 He will further provide testimony regarding governmental regulations affecting maximum allowable concentrations or asbestos exposures in an occupational setting. He will also provide testimony regarding the ACGIH threshold limit values. He will testify that the current regulation for the industry is found at 29 CFR and the regulation for construction trades is found at 29 CFR The current OSHA permissible exposure level, published in 1994, is 0.1 fibers per cubic centimeter (f/cc), as an eight-hour time weighted average. The OSHA permissible level from 1986 to 1994 was 0.2 f/ce, as an eight-hour time weighted average. The OSHA permissible level from 1976 to 1986 was 2 f/ce, as an eight-hour time weighted average. The OSHA permissible level from 1971 to 1976 was 5 f/ce, as an eight-hour time weighted average. He will also provide testimony regarding historical literature and other applicable government regulations of asbestos and their importance to this defendant's products, including, but not limited to the EPA and NESHAP. He will provide an opinion that thermal insulation products are unreasonably dangerous and that this defendant's products are not. He will provide an opinion that, unlike this defendant's products, certain non-friable materials do release significant fiber concentrations under certain normal conditions. The basis for his testimony will be his experience, his education, research, testing, review of the appropriate scientific literature and, review of case materials supplied to him. Mr. Rasmuson will give testimony on the typical methods for installation, repair and removal of this defendant's products. For further clarification of Mr. Rasmuson's testimony, he will be made available for deposition at a mutually convenient time by contacting Defendant's counsel. ERIC RASMUSON, C.I.H West 43rd Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO Mr. Rasmuson is a certified industrial hygienist. He will provide testimony regarding his experience and his testing of this defendant's products or type of products and will provide opinions that these products have been used safely in a workplace environment, that they are not unreasonably dangerous, that they do not pose an occupational hazard and that no warning label is required to be placed on them. He will give testimony on the fiber release from this defendant's products in the occupational setting. He will testify regarding exposure assessments performed on this defendant's products or similar products, including assessments and testing he has performed on this defendant's products. He has been or will be provided with product exposure information and other case specific data in this case, including, but not limited to, plaintiff's(s') deposition (s) and co-worker depositions. He will review plaintiff's(s') exposures, if any, to this defendant's products as well as plaintiff's(s') exposure to other manufacturers' products. He will quantify plaintiff's exposure to the asbestos-containing products of this defendant, as well as exposures to asbestos containing products manufactured by other companies, and provide opinions regarding the significance of each exposure. He has also reviewed and will rely upon air sampling data and other literature regarding exposure to other asbestos-containing products. He will companies' discuss historical uses of both Weil-McLain's and other asbestos containing products and how they are manufactured. He will quantify exposures to all asbestos-containing products to which plaintiff(s) may have been exposed and discuss the distinction between friable and non-friable products. Mr. Rasmuson's opinion is that Weil-McLain's products do not create an occupational hazard. Mr. HURWITZ & FINE,P.C 5 NY BUFFALO, 5 of 46

6 Rasmuson will testify that foreseeable use of Weil-McLain's products does not cause any occupational hazard. He will provide testimony about the type of asbestos fiber and other fiber used in this defendant's products as applicable to this case. He will also testify about the types of asbestos fibers found in other companies' products. He will discuss ambient air exposure to asbestos, the sources of ambient air asbestos exposure, quantification studies and the presence of asbestos in drinking water and provide his opinion that these exposures, if any, are not harmful or hazardous. He may discuss reentrainment and fiber drift. He will further provide testimony about the role of the industrial hygienist in assessing risk, generally, and with respect to asbestos-containing products. He will provide current and historical information regarding air and dust sampling methods for asbestos in occupational settings, including, but not limited to, the NIOSH 7400 and 7402 methods, the OSHA reference method, as well as EPA, AHERA and ASTM methods. He will provide expert testimony on the proper use and application of all such methodology. He will also provide testimony regarding the proper and improper methods for occupational sampling of asbestos and may comment on the methods employed by plaintiffs' experts as it relates to any evidence offered against this defendant. He will provide testimony that the standard and accepted occupational exposure methodologies for asbestos require the use of validated scientific air sampling and analytical methods. He will testify that the standards for occupational exposure determination to asbestos are the NIOSH and OSHA established methods. In this methodology, air samples are collected in conformance with the OSHA methodology which has specific criteria for air sampling, filter preparation and fiber counting rules. Scientifically "direct" "indirect" reliable samples are prepared by preparation techniques as opposed to preparation techniques and are counted by phase contrast microscopy (PCM). He will further provide testimony regarding governmental regulations affecting maximum allowable concentrations or asbestos exposures in an occupational setting. He will also provide testimony regarding the ACGIH threshold limit values. He will testify that the current regulation for the industry is found at 29 CFR and the regulation for construction trades is found at 29 CFR The current OSHA permissible exposure level, published in 1994, is 0.1 fibers per cubic centimeter (f/cc), as an eight-hour time weighted average. The OSHA permissible level from 1986 to 1994 was 0.2 f/ce, as an eight-hour time weighted average. The OSHA permissible level from 1976 to 1986 was 2 f/ce, as an eight-hour time weighted average. The OSHA permissible level from 1971 to 1976 was 5 f/ce, as an eight-hour time weighted average. He will also provide testimony regarding historical literature and other applicable government regulations of asbestos and their importance to this defendant's products, including, but not limited to the EPA and NESHAP. He will provide an opinion that thermal insulation products are unreasonably dangerous and that this defendant's products are not. He will provide an opinion that, unlike this defendant's products, certain non-friable materials do release significant fiber concentrations under certain normal conditions. The basis for his testimony will be his experience, his education, research, testing, review of the appropriate scientific literature and, review of case materials supplied to him. Mr. Rasmuson will give testimony on the typical methods for installation, repair and removal of this defendant's products. For further clarification of Mr. Rasmuson's testimony, he will be made available for deposition at a mutually convenient time by contacting Defendant's counsel. HURWITZ 8 FINE,P.C LIBERTY BUlLDING NY14202 BUFFALO, 6 of 46

7 JAMES McCLUSKEY, M.D Eastwyck Drive Tampa, GL Dr. McCluskey will testify concerning the medical condition of any plaintiff and in the case of a deceased plaintiff, may give testimony as to the cause of death. He will further testify as to whether plaintiff or plaintiffs decedent had a condition or illness caused by asbestos exposure. He may also testify on the latency period related to each type of asbestos-related disease and the carcinogenic potential of the types of asbestos. Dr. McCluskey will generally testify concerning asbestos-related biologic effects and the effects of exposure to various asbestos containing products upon persons in occupational and other settings. He will further testify regarding the criteria for diagnosis of asbestos-related disease, the epidemiology of asbestos diseases, as well as the existence of a dose response relationship between exposure to asbestos and asbestos-related diseases. He may also testify regarding asbestos-containing products generally, including their asbestos fiber content, manufacture, use and their respective ability to cause or contribute to disease, including quantification of exposures attributed to asbestos thermal system insulation products and other asbestos products generally used by plaintiff. He may testify specifically regarding the content and fiber type of the asbestos-containing products to which plaintiff was exposed. He may further testify regarding the propensity of various asbestos fiber types to contribute to mesothelioma or other asbestosrelated disease. He may also testify regarding the determination of the relative risks of suffering personal injury or death as a result of exposure to various asbestos-containing products in occupational settings. He will explain the dose response relationship between exposure to asbestos and asbestos-related disease for each type of disease alleged. Dr. McCluskey's opinion is that the foreseeable use of Weil-McLain boilers during an occupational life span cannot produce an appreciable risk of any asbestos related disease and cannot be a producing cause of any asbestos related disease. He may also testify regarding the existence or non-existence of any alleged asbestos-related effect in the plaintiff(s), including but not limited to pleural changes, asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma, laryngeal cancer, and gastrointestinal cancer, where applicable. He will also testify on general medicine issues regarding asbestos-related diseases including, but not limited to, lung physiology, lung function, lung defense mechanisms and the mechanisms by which asbestos fibers do or do not cause a particular disease. He may also testify that background levels of asbestos fibers in human tissue do not present a risk of disease. He will further testify that any asbestos-related disease allegedly suffered by plaintiff(s) was not proximately caused by exposure to Weil-McLain's asbestos-containing products. He may also testify regarding government regulations applicable to defendant's products and whether these products are unreasonably dangerous. Dr. McCluskey's opinion is that Weil-McLain boilers are not unreasonably dangerous. He may also testify on the health consequences of smoking and the relationship between smoking and alleged asbestos-related diseases, generally and with respect to this plaintiff. He will testify regarding the relative contribution if any, of smoking and asbestos, if any, to this plaintiffs disease. He may also testify on increased risk of cancer issues and whether a particular plaintiff has a reasonable fear of cancer due to exposure to asbestos. He will give an opinion that plaintiffs use, installation, removal or contact, if any, with Weil-McLain's products cannot and did not cause or contribute and were not a substantial factor or producing cause of this plaintiffs asbestos related disease. Dr. McCluskey's testimony will be based on one or more of the following: his training, experience, HURWITZ 8 FINE,P.C. 7 NY14202 BUFFALO, 7 of 46

8 education, publications and review of the medical, governmental and scientific literature and various air sampling studies, work facility inspections and documents, where applicable, as well as review of medical records, fiber burden or digestion studies, radiographic reports, and pathology examination information. Dr. McCluskey will rely upon all of the testing of each industrial hygienist disclosed on Weil-McLain's exhibit list, including but not limited to, testing done by Mesers Mangold, Liukonen, Balzer (to the extent Mr. Balzer has conducted any testing), Spencer, and Boelter, and Ms. Ringo. Such testing is incorporated by reference. Dr. McCluskey may review plaintiff and co-worker deposition testimony and rely upon them as a basis for his opinions. He may also provide testimony consistent with the disclosure of any other expert disclosed by this defendant or any other party to this case. Weil-McLain's exhibits will be made available upon request. Based on his education, training, work experience, and review of the medical/scientific literature, Dr. McCluskey will render opinion testimony about the relationship between the level of asbestos exposure in air and its effect on human health, if any. Dr. McCluskey will compare the level of asbestos exposure from these tests to the levels of asbestos found in other environments, and he will render opinion testimony concerning the health hazards, if any, an individual would be subject to as a result of his use and/or exposure to Weil-McLain's boilers. Based upon his training, experience and review of the applicable literature, Dr. McCluskey will give an opinion that the minimum cumulative level of asbestos exposure associated with asbestosis or an increased risk of lung cancer is an estimated 20 fiber years and that asbestos does not play a role in the development of lung cancer at cumulative asbestos exposure levels below 20 fiber years. Dr. McCluskey will give opinion testimony, based on his work and his review of the medical literature, that exposure to Weil-McLain products will not cause or contribute to the development of mesothelioma. It is Dr. McCluskey's opinion that it would take an individual hundreds or even thousands of years of working with Weil-McLain products to approach any level of appreciable risk of asbestos related disease. Dr. McCluskey's opinion is that Weil-McLain's products are not unreasonably dangerous and pose no occupational hazard with typical use in the workplace. He has been or will be provided with product association information and other case specific data in this case, including, but no limited to, plaintiff deposition(s) and co-worker depositions. He will review plaintiff exposures, if any, to this defendant's asbestos containing products as well as plaintiff exposure to manufacturers' other products. He will quantify plaintiff exposure to the asbestos-containing products of this defendant, as well as exposures to asbestos containing products manufactured by other companies, and provide opinions regarding the significance contribution to risk of each exposure. He has also reviewed and will rely upon air sampling data and other literature regarding exposure to other asbestos containing products, both friable and nonfriable. He may discuss historical uses of both Weil-McLain products and asbestos containing products of other companies and how they are manufactured. He will quantify exposures to asbestos containing products to which plaintiff may have been exposed and discuss the distinction between the classifications of friable and non-friable. Dr. McCluskey will testify that foreseeable use of Weil-McLain products does not cause any occupational hazard. He will provide testimony about the type of asbestos fiber and other fiber used in this defendant's products as applicable to this case. He may also testify about the types of asbestos fibers found in the products of other companies. He will discuss ambient air exposure to asbestos and also discuss the sources of ambient air asbestos exposure, quantification studies and the presence of asbestos in drinking water and provide his opinion that these exposures, if any, are not hannful or hazardous. Dr. McCluskey's opinion is that exposure to Weil-McLain's products is comparable to ambient air exposure. He may also discuss reentrainment and fiber drift. HURWITZ & FINE,P.C. 8 NY BUFFALO, 8 of 46

9 He will further provide testimony regarding governmental regulations affecting maximum allowable concentrations or asbestos exposures in an occupational setting. He will also provide testimony regarding the ACGIH threshold limit values. He will testify that the current regulation for the industry is found at 29 CFR and the regulation for construction trades is found at 29 CFR The current OSHA permissible exposure level, published in 1994, is 0.1 fibers per cubic centimeter (f/cc), as an eight-hour time weighted average. The OSHA permissible level from 1986 to 1994 was 0.2 f/cc, as an eight-hour time weighted average. The OSHA permissible level from 1976 to 1986 was 2 f/ce, as an eight-hour time weighted average. The OSHA permissible level from 1971 to 1976 was 5 f/ce, as an eight-hour time weighted average. He may also provide testimony regarding historical literature and other applicable government regulations of asbestos and their importance to this defendant's products, including, but not limited to those of the EPA and the NESHAPS regulations. He will provide an opinion that depending upon typical work procedures thermal and other insulation products are unreasonably dangerous. The basis for his testimony will be his experience, his education, research, testing, review of the appropriate scientific literature and, review of case materials supplied to him. Dr. McCluskey may give testimony on the typical methods of installation and removal of Weil-McLain products. Dr. McCluskey will also give the following opinions. There is a dose-response relationship for development of any asbestos related disease, and the dose is the most significant factor in causation of an asbestos related disease. The risk is proportional to the dose: the greater the accumulated dose, the greater the risk. The dose is produced by various exposures accumulating over time. The dose is measured in fiber years, i.e., the product of exposure (f/cc) over time (years). As an example, an individual exposed at a continuous level of 1 f/ce for 20 years will have amassed 20 fiber years of exposure. There are threshold levels of dose necessary before asbestos diseases will develop. As an example, at least 20 fiber years of dose is required for the development of clinically and radiologically evident asbestosis. At the current OSHA PEL of 0.1 f/ce, 200 years would elapse to attain the 20 fiber year level associated with risk of asbestosis, and increased risk of cancer. It is also his opinion that the non-occupationally exposed general public is not at risk for the development of an asbestos related disease, even though there is asbestos in the ambient air. Thus, because of the doses associated with an asbestos related disease, a single asbestos fiber does not substantially contribute to such disease. Dr. McCluskey believes to a reasonable degree of medical and scientific probability that the level of exposure, if any, to asbestos resulting from the use, handling, installation, and removal of Weil-McLain is insufficient to provide a dose adequate to create risk of an asbestos related disease, does not pose a risk to human health, and does not cause or substantially contribute to the cause of asbestos related conditions or diseases. For further clarification of Dr. McCluskeys' testimony, he may be made available for deposition at a mutually convenient date and time by contacting Defendant's counsel. RACHEL P. MAINES, Ph.D. 237 Langmuir Lab Cornell Research Park Ithaca NY HURWITZ & FINE,P.c LIBERTY BUlLDING NY BUFFALO, 9 of 46

10 Dr. Maines is a historian with a doctorate in applied history and social science. She has researched and written on issues relating to the history of the use of asbestos and asbestos-containing products. She may give testimony regarding the purposes for which engineers, and particularly boiler engineers, used asbestos-containing products, including how and when such products were used. Additionally, she may provide a historical overview of how asbestos was used commercially in many different kinds of products Maines' and the purposes it served. Dr. testimony may reference her review of engineering and technical literature and journals, including but not limited to materials published by the ASME. Dr. Maines may further testify as to historical tragedies in American and international history relating to fire and carbon monoxide and how asbestos and asbestos-containing products were developed in response to then-prevailing efforts to reduce such tragedies. Dr. Maines may testify as to the dangers of fire and carbon monoxide presented specifically by boilers and how asbestos-containing products were used by boiler manufacturers and specified by local and state governments in response to these concerns. Dr. Maines may testify as to the communications, or lack thereof, to Weil-McLain by manufacturers of asbestos-containing products employed by Weil-McLain at one time in the design and assembly of its boilers. For further clarification of Dr. Maines' testimony, she may be made available for deposition at a mutually convenient date and time by contacting Defendant's counsel. JAMES CRAPO, M.D. National Jewish Medical and Research Center 4650 South Forest Street Englewood, Colorado (303) Dr. James Crapo is a physician and Chairman of the Department of Medicine at the National Jewish Medical and Research Center in Denver, CO. Dr. Crapo will testify concerning the medical condition of any plaintiff and in the case of a deceased plaintiff, may give testimony as to the cause of death. He will further testify as to whether each plaintiff or plaintiffs decedent had a condition or illness caused by asbestos exposure. He may also testify on the latency period related to each type of asbestos related disease and the carcinogenic properties of each different type of asbestos fiber. Dr. Crapo will generally testify concerning asbestos related diseases and the effects of exposure to various asbestos containing products upon persons in occupational settings. He will further testify regarding the epidemiology of asbestos diseases, the criteria for diagnosis of asbestos related disease, as well as the existence of a dose response relationship between exposure to asbestos and asbestos related diseases. He may also testify regarding asbestos containing products generally, including their asbestos fiber content, use and their respective ability to cause or contribute to disease, including quantification of exposures to asbestos thermal system insulation products and other friable asbestos products generally used by plaintiff. He may further testify regarding the propensity of various asbestos fiber types to contribute to mesothelioma or other asbestos related disease. He may also testify regarding the determination of the relative risks of suffering personal injury or death as a result of exposure to various asbestos containing products in occupational settings. He will explain the dose response relationship between exposure to asbestos and asbestos-related disease for each type of disease alleged. HURWITZ & FINE,P.c 10 NY BUFFALO, 10 of 46

11 He may also testify regarding the existence or non-existence of any alleged asbestos related disease in the plaintiff(s), including but not limited to pleural changes, asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma, laryngeal cancer, esophageal cancer, and gastrointestinal cancer, where applicable. He will also testify on general medicine issues regarding asbestos related diseases including, but not limited to, lung physiology, lung function, lung defense mechanisms and the mechanisms by which asbestos fibers do or do not cause a particular disease. He may also testify that background levels of asbestos fibers in human tissue do not represent disease and background or ambient air exposure does not cause disease. He will further testify that any asbestos related disease allegedly suffered by plaintiff(s) was not proximately caused by exposure to Weil-McLain's boilers. He may also testify regarding government regulations applicable to defendant's products and whether these products are unreasonably dangerous. He may also testify on increased risk of cancer issues and whether a particular plaintiff has a reasonable fear of cancer due to exposure to asbestos. He may also testify on the health consequences of smoking and the relationship between smoking and alleged asbestos related diseases, generally and with respect to this plaintiff. He will testify regarding the contribution if any, of smoking and asbestos, if any, to this plaintiffs disease. Generally and with respect to particular plaintiffs, he may testify as to his review and interpretation of x- ray films, review and interpretation of pulmonary function testing, the nature and extent of any impairment or disability, whether a condition is progressive and whether other diseases or conditions are present in plaintiffs. He will give an opinion that plaintiffs use, installation, removal or contact, if any, with the Defendant's products cannot and did not cause or contribute and were not a substantial factor or producing cause of this plaintiffs asbestos related disease. Dr. Crapo's testimony will be based on one or more of the following: his training, experience, education, publications and review of the medical, governmental and scientific literature and various air sampling studies, work facility inspections and documents, where applicable, as well as review of medical records, fiber burden or digestion studies, chest films, and all pathology materials. Dr. Crapo will rely upon all of the testing of each industrial hygienist disclosed on Weil-McLain's exhibit list. Dr. Crapo may review plaintiffs and co-worker's deposition testimony given in this case and rely upon them as a basis for his opinions. He may also provide testimony consistent with the disclosure of any other expert disclosed by this defendant or any other party to this case. Weil-McLain's exhibits will be made available upon request. Based on his education, training, work experience, and review of the medical/scientific literature, Dr. Crapo will render opinion testimony about the level of asbestos exposure in the ambient air and its effect on human health, if any. He will testify about his review of tests of Weil-McLain boilers performed by others. Dr. Crapo will compare the level of asbestos exposure from these tests to the levels of asbestos found in the ambient air, and he will render opinion testimony concerning the health hazards, if any, an individual would be subject to as a result of his use and/or exposure to Weil-McLain boilers. Dr. Crapo has worked in the fields of inhalation toxicology and epidemiology. Based upon his work in these fields and his review of the literature, Dr. Crapo will give an opinion that the minimum cumulative level of asbestos exposure needed to cause asbestosis or lung cancer is at least 25 fiber years, i.e., the product of exposure (f/cc) over time (years), and that asbestos does not play a role in the development of lung cancer at cumulative asbestos exposure levels below 25 fiber years. Dr. Crapo will give opinion testimony, based on his work and his review of the medical literature, that exposure to Weil-McLain's product will not cause or contribute to the development of mesothelioma. It is Dr. Crapo's opinion that, in the absence of long term clearance, it would take an individual hundreds or even thousands of years of HURWITZ & FINE,P.C. BUFFALD, NY of 46

12 working with Weil-McLain products to approach any level of appreciable risk of asbestos-related disease from using these boilers. He has been or will be provided with product exposure information and other case specific data in this case, including, but not limited to, plaintiffs(s') deposition(s) and co-worker depositions. He will review plaintiffs(s') exposures, if any, to this defendant's asbestos-containing products as well as plaintiffs(s') manufacturers' exposure to other products. He will quantify plaintiffs(s') exposure to the asbestoscontaining products of this defendant, as well as exposures to asbestos containing products manufactured by other companies, and provide opinions regarding the significance of each exposure. He has also reviewed and will rely upon air sampling data and other literature regarding exposure to other asbestoscontaining products. He will evaluate exposures to all asbestos-containing products to which plaintiff(s) may have been exposed and discuss the distinction between friable and non-friable. Dr. Crapo's opinion is that use of Tyndall or stage lighting is not an acceptable industrial hygiene practice for the evaluation of occupational exposure nor is it a reliable or relevant method of quantification of asbestos fibers. Dr. Crapo's opinion is that none of these methods would be relied upon by any health or safety professional in performing an exposure assessment. Dr. Crapo's opinion is that most of what is seen is non-respirable. The Longo and Hatfield tests provide no basis for determination of whether the visible dust is respirable or not. He will provide testimony that neither use of settled dust methods nor Tyndall or refractive light methods provide a proper scientific basis for sampling and have no value in assessing occupational risk to exposure to asbestos. He will testify that the current regulation for the industry is found at 29 CFR and the regulation for construction trades is found at 29 CFR The current OSHA permissible exposure level, published in 1994, is 0.1 fibers per cubic centimeter (f/cc), as an eight-hour time weighted average. The OSHA permissible level from 1986 to 1994 was 0.2 f/ce, as an eight-hour time weighted average. The OSHA permissible level from 1976 to 1986 was 2 f/ce, as an eight-hour time weighted average. The OSHA permissible level from 1971 to 1976 was 5 f/ce, as an eight-hour time weighted average. Dr. Crapo will also give the following opinions: There is a dose-response relationship for development of any asbestos related disease, and the dose is the most significant factor in causation of an asbestos related disease. The risk is proportional to the dose: the greater the accumulated dose, the greater the risk. The dose is produced by various exposures accumulating over time. The dose is measured in fiber years, i.e., the product of exposure (f/cc) over time (years). As an example, an individual exposed at a continuous level of 1 f/cc for 20 years will have amassed 20 fiber years of exposure. There are threshold levels of dose necessary before asbestos diseases will develop. As an example, at least 20 fiber years of dose is required for the development of clinically and radiologically evident asbestosis. At the current OSHA PEL of 0.1 f/ce, it would take 200 years of exposure to accumulate 20 fiber years, the level associated with risk of asbestosis. It is Dr. Crapo's opinion that the best estimate of the threshold dose to cause mesothelioma is 5 fiber years for amphibole forms of asbestos and many fold higher than this for chrysotile forms of asbestos. It is also his opinion that the non-occupationally exposed general public is not at risk for the development of an asbestos-related condition or disease, even though there is asbestos in the ambient air. Thus, because of the large dose needed to cause an asbestos related disease, a single asbestos fiber does not substantially contribute to disease. Dr. Crapo believes to a reasonable degree of medical and scientific probability that the level of exposure, if any, to asbestos resulting from the use, handling, installation, and removal of asbestos containing components associated with Weil-McLain boilers is insufficient to provide a dose adequate to create risk HURWITZ & FINE,P.c 12 BUFFALO, NY of 46

13 of an asbestos related disease, does not pose a risk to human health, and does not cause or substantially contribute to the cause of asbestos related conditions or diseases. For further clarification of Dr. Crapo's testimony, he will be made available for deposition at a mutually convenient time by contacting Defendant's counsel. ANDREW CHURG, M.D. Department of Laboratory Medicine University Hospital 2211 Wefbrook Hall Vancouver, BC V6T 2BS (604) (604) Dr. Churg is a board certified pathologist who may give testimony regarding the pathological diagnosis of the medical condition of any plaintiff and in the case of a deceased plaintiff, may give testimony as to the cause of death. He will further testify as to whether each plaintiff or plaintiffs decedent had a condition or illness caused by asbestos exposure. He may also testify on the latency period related to each type of asbestos related diseases and the carcinogenic properties of each different type of asbestos fiber. Dr. Churg will generally testify concerning asbestos related diseases and the effects of exposure to various asbestos containing products upon persons in occupational settings. He will further testify regarding the epidemiology of asbestos diseases, the criteria for diagnosis of asbestos related disease, as well as the existence of a dose response relationship between exposure to asbestos and asbestos related diseases. He may also testify regarding asbestos containing products generally, including their asbestos fiber content, manufacture, use and their respective ability to cause or contribute to disease, including quantification of exposures to asbestos thermal system insulation products and other friable asbestos products generally used by plaintiff. He may testify specifically regarding the content and fiber type of the asbestos containing products to which plaintiff was exposed. He may further testify regarding the propensity of various asbestos fiber types to contribute to mesothelioma or other asbestos related disease. He may also testify regarding the determination of the relative risks of suffering personal injury or death as a result of exposure to various asbestos containing products in occupational settings. He will explain the dose response relationship between exposure to asbestos and asbestos-related disease for each type of disease alleged. He may also testify regarding the existence or non-existence of any alleged asbestos related disease in the plaintiff(s), including but not limited to pleural changes, asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma, laryngeal cancer, esophageal cancer, and gastrointestinal cancer, where applicable. He will also testify on general medicine issues regarding asbestos related diseases including, but not limited to, lung physiology, lung function, lung defense mechanisms and the mechanisms by which asbestos fibers do or do not cause a particular disease. He may also testify that background levels of asbestos fibers in human tissue do not represent disease and background or ambient air exposure does not cause disease. He will further testify that any asbestos related disease allegedly suffered by plaintiff(s) was not proximately caused by exposure to Weil-McLain's asbestos containing products. He may also testify regarding government regulations applicable to defendant's products and whether these products are unreasonably dangerous. He may also testify on increased risk of cancer issues and whether a particular plaintiff has a reasonable fear of cancer due to exposure to asbestos. He may also testify on the health consequences of smoking and the relationship between smoking and alleged asbestos related diseases, generally and with respect to HURWITZ 0 FINE,P.C. 13 BUFEaLD, NY of 46

14 this plaintiff. He will testify regarding the contribution if any, of smoking and asbestos, if any, to this plaintiffs disease. Generally and with respect to particular plaintiff(s), he may testify as to his review and interpretation of x- ray films, review and interpretation of pulmonary function testing, the nature and extent of any impairment or disability, whether a condition is progressive and whether other diseases or conditions are present in plaintiff(s). He will give an opinion that plaintiffs(s') use, installation, removal or contact, if any, with Weil-McLain's products cannot and did not cause or contribute and were not a substantial factor or producing cause of this plaintiffs(s') asbestos related disease. Dr. Churg's testimony will be based on one or more of the following: his training, experience, education, publications and review of the medical, governmental and scientific literature and various air sampling studies, work facility inspections and documents, where applicable, as well as review of medical records, fiber burden or digestion studies performed by him or another doctor, chest films, and all pathology materials. Dr. Churg will rely upon all of the testing of each industrial hygienist disclosed on Weil- McLain's exhibit list. Such testing is incorporated by reference. Dr. Churg may review plaintiffs(s') and co-worker's(s') deposition testimony given in this case and rely upon them as a basis for his opinions. He may also provide testimony consistent with the disclosure of any other expert disclosed by this defendant or any other party to this case. Weil-McLain's exhibits will be made available upon request. Dr. Churg will also give the following opinions: There is a dose-response relationship for development of any asbestos related disease, and the dose is the most significant factor in causation of an asbestos related disease. The risk is proportional to the dose: the greater the accumulated dose, the greater the risk. The dose is produced by various exposures accumulating over time. The dose is measured in fiber years, i.e., the product of exposure (f/cc) over time (years). As an example, an individual exposed at a continuous level of 1 f/ce for 20 years will have amassed 20 fiber years of exposure. There are threshold levels of dose necessary before asbestos diseases will develop. As an example, at least 20 fiber years of dose is required for the development of clinically and radiologically evident asbestosis. At the current OSHA PEL of 0.1 f/ce, it would take 200 years of exposure to accumulate 20 fiber years, the level associated with risk of asbestosis. It is also his opinion that the non-occupationally exposed general public is not at risk for the development of an asbestos-related condition or disease, even though there is asbestos in the ambient air. Thus, because of the large dose needed to cause an asbestos related disease, a single asbestos fiber does not substantially contribute to disease. For further clarification of Dr. Churg's testimony, he will be made available for deposition at a mutually convenient time by contacting Defendant's counsel. MICHAEL GRAHAM, M.D. Office of the Medical Examiner City of St. Louis 1300 Clark Street St. Louis, Missouri (314) or St. Louis University Medical Center Department of Forensic Pathology HURWITZ & FINE,P.C. 14 BUFFALO, NY of 46

15 3556 Caroline St. St. Louis, MO (314) Dr. Graham is a board certified pathologist who may give testimony regarding the pathological diagnosis of the medical condition of any plaintiff and in the case of a deceased plaintiff, may give testimony as to the cause of death. He will further testify as to whether each plaintiff or plaintiffs decedent had a condition or illness caused by asbestos exposure. He may also testify on the latency period related to each type of asbestos related diseases and the carcinogenic properties of each different type of asbestos fiber. Dr. Graham will generally testify concerning asbestos related diseases and the effects of exposure to various asbestos containing products upon persons in occupational settings. He will further testify regarding the epidemiology of asbestos diseases, the criteria for diagnosis of asbestos related disease, as well as the existence of a dose response relationship between exposure to asbestos and asbestos related diseases. He may also testify regarding asbestos containing products generally, including their asbestos fiber content, manufacture, use and their respective ability to cause or contribute to disease, including quantification of exposures to asbestos thermal system insulation products and other friable asbestos I products generally used by plaintiff(s). He may testify specifically regarding the content and fiber type of the asbestos containing products to which plaintiff was exposed. He may further testify regarding the propensity of various asbestos fiber types to contribute to mesothelioma or other asbestos related disease. He may also testify regarding the determination of the relative risks of suffering personal injury or death as a result of exposure to various asbestos containing products in occupational settings. He will explain the dose response relationship between exposure to asbestos and asbestos-related disease for each type of disease alleged. He may also testify regarding the existence or non-existence of any alleged asbestos related disease in the plaintiff(s), including but not limited to pleural changes, asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma, laryngeal cancer, esophageal cancer, and gastrointestinal cancer, where applicable. He will also testify on general medicine issues regarding asbestos related diseases including, but not limited to, lung physiology, lung function, lung defense mechanisms and the mechanisms by which asbestos fibers do or do not cause a particular disease. He may also testify that background levels of asbestos fibers in human tissue do not represent disease and background or ambient air exposure does not cause disease. He will further testify that any asbestos related disease allegedly suffered by plaintiff was not proximately caused by exposure to Weil-McLain's asbestos containing products. He may also testify regarding government regulations applicable to defendant's products and whether these products are unreasonably dangerous. He may also testify on increased risk of cancer issues and whether a particular plaintiff has a reasonable fear of cancer due to exposure to asbestos. He may also testify on the health consequences of smoking and the relationship between smoking and alleged asbestos related diseases, generally and with respect to this plaintiff. He will testify regarding the contribution if any, of smoking and asbestos, if any, to this plaintiffs disease. Generally and with respect to particular plaintiffs, he may testify as to his review and interpretation of x- ray films, review and interpretation of pulmonary function testing, the nature and extent of any impairment or disability, whether a condition is progressive and whether other diseases or conditions are present in plaintiffs. HURWITZ & FINE,P.C LlBERTYBUILDING BUEEaLD, NY of 46

16 He will give an opinion that plaintiffs use, installation, removal or contact, if any, with Weil-McLain's products cannot and did not cause or contribute and were not a substantial factor or producing cause of this plaintiffs asbestos related disease. Dr. Graham's testimony will be based on one or more of the following: his training, experience, education, publications and review of the medical, governmental and scientific literature and various air sampling studies, work facility inspections and documents, where applicable, as well as review of medical records, fiber burden or digestion studies performed by him or another doctor, chest films, and all pathology materials. Dr. Graham will rely upon all of the testing of each industrial hygienist disclosed on Weil-McLain's exhibit list. Such testing is incorporated by reference. Dr. Graham may review plaintiffs and co-worker's deposition testimony given in this case and rely upon them as a basis for his opinions. He may also provide testimony consistent with the disclosure of any other expert disclosed by this defendant or any other party to this case. Weil-McLain's exhibits will be made available upon request. Dr. Graham will also give the following opinions. There is a dose-response relationship for development of any asbestos related disease, and the dose is the most significant factor in causation of an asbestos related disease. The risk is proportional to the dose: the greater the accumulated dose, the greater the risk. The dose is produced by various exposures accumulating over time. The dose is measured in fiber years, i.e., the product of exposure (f/cc) over time (years). As an example, an individual exposed at a continuous level of 1 f/ce for 20 years will have amassed 20 fiber years of exposure. There are threshold levels of dose necessary before asbestos diseases will develop. As an example, at least 20 fiber years of dose is required for the development of clinically and radiologically evident asbestosis. At the current OSHA PEL of 0.1 f/ce, it would take 200 years of exposure to accumulate 20 fiber years, the level associated with risk of asbestosis. It is also his opinion that the non-occupationally exposed general public is not at risk for the development of an asbestos-related condition or disease, even though there is asbestos in the ambient air. Thus, because of the large dose needed to cause an asbestos related disease, a single asbestos fiber does not substantially contribute to disease. Dr. Graham believes to a reasonable degree of medical and scientific probability that the level of exposure, if any, to asbestos resulting from the use, handling, installation, and removal of Weil-McLain boilers is insufficient to provide a dose adequate to create risk of an asbestos related disease, does not pose a risk to human health, and does not cause or substantially contribute to the cause of asbestos related conditions or diseases. For further clarification of Dr. Graham's testimony, he will be made available for deposition at a mutually convenient time by contacting Defendant's counsel. JOHN CRAIGHEAD, M.D. Chairman, Department of Pathology A249 Given Medical Building University of Vermont College of Medicine Burlington, Vermont (802) Dr. John Craighead is a board certified pathologist who may give testimony regarding the pathological diagnosis of the medical condition of any plaintiff and in the case of a deceased plaintiff, may give testimony as to the cause of death. He will further testify as to whether each plaintiff or plaintiffs decedent had a condition or illness caused by asbestos exposure. He may also testify on the latency HURWITZ & FINE,P.C. 16 BUFFALO, NY of 46

17 period related to each type of asbestos related diseases and the carcinogenic properties of each different type of asbestos fiber. Dr. Craighead will generally testify concerning asbestos related diseases and the effects of exposure to various asbestos containing products upon persons in occupational settings. He will further testify regarding the epidemiology of asbestos diseases, the criteria for diagnosis of asbestos related disease, as well as the existence of a dose response relationship between exposure to asbestos and asbestos related diseases. He may also testify regarding asbestos containing products generally, including their asbestos fiber content, manufacture, use and their respective ability to cause or contribute to disease, including quantification of exposures to asbestos thermal system insulation products and other friable asbestos products generally used by plaintiff(s). He may testify specifically regarding the content and fiber type of the asbestos containing products to which plaintiff was exposed. He may further testify regarding the propensity of various asbestos fiber types to contribute to mesothelioma or other asbestos related disease. He may also testify regarding the determination of the relative risks of suffering personal injury or death as a result of exposure to various asbestos containing products in occupational settings. He will explain the dose response relationship between exposure to asbestos and asbestos-related disease for each type of disease alleged. He may also testify regarding the existence or non-existence of any alleged asbestos related disease in the plaintiffs, including but not limited to pleural changes, asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma, laryngeal cancer, esophageal cancer, and gastrointestinal cancer, where applicable. He will also testify on general medicine issues regarding asbestos related diseases including, but not limited to, lung physiology, lung function, lung defense mechanisms and the mechanisms by which asbestos fibers do or do not cause a particular disease. He may also testify regarding the background levels of asbestos fibers in human tissue that do not represent disease and background or ambient air exposure that exist which are not related to producing disease. He will further testify that any asbestos related disease allegedly suffered by plaintiff(s) was not proximately caused by exposure to Weil-McLain's asbestos containing products. He may also testify regarding government regulations applicable to defendant's products and whether these products are unreasonably dangerous. He may also testify on increased risk of cancer issues and whether a particular plaintiff has a reasonable fear of cancer due to exposure to asbestos. He may also testify on the health consequences of smoking and the relationship between smoking and alleged asbestos related diseases, generally and with respect to this plaintiff. He will testify regarding the contribution if any, of smoking and asbestos, if any, to this plaintiffs disease. Generally and with respect to particular plaintiffs, he may testify as to his review and interpretation of x- ray films, review and interpretation of pulmonary function testing, the nature and extent of any impairment or disability, whether a condition is progressive and whether other diseases or conditions are present in plaintiffs. He will give an opinion that plaintiffs(s') use, installation, removal or contact, if any, with Weil-McLain's products cannot and did not cause or contribute and were not a substantial factor or producing cause of this plaintiffs(s') asbestos related disease. Dr. Craighead's testimony will be based on one or more of the following: his training, experience, education, publications and review of the medical, governmental and scientific literature and various air sampling studies, work facility inspections and documents, where applicable, as well as review of medical records, fiber burden or digestion studies performed by him or another doctor, chest films, and all pathology materials. Dr. Craighead will rely upon all of the testing of each industrial hygienist disclosed on Weil-McLain's exhibit list. Such testing is incorporated by reference. Dr. Craighead may review HURWITZ & FINE,P.C, 17 NY14202 BUFFALD, 17 of 46

18 plaintiffs(s') and co-worker's(s') deposition testimony given in this case and rely upon them as a basis for his opinions. He may also provide testimony consistent with the disclosure of any other expert disclosed by this defendant or any other party to this case. Dr. Craighead is expected to testify to the following opinions: There is a dose-response relationship for development of any asbestos related disease, and the dose is the most significant factor in causation of an asbestos related disease. The risk is proportional to the dose: the greater the accumulated dose, the greater the risk. The dose is produced by various exposures accumulating over time. The dose is measured in fiber years, i.e., the product of exposure (f/cc) over time (years). As an example, an individual exposed at a continuous level of 1 f/ce for 20 years will have amassed 20 fiber years of exposure. There are threshold levels of dose necessary before asbestos diseases will develop. As an example, at least 20 fiber years of dose is required for the development of clinically and radiologically evident asbestosis. At the current OSHA PEL of 0.1 f/ce, it would take 200 years of exposure to accumulate 20 fiber years, the level associated with risk of asbestosis. It is also his opinion that the nonoccupationally exposed general public is not at risk for the development of an asbestos-related condition or disease, even though there is asbestos in the ambient air. Thus, because of the large dose needed to cause an asbestos related disease, a single asbestos fiber does not substantially contribute to disease. For further clarification of Dr. Craighead's testimony, he will be made available for deposition at a mutually convenient time by contacting Defendant's counsel. PHILIP CAGLE, M.D. Baylor College of Medicine One Baylor Plaza 6565 Fannin, MS 205 Houston, Texas (713) Dr. Cagle is a board certified pathologist who may give testimony regarding the pathological diagnosis of the medical condition of any plaintiff and in the case of a deceased plaintiff, may give testimony as to the cause of death. He will further testify as to whether each plaintiff or plaintiffs decedent had a condition or illness caused by asbestos exposure. He may also testify on the latency period related to each type of asbestos related diseases and the carcinogenic properties of each different type of asbestos fiber. Dr. Cagle will generally testify concerning asbestos related diseases and the effects of exposure to various asbestos containing products upon persons in occupational settings. He will further testify regarding the epidemiology of asbestos diseases, the criteria for diagnosis of asbestos related disease, as well as the existence of a dose response relationship between exposure to asbestos and asbestos related diseases. He may also testify regarding asbestos containing products generally, including their asbestos fiber content, manufacture, use and their respective ability to cause or contribute to disease, including quantification of exposures to asbestos thermal system insulation products and other friable asbestos products generally used by plaintiff. He may testify specifically regarding the content and fiber type of the asbestos containing products to which plaintiff was exposed. He may further testify regarding the propensity of various asbestos fiber types to contribute to mesothelioma or other asbestos related disease. He may also testify regarding the determination of the relative risks of suffering personal injury or death as a result of exposure to various asbestos containing products in occupational settings. He will explain the dose response relationship between exposure to asbestos and asbestos-related disease for each type of disease alleged. HURWITZ & FINE,P.C. 18 BUFFALO, NY of 46

19 He may also testify regarding the existence or non-existence of any alleged asbestos related disease in the plaintiff(s), including but not limited to pleural changes, asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma, laryngeal cancer, esophageal cancer, and gastrointestinal cancer, where applicable. He will also testify on general medicine issues regarding asbestos related diseases including, but not limited to, lung physiology, lung function, lung defense mechanisms and the mechanisms by which asbestos fibers do or do not cause a particular disease. He may also testify that background levels of asbestos fibers in human tissue do not represent disease and background or ambient air exposure does not cause disease. He will further testify that any asbestos related disease allegedly suffered by plaintiff was not proximately caused by exposure to Weil-McLain's asbestos containing products. He may also testify regarding government regulations applicable to defendant's products and whether these products are unreasonably dangerous. He may also testify on increased risk of cancer issues and whether a particular plaintiff has a reasonable fear of cancer due to exposure to asbestos. He may also testify on the health consequences of smoking and the relationship between smoking and alleged asbestos related diseases, generally and with respect to this plaintiff. He will testify regarding the contribution if any, of smoking and asbestos, if any, to this plaintiffs disease. Generally and with respect to particular plaintiffs, he may testify as to his review and interpretation of x- ray films, review and interpretation of pulmonary function testing, the nature and extent of any impairment or disability, whether a condition is progressive and whether other diseases or conditions are present in plaintiffs. He will give an opinion that plaintiffs(s') use, installation, removal or contact, if any, with Weil-McLain's products cannot and did not cause or contribute and were not a substantial factor or producing cause of this plaintiffs asbestos related disease. Dr. Cagle's testimony will be based on one or more of the following: his training, experience, education,. publications and review of the medical, governmental and scientific literature and various air sampling studies, work facility inspections and documents, where applicable, as well as review of medical records, fiber burden or digestion studies performed by him or another doctor, chest films, and all pathology materials. Dr. Cagle will rely upon all of the testing of each industrial hygienist disclosed on Weil- McLain's exhibit list. Dr. Cagle may review plaintiffs(s') and co-worker's(s') deposition testimony given in this case and rely upon them as a basis for his opinions. He may also provide testimony consistent with the disclosure of any other expert disclosed by this defendant or any other party to this case. Weil- McLain's exhibits will be made available upon request. Dr. Cagle will also give the following opinions: There is a dose-response relationship for development of any asbestos related disease, and the dose is the most significant factor in causation of an asbestos related disease. The risk is proportional to the dose: the greater the accumulated dose, the greater the risk. The dose is produced by various exposures accumulating over time. The dose is measured in fiber years, i.e., the product of exposure (f/cc) over time (years). As an example, an individual exposed at a continuous level of 1 f/ce for 20 years will have amassed 20 fiber years of exposure. There are threshold levels of dose necessary before asbestos diseases will develop. As an example, at least 20 fiber years of dose is required for the development of clinically and radiologically evident asbestosis. At the current OSHA PEL of 0.1 f/ce, it would take 200 years of exposure to accumulate 20 fiber years, the level associated with risk of asbestosis. It is also his opinion that the non-occupationally exposed general public is not at risk for the development of an asbestos-related condition or disease, even though there is asbestos in the ambient air. Thus, because of the large dose needed to cause an asbestos related disease, a single asbestos fiber does not substantially contribute to disease. HURWITZ & FINE,P.c. 19 BUFFALO, NY of 46

20 Dr. Cagle believes to a reasonable degree of medical and scientific probability that the level of exposure, if any, to asbestos resulting from the use, handling, installation, and removal of asbestos Weilcontaining McLain boilers is insufficient to provide a dose adequate to create risk of an asbestos related disease, does not pose a risk to human health, and does not cause or substantially contribute to the cause of asbestos related conditions or diseases. For further clarification of Dr. Cagle's testimony, he will be made available for deposition at a mutually convenient time by contacting Defendant's counsel. VICTOR ROGGLI, M.D. Department of Pathology Box 3712 Duke University Medical Center Durham, North Carolina (919) Dr. Roggli is a board certified pathologist who may give testimony regarding the pathological diagnosis of the medical condition of any plaintiff and in the case of a deceased plaintiff, may give testimony on the medical condition which caused plaintiffs death. He will further testify as to whether any given plaintiff or plaintiffs decedent had a condition or illness caused by asbestos exposure. He may also testify on the latency period related to various asbestos-related diseases and the carcinogenic properties of different types of asbestos fibers. Dr. Victor Roggli will generally testify concerning asbestos-related diseases and the effects of exposure to various asbestos-containing products upon persons in occupational settings. He will further testify regarding the epidemiology of asbestos diseases, the criteria for diagnosis of asbestos-related disease, as well as the existence of a dose response relationship between exposure to asbestos and asbestos-related diseases. He may also testify regarding asbestos-containing products generally, including their asbestos fiber content, manufacture, use and their respective ability to cause or contribute to disease, including quantification of exposures to asbestos thermal system insulation products and other friable asbestos products generally used by plaintiff. He may testify specifically regarding the content and fiber type of the asbestos-containing products to which plaintiff was exposed. He may further testify regarding the propensity of various asbestos fiber types to contribute to mesothelioma or other asbestos-related disease. He may also testify regarding the determination of the relative risks of suffering personal injury or death as a result of exposure to various asbestos-containing products in occupational settings. He may also testify regarding the existence or non existence of any alleged asbestos-related disease in the plaintiffs, including but not limited to pleural changes, asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma, laryngeal cancer, esophageal cancer, and gastrointestinal cancer, where applicable. He will also testify on general medicine issues regarding asbestos-related diseases including, but not limited to, lung physiology, lung function, lung defense mechanisms and the mechanisms by which asbestos fibers do or do not cause a particular disease. He may also testify regarding the background levels of asbestos fibers in human tissue that do not represent disease and background or ambient air exposure that exist which are not related to producing disease. He will further testify that any asbestos-related disease allegedly suffered by plaintiff was not proximately caused by exposure to the asbestos-containing products of this defendant. He may also testify regarding government regulations applicable to defendant's products and whether these products are unreasonably dangerous. He may also testify on increased risk of cancer issues and whether a particular plaintiff has a reasonable fear of cancer due to exposure to asbestos. He may also testify on the health consequences of smoking HURWITZ & FINE,P.C 20 BUFFaLO, NY of 46

21 and the relationship between smoking and alleged asbestos-related diseases, generally and with respect to his plaintiff. He will testify regarding the legal contribution if any, of smoking and asbestos, if any, to this plaintiffs disease. Generally and with respect to particular plaintiffs, he may testify as to his review and interpretation of x ray films, review and interpretation of pulmonary function testing, the nature and extent of any impairment or disability, whether a condition is progressive and whether other diseases or conditions are present in plaintiffs. He will give an opinion that plaintiffs use, installation, removal or contact, if any, with this defendant's products cannot and did not cause or contribute and were not a substantial factor or producing cause of this plaintiffs mesothelioma. Dr. Roggli's testimony will be based on one or more of the following: his training, experience, education, publications and review of the medical, governmental and scientific literature and various air sampling studies, work facility inspections and documents, where applicable, as well as review of medical records, fiber burden or digestion studies performed by Dr. Philip Cagle or another physician, chest films, and all pathology materials. He may also provide testimony consistent with the disclosure of any other expert disclosed by this defendant or any other party to this case. He will rely upon all the industrial hygiene reports identified on Weil-McLain's exhibit list. All reports have been produced to plaintiffs counsel and will be made available again upon request. For further clarification of Dr. Roggli's testimony, he will be made available for deposition at a mutually convenient time by contacting Defendant's counsel. MARK WICK, M.D. 301 Peacock Drive Charlottesville, VA (804) Dr. Wick is a board certified pathologist who may give testimony regarding the pathological diagnosis of the medical condition of any plaintiff and in the case of a deceased plaintiff, may give testimony as to the cause of death. He will further testify as to whether each plaintiff or plaintiffs decedent had a condition or illness caused by asbestos exposure. He may also testify on the latency period related to each type of asbestos related diseases and the carcinogenic properties of each different type of asbestos fiber. Dr. Wick will generally testify concerning asbestos related diseases and the effects of exposure to various asbestos containing products upon persons in occupational settings. He will further testify regarding the epidemiology of asbestos diseases, the criteria for diagnosis of asbestos related disease, as well as the existence of a dose response relationship between exposure to asbestos and asbestos related diseases. He may also testify regarding asbestos containing products generally, including their asbestos fiber content, manufacture, use and their respective ability to cause or contribute to disease, including quantification of exposures to asbestos thermal system insulation products and other friable asbestos products generally used by plaintiff(s). He may testify specifically regarding the content and fiber type of the asbestos containing products to which plaintiff was exposed. He may further testify regarding the propensity of various asbestos fiber types to contribute to mesothelioma or other asbestos related disease. He may also testify regarding the determination of the relative risks of suffering personal injury or death as a result of exposure to various asbestos containing products in occupational settings. He will explain the dose response relationship between exposure to asbestos and asbestos-related disease for each type of disease alleged. HURWITZ & FINE,P.C. 21 BUFFALD, NY of 46

22 He may also testify regarding the existence or non-existence of any alleged asbestos related disease in the plaintiffs, including but not limited to pleural changes, asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma, laryngeal cancer, esophageal cancer, and gastrointestinal cancer, where applicable. He will also testify on general medicine issues regarding asbestos related diseases including, but not limited to, lung physiology, lung function, lung defense mechanisms and the mechanisms by which asbestos fibers do or do not cause a particular disease. He may also testify that background levels of asbestos fibers in human tissue do not represent disease and background or ambient air exposure does not cause disease. He will further testify that any asbestos related disease allegedly suffered by plaintiff(s) was not proximately caused by exposure to Weil-McLain's asbestos containing products. He may also testify regarding government regulations applicable to defendant's products and whether these products are unreasonably dangerous. He may also testify on increased risk of cancer issues and whether a particular plaintiff has a reasonable fear of cancer due to exposure to asbestos. He may also testify on the health consequences of smoking and the relationship between smoking and alleged asbestos related diseases, generally and with respect to this plaintiff. He will testify regarding the contribution if any, of smoking and asbestos, if any, to this plaintiffs disease. Generally and with respect to particular plaintiffs, he may testify as to his review and interpretation of x- ray films, review and interpretation of pulmonary function testing, the nature and extent of any impairment or disability, whether a condition is progressive and whether other diseases or conditions are present in plaintiffs. He will give an opinion that plaintiffs(s') use, installation, removal or contact, if any, with Weil-McLain's products cannot and did not cause or contribute and were not a substantial factor or producing cause of this plaintiffs(s') asbestos related disease. Dr. Wick's testimony will be based on one or more of the following: his training, experience, education, publications and review of the medical, governmental and scientific literature and various air sampling studies, work facility inspections and documents, where applicable, as well as review of medical records, fiber burden or digestion studies performed by him or another doctor, chest films, and all pathology materials. Dr. Wick will rely upon all of the testing of each industrial hygienist disclosed on Weil- McLain's exhibit list. Such testing is incorporated by reference. Dr. Wick may review plaintiffs(s') and co-worker's(s') deposition testimony given in this case and rely upon them as a basis for his opinions. He may also provide testimony consistent with the disclosure of any other expert disclosed by or any other party to this case. Weil-McLain's exhibits will be made available upon request. this defendant Dr. Wick will also give the following opinions: There is a dose-response relationship for development of any asbestos related disease, and the dose is the most significant factor in causation of an asbestos related disease. The risk is proportional to the dose: the greater the accumulated dose, the greater the risk. The dose is produced by various exposures accumulating over time. The dose is measured in fiber years, i.e., the product of exposure (f/cc) over time (years). As an example, an individual exposed at a continuous level of 1 f/ce for 20 years will have amassed 20 fiber years of exposure. There are threshold levels of dose necessary before asbestos diseases will develop. As an example, at least 20 fiber years of dose is required for the development of clinically and radiologically evident asbestosis. At the current OSHA PEL of 0.1 f/ce, it would take 200 years of exposure to accumulate 20 fiber years, the level associated with risk of asbestosis. It is also his opinion that the non-occupationally exposed general public is not at risk for the development of an asbestos-related condition or disease, even though there is asbestos in the ambient air. Thus, because of the large dose needed to cause an asbestos related disease, a single asbestos fiber does not substantially contribute to disease. HURWITZ & FINE,P.C 22 NY BUFFALO, 22 of 46

23 Dr. Wick believes to a reasonable degree of medical and scientific probability that the level of exposure, if any, to asbestos resulting from the use, handling, installation, and removal of Weil-McLain boilers is insufficient to provide a dose adequate to create risk of an asbestos related disease, does not pose a risk to human health, and does not cause or substantially contribute to the cause of asbestos related conditions or diseases. For further clarification of Dr. Wick's testimony, he will be made available for deposition at a mutually convenient time by contacting Defendant's counsel. BRUCE CASE, M.D. Dust Disease Research Unit School of Occupational Health McGill University 1140 Pine Avenue West Montreal, Canada H3A 1A3 (514) or Department of Pathology Faculty of Medicine McGill University 3775 University Street, Room 203 Montreal, Canada H3A 2B4 (514) Ext Dr. Case is a board certified pathologist who may give testimony regarding the pathological diagnosis of the medical condition of any plaintiff and in the case of a deceased plaintiff, may give testimony as to the cause of death. He will further testify as to whether each plaintiff or plaintiffs decedent had a condition or illness caused by asbestos exposure. He may also testify on the latency period related to each type of asbestos related diseases and the carcinogenic properties of each different type of asbestos fiber. Dr. Case will generally testify concerning asbestos related diseases and the effects of exposure to various asbestos containing products upon persons in occupational settings. He will further testify regarding the epidemiology of asbestos diseases, the criteria for diagnosis of asbestos related disease, as well as the existence of a dose response relationship between exposure to asbestos and asbestos related diseases. He may also testify regarding asbestos containing products generally, including their asbestos fiber content, manufacture, use and their respective ability to cause or contribute to disease, including quantification of exposures to asbestos thermal system insulation products and other friable asbestos products generally used by plaintiff(s). He may testify specifically regarding the content and fiber type of the asbestos containing products to which plaintiff was exposed. He may further testify regarding the propensity of various asbestos fiber types to contribute to mesothelioma or other asbestos related disease. He may also testify regarding the determination of the relative risks of suffering personal injury or death as a result of exposure to various asbestos containing products in occupational settings. He will explain the dose response relationship between exposure to asbestos and asbestos-related disease for each type of disease alleged. He may also testify regarding the existence or non-existence of any asbestos related disease in the plaintiffs, including but not limited to pleural changes, asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma, laryngeal cancer, esophageal cancer, and gastrointestinal cancer, where applicable. He will also testify on general medicine issues regarding asbestos related diseases including, but not limited to, lung physiology, lung function, lung defense mechanisms and the mechanisms by which asbestos fibers do or do not cause a HURWITZ & FlNE,P.C 23 BUFFaLO, NY of 46

24 particular disease. He may also testify that background levels of asbestos fibers in human tissue do not represent disease and background or ambient air exposure does not cause disease. He will further testify that any asbestos related disease allegedly suffered by plaintiff(s) was not proximately caused by exposure to Weil-McLain's asbestos containing products. He may also testify regarding government regulations applicable to defendant's products and whether these products are unreasonably dangerous. He may also testify on increased risk of cancer issues and whether a particular plaintiff has a reasonable fear of cancer due to exposure to asbestos. He may also testify on the health consequences of smoking and the relationship between smoking and alleged asbestos related diseases, generally and with respect to this plaintiff. He will testify regarding the contribution if any, of smoking and asbestos, if any, to this plaintiffs disease. Generally and with respect to particular plaintiffs, he may testify as to his review and interpretation of x- ray films, review and interpretation of pulmonary function testing, the nature and extent of any impairment or disability, whether a condition is progressive and whether other diseases or conditions are present in plaintiffs. He will give an opinion that plaintiffs use, installation, removal or contact, if any, with Weil-McLain's products cannot and did not cause or contribute and were not a substantial factor or producing cause of this plaintiffs asbestos related disease. Dr. Case's testimony will be based on one or more of the following: his training, experience, education, publications and review of the medical, governmental and scientific literature and various air sampling studies, work facility inspections and documents, where applicable, as well as review of medical records, fiber burden or digestion studies performed by him or another doctor, chest films, and all pathology materials. Dr. Case will rely upon all of the testing of each industrial hygienist disclosed on Weil- McLain's exhibit list. Dr. Case may review plaintiffs(s') and co-worker's(s') deposition testimony given in this case and rely upon them as a basis for his opinions. He may also provide testimony consistent with the disclosure of any other expert disclosed by this defendant or any other party to this case. Weil- McLain's exhibits will be made available upon request. Dr. Case will also give the following opinions: There is a dose-response relationship for development of any asbestos related disease, and the dose is the most significant factor in causation of an asbestos related disease. The risk is proportional to the dose: the greater the accumulated dose, the greater the risk. The dose is produced by various exposures accumulating over time. The dose is measured in fiber years, i.e., the product of exposure (f/cc) over time (years). As an example, an individual exposed at a continuous level of 1 f/ce for 20 years will have amassed 20 fiber years of exposure. There are threshold levels of dose necessary before asbestos diseases will develop. As an example, at least 20 fiber years of dose is required for the development of clinically and radiologically evident asbestosis. At the current OSHA PEL of 0.1 f/ce, it would take 200 years of exposure to accumulate 20 fiber years, the level associated with risk of asbestosis. It is also his opinion that the non-occupationally exposed general public is not at risk for the development of an asbestos-related condition or disease, even though there is asbestos in the ambient air. Thus, because of the large dose needed to cause an asbestos related disease, a single asbestos fiber does not substantially contribute to disease. For further clarification of Dr. Case's testimony, he will be made available for deposition at a mutually convenient time by contacting Defendant's counsel. HURWITZ 4 FINE,P.C 24 BUEEALD, NY of 46

25 RICHARD J. LEE, PH.D. R.J. Lee Group, Inc. 350 Hochberg Road Monroeville, Pennsylvania (724) Dr. Richard Lee is President of R.J. Lee Group, Inc. He is a microscopist and materials specialist. He has a Ph.D. in Theoretical Solid State Physics and his fields of specialization include phased contrast microscopy, transmission electron microscopy, computer controlled scanning electron microscopy, environmental asbestos analysis and quantitative materials characterization. Dr. Richard Lee is a microscopist and materials specialist. He will provide testimony that the transmission electron microscopy method of counting asbestos fibers, both the direct and indirect method of transmission electron microscopy, is not the appropriate method for occupational measurement of airborne asbestos fibers in the work place and assessing risk in this regard. He will provide testimony regarding the appropriate method of occupational air sampling. He will testify that contrast microscopy (PCM) is the appropriate analytical method for the measurement of airborne asbestos fibers in occupational settings. It is Dr. Lee's opinion that the TEM Indirect method is not a reliable method for measurement of air-borne asbestos fibers in the occupational settings. He will further provide testimony regarding the lack of significance and lack of scientific usefulness of the use of the Tyndall effect, a lighting effect in air sampling of asbestos-containing products. He will further provide a critique and criticism of the analytical method and air sampling and other tests performed by Dr. William Longo, Richard Hatfield or Dr. James Millette. His testimony will depend in part upon which information is used by plaintiff, but will include, but not be limited to opinions that use of stage lighting or the like creates a buoyancy permitting fibers to remain airborne for a longer period of time, thereby artificially inflating fiber counts and the use of artificial lighting techniques, including so-called Tyndall lights, in asbestos product sampling does not illustrate actual respirable asbestos fibers. More specifically, he will provide testimony that the standard and accepted occupational exposure methodologies for asbestos require the use of validated scientific air sampling and analytical methods. The standards for occupational exposure determination to asbestos are the NIOSH and OSHA established methods. In this methodology, air samples are collected in conformance with the OSHA methodology which has specific criteria for air sampling, filter preparation and fiber counting rules. Samples are prepared by "direct" preparation techniques as opposed to "indirect" preparation techniques. Samples are counted by phase contrast microscopy (PCM). He will provide testimony, reviewing and criticizing of the tests and their methodology performed on asbestos containing components by plaintiff experts, Longo and Hatfield. Specifically, he will testify that "indirect" the sample preparation technique is not validated or reliable for occupational exposure determination or health hazard assessments. Use of Tyndall or stage lighting is not an acceptable industrial hygiene practice for the evaluation of occupational exposure. It is not a reliable or relevant method of quantification of asbestos fibers. Dr. Lee's opinion is that none of these methods would be relied upon by any health or safety professional in performing an exposure assessment. Dr. Lee's opinion is that most of what is seen is non-respirable. The Longo and Hatfield tests provide no basis for determination of whether the visible dust is respirable or not. The tests do not properly simulate work practice as to work practices or duration of tasks. The measurement of fibers on clothing worn in the simulation is not a validated or reliable method for determining exposure of airborne asbestos and is not reliable in providing any information on the health effects of asbestos under these circumstances. He may also provide testimony that use of settled dust methods or Tyndall or refractive light methods do not HURWITZ & FINE,P.c 25 BUFFALO, NY of 46

26 provide a proper scientific basis for sampling and have no value in assessing occupational risk to exposure to asbestos. He will further provide testimony regarding governmental regulations affecting maximum allowable concentrations or asbestos exposures in an occupational setting. He will also provide testimony regarding the ACGIH threshold limit values. He will provide opinions that any exposure to the asbestos-containing products of this defendant are below the current, and all historical, permissible exposure limits, excursion and short-term limits and are subject to the warning label exemption of OSHA. He will also provide testimony regarding historical literature and other applicable government regulations of asbestos and their importance to this defendant's products, including, but not limited to the EPA and NESHAPS.. For further clarification of Dr. Lee's testimony, he will be made available for deposition at a mutually convenient time by contacting Defendant's counsel. ERIC J. CHATFIELD, PH.D Dickson Road Mississauga Ontario, Canada L5B-1Y8 (905) Dr. Chatfield is an expert in the analysis of particulates using optical and electron microscopy. He will explain the proper and scientifically accepted uses of microscopy as they relate with respect to analyzing asbestos fibers in occupational or non-occupational settings. He will critique the Longo-Hatfield fiber release testing, with a particular emphasis on their use of the TEM Indirect Method. He will explain that the indirect method is not generally accepted in the scientific community for demonstrating work place exposures to asbestos. He will describe and discuss the various OSHA, NIOSH and ASTM methods for analyzing asbestos particulates. He will explain that the indirect method of sampling artificially increases the number of asbestos fibers counted in a given sample, while not serving as a reliable measure of personal exposures. He likewise will testify that the methodology employed in the Longo-Hatfield fiber release tests has not been accepted in the scientific community for the purpose of determining occupational exposure to asbestos, that it is not used for those purposes, and is not helpful in determining occupational exposures to asbestos. STEVEN RICHARD SMITH, M.D. Hancock Professional Park - Suite Hancock Street Carmel, IN Dr. Smith is the Director of Occupational and Environmental Health and Medicine for the Community Health Network and Community Hospitals Indianapolis, Indiana. Dr. Smith is board certified by the American Board of Preventive Medicine in the specialty of occupational and environmental medicine, areas in which he practices full-time. He is a Fellow of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine and a Fellow of the American College of Preventive Medicine. By virtue of his post-graduate education, training and, experience in the disciplines of epidemiology, biostatistics, toxicology, environmental health, public health, industrial hygiene, occupational medicine and health services administration, Dr. Smith has been deemed by the American Board of Preventive Medicine to have attained a Master of Public Health Equivalency. HURWITZ & FINE,P.C 26 BUFFALD, NY of 46

27 Dr. Smith may testify concerning the medical condition of any plaintiff and in the case of a deceased plaintiff, may give testimony as to the cause(s) of death. He may testify as to whether each plaintiff or plaintiffs decedent had a condition or illness caused by asbestos exposure. He may also testify about the latency periods relevant to each type of asbestos-related disease and the carcinogenic properties of different types of asbestos fiber. Dr. Smith may generally testify concerning asbestos-related diseases and the effects of exposure to various asbestos-containing products upon persons in occupational settings. He may further testify regarding the epidemiology of asbestos diseases, the criteria for diagnosis of asbestos-related disease, as well as the existence of a dose response relationship between exposure to asbestos and asbestos-related diseases. He may also testify regarding asbestos-containing products generally, including their asbestos fiber content, use and their respective ability to cause or contribute to disease. He may further testify regarding the propensity of various asbestos fiber types to contribute to mesothelioma or other asbestos-related disease. He may also testify regarding the determination of the relative risks of suffering personal injury or death as a result of exposure to various asbestos-containing products in occupational settings. He will explain the dose response relationship between exposure to asbestos and asbestos-related disease for each type of disease or disorder alleged. Dr. Smith's opinion is that the appropriate use of Weil-McLain products during a human life span cannot produce an appreciable risk of any asbestos related disease and is not a producing cause of any asbestos related disease which may be alleged by any plaintiff and/or plaintiff's decedent. He may also testify regarding the existence or non-existence of any alleged asbestos-related disease in the plaintiff(s), including but not limited to various pleural changes and benign pleural disorders, asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma, laryngeal cancer, esophageal cancer, other gastrointestinal cancers, and renal cancer where applicable. He may also testify on general medicine issues regarding asbestos-related diseases including, but not limited to, lung physiology, lung function, lung defense mechanisms and the mechanisms by which asbestos fibers do or do not cause a particular disease. He may also testify that background levels of asbestos fibers in human tissue do not represent disease and background or ambient air exposure does not cause disease. He will further testify that any asbestos-related disease allegedly suffered by plaintiff(s) was not proximately caused by exposure to Weil-McLain products. He may also testify regarding government regulations. He may also testify on increased risk of cancer issues and whether a particular plaintiff has a reasonable fear of cancer due to exposure to asbestos. He may also testify on the health consequences of smoking and the relationship between smoking and alleged asbestos-related diseases, generally and with respect to this plaintiff. He will testify regarding the contribution if any, of smoking and asbestos, if any, to this disease. Generally and with respect to particular plaintiffs, he may testify as to his review and interpretation of x- ray films, review and interpretation of pulmonary function testing, the nature and extent of any impairment or disability, whether a condition is progressive and whether other diseases or conditions are present in plaintiffs. Dr. Smith's testimony will be based on one or more of the following: his training, experience, education, publications and review of the medical, governmental and scientific literature and various air sampling studies, work facility inspections and documents, where applicable, as well as review of medical records, fiber burden or digestion studies, chest films, and all pathology materials. Dr. Smith will rely upon all of the testing of each industrial hygienist disclosed on Defendant's exhibit list. Such testing is incorporated by reference. Dr. Smith may review plaintiff and co-worker's deposition testimony given in this case HURWITZ & FINE,P.c 27 BUFFALO, NY of 46

28 and rely upon them as a basis for his opinions. He may also provide testimony consistent with the disclosure of any other expert disclosed by this defendant or any other party to this case. Based on his education, training, work experience, and review of the medical/scientific literature, Dr. Smith will render opinion testimony about the level of asbestos exposure in the ambient air and its effect on human health, if any. He will testify about his review of tests of products performed by others. Dr. Smith will compare the level of asbestos exposure from these tests to the levels of asbestos found in the ambient air, and he will render opinion testimony concerning the health hazards, if any, an individual would be subject to as a result of his use and/or exposure to Weil-McLain products. Dr. Smith has education, training, knowledge, and personal experience in the fields of inhalation toxicology and epidemiology. Based upon his knowledge and experience in these fields and his review of the literature, Dr. Smith will give an opinion that the minimum cumulative level of asbestos exposure needed to cause asbestosis or lung cancer is at least 25 fiber years, i.e., the product of exposure (f/cc) over time (years), and that asbestos does not play a role in the development of lung cancer at cumulative asbestos exposure levels below 25 fiber years. Dr. Smith will give opinion testimony, based on his knowledge and experience and his review of the medical literature that exposure to Weil-McLain products will not cause or contribute to the development of mesothelioma. He has been or will be provided with product exposure information and other case specific data in this case, including, but not limited to, plaintiff's(s') deposition(s) and co-worker depositions. He will review plaintiff's(s') exposures, if any, to asbestos-containing products. He will quantify plaintiff's(s') exposure to the asbestos-containing products and provide opinions regarding the significance of each exposure. He has also reviewed and will rely upon air sampling data and other literature regarding exposure to other asbestos-containing products. He will evaluate exposures to all asbestos-containing products to which plaintiff(s) may have been exposed and discuss the distinction between friable and non-friable asbestoscontaining products/materials. Dr. Smith will also give the following opinions: There is a dose-response relationship associated with the development of any asbestos related disease, and the dose is the most significant factor in causation of asbestos related diseases and disorders. The risk is proportional to the dose: the greater the accumulated dose, the greater the risk. The dose is produced by various exposures accumulating over time. The dose is measured in fiber years, i.e., the product of exposure (f/cc) over time (years). As an example, an individual occupationally exposed at a consistent level of 1.0 f/cc (on an 8 hour time weighted average) for 20 years will have amassed 20 fiber years of asbestos exposure. Similarly, an individual occupationally exposed at a consistent level of 0.5 f/ce (on an 8 hour time weighted average) for 40 years will also have amassed 20 fiber years of asbestos exposure. There are threshold levels of dose necessary before asbestos diseases will develop. As an example, at least 25 fiber years of dose is required for the development of clinically and radiologically evident asbestosis. At the current OSHA PEL of 0.1 f/ce, it would take 250 years of exposure to accumulate 25 fiber years, the level associated with risk of asbestosis and lung cancer. It is Dr. Smith's opinion that the best estimate of the threshold dose to cause mesothelioma is 5 fiber years of exposure to amphibole forms of asbestos. It is Dr. Smith's opinion that the current reliable scientific evidence indicates that pure chrysotile (not admixed with substantial amounts of one or more of the amphibole forms of asbestos) does not cause or substantially contribute to either peritoneal or pleural forms of mesothelioma. It is also his opinion that the non-occupationally and non-paraoccupationally exposed general public is not at risk for the development of any asbestos-related condition or disease, even though there is asbestos in the ambient air. Thus, because of the large dose needed to cause an asbestos related disease, a single asbestos fiber does not substantially contribute to disease. HURWITZ & FINE,P.C 28 BUFFALD, NY of 46

29 Dr. Smith believes to a reasonable degree of medical and scientific probability that the level of exposure, if any, to asbestos resulting from the use, installation, and removal of Weil-McLain products is to provide a dose adequate to create risk of any asbestos related disease or disorder, does not pose a risk to human health, and does not cause or substantially contribute to the cause of asbestos related conditions or diseases. As a recognized expert in determining the etiology of occupationally and/or environmentally induced diseases and disorders, Dr. Smith may address the role that exposures other than asbestos and other nonenvironmental factors may have played in the development of the medical disease(s) and disorder(s) which the plaintiff or plaintiffs decedent is alleged to have or have had. These alternative etiologies, other than asbestos, about which Dr. Smith may testify, include, but are not limited to, radiation, industrial chemicals, solvents, metals/metalloids, non-asbestiform dusts/fibers, household chemicals, other xenobiotic agents, genetic factors, tobacco smoke, alcoholic beverages, drugs, medications, diet, outdoor air pollutants, indoor air pollutants, exercise, lifestyle, and stress. Dr. Smith may discuss the role that one or more of these factors, either independently or interactively, may have played in the genesis and/or progression of the disease(s) and disorder(s) manifested in this plaintiff or plaintiffs decedent. For further clarification of Dr. Smith's testimony, he will be made available for deposition at a mutually convenient time by contacting Defendant's counsel. GLENN MOAK, M.D Royal Pine Blvd Indianapolis, IN Dr. Moak is a board certified radiologist who is retired from the faculty of the Indiana University School of Medicine. He has been certified as a B-reader. Dr. Moak may testify concerning his review of plaintiffs x-rays, CT scans and other x-rays and the effects of asbestos and other materials on those films. Dr. Smith may also testify regarding the opinions, testimony and/or studies of other experts and fact witnesses within his field of expertise. DAVID WEILL, M.D. Stanford University School of Medicine 300 Pasteur Drive A175, MC5351 Stanford, CA Dr. Weill may testify concerning the medical condition of any plaintiff and in the case of a deceased plaintiff, may give testimony as to the cause(s) of death. He may testify as to whether each plaintiff or plaintiffs decedent had a condition or illness caused by asbestos exposure. He may also testify about the latency periods relevant to each type of asbestos-related disease and the carcinogenic properties of different types of asbestos fiber. Dr. Weill may generally testify concerning asbestos-related diseases and the effects of exposure to various asbestos-containing products upon persons in occupational settings. He may further testify regarding the epidemiology of asbestos diseases, the criteria for diagnosis of asbestos-related disease, as well as the existence of a dose response relationship between exposure to asbestos and asbestos-related diseases. He may also testify regarding asbestos-containing products generally, including their asbestos fiber content, use and their respective ability to cause or contribute to disease. HURWITZ & FINE,P.C 29 NY BUFFALO, 29 of 46

30 He may further testify regarding the propensity of various asbestos fiber types to contribute to mesothelioma or other asbestos-related disease. He may also testify regarding the determination of the relative risks of suffering personal injury or death as a result of exposure to various asbestos-containing products in occupational settings. He will explain the dose response relationship between exposure to asbestos and asbestos-related disease for each type of disease or disorder alleged. Dr. Weill's opinion is that the appropriate use of Weil-McLain products during a human life span cannot produce an appreciable risk of any asbestos related disease and is not a producing cause of any asbestos related disease which may be alleged by any plaintiff and/or plaintiff's decedent. He may also testify regarding the existence or non-existence of any alleged asbestos-related disease in the plaintiff(s), including but not limited to various pleural changes and benign pleural disorders, asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma, laryngeal cancer, esophageal cancer, other gastrointestinal cancers, and renal cancer where applicable. He may also testify on general medicine issues regarding asbestos-related diseases including, but not limited to, lung physiology, lung function, lung defense mechanisms and the mechanisms by which asbestos fibers do or do not cause a particular disease. He may also testify that background levels of asbestos fibers in human tissue do not represent disease and background or ambient air exposure does not cause disease. He will further testify that any asbestos-related disease allegedly suffered by plaintiff(s) was not proximately caused by exposure to Weil-McLain products. He may also testify regarding government regulations. He may also testify on increased risk of cancer issues and whether a particular plaintiff has a reasonable fear of cancer due to exposure to asbestos. He may also testify on the health consequences of smoking and the relationship between smoking and alleged asbestos-related diseases, generally and with respect to this plaintiff. He will testify regarding the contribution if any, of smoking and asbestos, if any, to this plaintiff's disease. Generally and with respect to particular plaintiffs, he may testify as to his review and interpretation of x- ray films, review and interpretation of pulmonary function testing, the nature and extent of any impairment or disability, whether a condition is progressive and whether other diseases or conditions are present in plaintiffs. Dr. Weill's testimony will be based on one or more of the following: his training, experience, education, publications and review of the medical, governmental and scientific literature and various air sampling studies, work facility inspections and documents, where applicable, as well as review of medical records, fiber burden or digestion studies, chest films, and all pathology materials. Dr. Weill will rely upon all of the testing of each industrial hygienist disclosed on Defendant's exhibit list. Such testing is incorporated by reference. Dr. Weill may review plaintiff and co-worker's deposition testimony given in this case and rely upon them as a basis for his opinions. He may also provide testimony consistent with the disclosure of any other expert disclosed by this defendant or any other party to this case. Based on his education, training, work experience, and review of the medical/scientific literature, Dr. Weill will render opinion testimony about the level of asbestos exposure in the ambient air and its effect on human health, if any. He will testify about his review of tests of products performed by others. Dr. Weill will compare the level of asbestos exposure from these tests to the levels of asbestos found in the ambient air, and he will render opinion testimony concerning the health hazards, if any, an individual would be subject to as a result of his use and/or exposure to Weil-McLain products. Dr. Weill has education, training, knowledge, and personal experience in the fields of inhalation toxicology and epidemiology. Based upon his knowledge and experience in these fields and his review of the literature, Dr. Weill will give an opinion that the minimum cumulative level of asbestos exposure needed to cause asbestosis or lung cancer is at least 25 fiber years, i.e., the product of exposure (f/cc) over HURWITZ 8 FINE,P.C. 30 BUFFALO, NY of 46

31 time (years), and that asbestos does not play a role in the development of lung cancer at cumulative asbestos exposure levels below 25 fiber years. Dr. Weill will give opinion testimony, based on his knowledge and experience and his review of the medical literature that exposure to Weil-McLain products will not cause or contribute to the development of mesothelioma. He has been or will be provided with product exposure information and other case specific data in this case, including, but not limited to, plaintiff's(s') deposition(s) and co-worker depositions. He will review plaintiff's(s') exposures, if any, to asbestos-containing products. He will quantify plaintiff's(s') exposure to the asbestos-containing products and provide opinions regarding the significance of each exposure. He has also reviewed and will rely upon air sampling data and other literature regarding exposure to other asbestos-containing products. He will evaluate exposures to all asbestos-containing products to which plaintiff(s) may have been exposed and discuss the distinction between friable and non-friable asbestoscontaining products/materials. Dr. Weill will also give the following opinions: There is a dose-response relationship associated with the development of any asbestos related disease, and the dose is the most significant factor in causation of asbestos related diseases and disorders. The risk is proportional to the dose: the greater the accumulated dose, the greater the risk. The dose is produced by various exposures accumulating over time. The dose is measured in fiber years, i.e., the product of exposure (f/cc) over time (years). As an example, an individual occupationally exposed at a consistent level of 1.0 f/ce (on an 8 hour time weighted average) for 20 years will have amassed 20 fiber years of asbestos exposure. Similarly, an individual occupationally exposed at a consistent level of 0.5 f/ce (on an 8 hour time weighted average) for 40 years will also have amassed 20 fiber years of asbestos exposure. There are threshold levels of dose necessary before asbestos diseases will develop. As an example, at least 25 fiber years of dose is required for the development of clinically and radiologically evident asbestosis. At the current OSHA PEL of 0.1 f/ce, it would take 250 years of exposure to accumulate 25 fiber years, the level associated with risk of asbestosis and lung cancer. It is Dr. Weill's opinion that the best estimate of the threshold dose to cause mesothelioma is 5 fiber years of exposure to amphibole forms of asbestos. It is Dr. Weill's opinion that the current reliable scientific evidence indicates that pure chrysotile (not admixed with substantial amounts of one or more of the amphibole forms of asbestos) does not cause or substantially contribute to either peritoneal or pleural forms of mesothelioma. It is also his opinion that the non-occupationally and non-paraoccupationally exposed general public is not at risk for the development of any asbestos-related condition or disease, even though there is asbestos in the ambient air. Thus, because of the large dose needed to cause an asbestos related disease, a single asbestos fiber does not substantially contribute to disease. Dr. Weill believes to a reasonable degree of medical and scientific probability that the level of exposure, if any, to asbestos resulting from the use, installation, and removal of Weil-McLain products is insufficient to provide a dose adequate to create risk of any asbestos related disease or disorder, does not pose a risk to human health, and does not cause or substantially contribute to the cause of asbestos related conditions or diseases. As a recognized expert in determining the etiology of occupationally and/or environmentally induced diseases and disorders, Dr. Weill may address the role that exposures other than asbestos and other nonenvironmental factors may have played in the development of the medical disease(s) and disorder(s) which the plaintiff or plaintiffs decedent is alleged to have or have had. These alternative etiologies, other than asbestos, about which Dr. Weill may testify, include, but are not limited to, radiation, industrial chemicals, solvents, metals/metalloids, non-asbestiform dusts/fibers, household chemicals, other xenobiotic agents, genetic factors, tobacco smoke, alcoholic beverages, drugs, medications, diet, outdoor air pollutants, indoor air pollutants, exercise, lifestyle, and stress. Dr. Weill may discuss the role that one HURWITZ & FINE,P.C. 31 BUFFALO, NY of 46