Document LJKyMpb8YRvEwrV9d6a02qZEd

1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL 2 CIRCUIT IN AND FOR DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA 3 GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION - 4 MARIA SANTANA, 5 Plaintiff, 6 -vs7 BONDEX INTERNATIONAL, ) ) ) CASE NO. ) 08-67301-CA-42 8 INC., et al., ) 9 Defendants. ) 10 The videotaped deposition of DR. KIM 11 ANDERSON, Volume I, called for examination, taken 12 pursuant to the provisions of the Code of Civil 13 Procedure and the Rules of the Supreme Court of the 14 State of Florida pertaining to the taking of 15 depositions for the purpose of evidence, taken 16 before Janet Pollard, a Notary Public within and 17 for the County of Waukesha, State of Wisconsin, 18 and a Stenographic Reporter of said state, at 19 Suite 150, 20900 West Swenson Road, Waukesha, 20 Wisconsin, on the 1st day of October, A.D. 2009, 21 commencing at 1:27 p.m. 22 23 24 25 1 1 PRESENT: 2 RUCKDESCHEL LAW FIRM, LLC, 3 (5126 Dorsey Hall Drive, 4 Ellicott City, Maryland 21042-7887, 5 410-884-7825), by: 6 JONATHAN RUCKDESCHEL, 7 appeared telephonically on behalf of the 8 Plaintiff; 9 10 BICE COLE LAW FIRM, P.L., 11 (999 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 710, 12 Coral Gables, Florida 33134, 13 305-444-1225), by: 14 SUSAN J. COLE, 15 appeared on behalf of the Defendant; 16 17 HAWKINS, PARNELL & THACKSTON, 18 (400 SunTrust Plaza, 303 Peachtree St. NE., 19 Atlanta, Georgia 30308-3242, 20 404-614-7400), by: 21 ALBERT PARNELL, 22 appeared telephonically on behalf of 23 Defendants; 24 25 2 1 PRESENT: (Continued.) 2 AKERMAN, SENTERFILT, 3 (420 Orange Ave, Suite 1200, 4 Orlando, Florida, 32081-4904, 5 407-423-4000), by: 6 MICHAEL CRIST, 7 appeared telephonically on behalf of 8 Pneumo Abex. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 REPORTED BY: JANET POLLARD, 25 Stenographic reporter 3 1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is Tape One of the 2 Dr. Kim Anderson deposition in the matter before 3 Circuit Court 11th Judicial District and for 4 Dade County, Florida. Case number 5 08-67301-CA-42. 6 This deposition is being held at 20900 west 7 Swenson Road in Waukesha, Wisconsin. The date 8 is October 1, 2009. The time is 1:27 p.m. My 9 name is Ronald Hendricks, and I'm the 10 videographer. The court reporter is Janet 11 Pollard. 12 Appearances and affiliations beginning with 13 direct, please. 14 MR. RUCKDESCHEL: Jonathan Ruckdeschel on 15 behalf of Maria Santana. 16 MS. COLE: Susan Cole on behalf of Western 17 Auto. 18 MR. CRIST: Michael Crist on behalf of Pneumo 19 Abex. 20 MR. PARNELL: Al Parnell on behalf of 21 numerous defendants. 22 (WHEREUPON, the witness was duly 23 sworn.) 24 DR. KIM ANDERSON, 25 called as a witness herein, having been first 4 1 duly sworn, was examined and testified as 2 follows: 3 EXAMINATION 4 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 5 Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Anderson. My name 6 is John Ruckdeschel. I represent Maria Santana 7 Would you please state your name and your 8 business address for the record. 9 A. Kim, middle initial E, Anderson. 10 Business address is 20900 Swenson Road in 11 Waukesha, Wisconsin 12 Q. And by whom have you or your firm been 13 retained in this matter? 14 A. I have been retained by Attorney Cole 15 on behalf of Western Auto 16 Q. And have you been retained by any other 17 party in this lawsuit? 18 A. No, sir. 19 Q. What have you brought with you today, 20 sir? 21 A. I have a file of materials that were 22 provided to me by Ms. Cole: 23 The fact sheet, which is a condensation 24 of my review of the various documents; then 25 individual sheets that are lane -- excuse me -- 5 1 line and page reviews of the various documents; 2 a copy of my report; a notice of the deposition; 3 a copy of my curriculum vitae from September 9, 4 2009; and a copy of my report that was issued on 5 September 15, 2009. I believe that's it, sir. 6 Q. Okay. What I would like to do, sir - 7 and Madam Reporter, I'll read these for the 8 record and then we can take a pause and they can 9 be marked. 10 Actually, before we get to that, is 11 there anything -- tell me what's in the file? 12 You said you brought your file. 13 A. Yes, sir. 14 Q. Are the contents of the file reflected 15 in your report? 16 A. Again, except for my individual review 17 sheets, my curriculum vitae, the notice of the 18 deposition, a copy of a letter from Bice Cole 19 Law Firm to me, dated August 19, 2009; then I 20 also have a list, sir, of reference materials 21 for brakes, and then a list of depositions and 22 trials in which I have provided testimony. 23 Q. Okay. Does the letter from Bice Cole, 24 the lawyers for Western Auto, reflect the 25 materials you were provided that are specific to 6 1 this case? 2 A. They provide all the materials that I 3 utilized for my report. 4 And I was also provided, today, some 5 abatement records relative to Eastern Airlines. 6 And I believe that's it. 7 Q. All right. What does the letter from 8 Bice Cole from August say? 9 A. You want me to read it verbatim? 10 Q. Yep. 11 A. "Dear Dr. Anderson, thank you for 12 agreeing to consult with us in this matter. 13 We represent the interest of Western 14 Auto Supply Company in brackets, [Western Auto] 15 close bracket, in reference to an asbestos claim 16 filed by Maria Santana in Miami dash Dade County 17 Florida. 18 Ms. Santana claims she was exposed to 19 asbestos by assisting, being a bystander to, and 20 performing the cleaning and laundry after her 21 husband and sons work on vehicles and their work 22 with joint compound in the home. 23 To assist you in review of the case, we 24 enclosed the following documents on CD: 25 One, plaintiff's answers to interrogatories. 7 1 Two, complaint. 2 Three, exposure sheets. 3 Four, sworn information sheet for Maria 4 Santana. 5 Five, Social Security printouts, Sub A, 6 Maria Santana, and B, Mario Santana. 7 Six, work history. Sub A, Maria Santana. 8 Sub B, Mario Santana. 9 Seven, deposition transcripts, A, Maria - 10 Sub A, Maria Santana. Sub 1, 3/21/2009, Volume 11 Part 1. 2, 3/21/2009, Volume 1, Part 2. Three 12 videotape deposition taken for 1/2009. Sub B, 13 Rory Santana, taken 5/14/2009. 14 Eight, MVA Scientific Consultant's Report 15 MVA 7293, Analysis of Western Auto Brake 16 Materials for Asbestos, dated December 14, 2007, 17 submitted by William L. Turner, Jr. and James 18 R. Millette, PhD. 19 Nine, MVA Scientific Consultants 20 Supplemental Report MVA 7293, Analysis of 21 Western Auto Brake Materials for Asbestos, dated 22 February 19, 2008, submitted by Mr. James R. 23 Millette, PhD. 24 Ten, M-A-S report on project number M 44701, 25 Wizard Brake Shoes PLM, TEM, and SEM; analysis 8 1 results, dated May 6, 2009, submitted by 2 Mr. Bill Egeland and Michael D. Mount, period. 3 This case is currently set for trial in 4 Miami dash Dade County Florida on October 13, 5 2009. Kindly review your calender for dates of 6 availability for your deposition prior to 7 October 2, 2009 as well as availability for 8 trial appearance. The deadline to file expert 9 reports, should you choose to prepare one, are 10 due September 18, 2009. 11 In the meantime, we remain ready to 12 respond to any questions you may have or to 13 provide additional information as you may 14 require. We look forward to working with you on 15 this matter. 16 Very truly yours, Susan J. Cole." 17 Q. Thank you, Dr. Anderson. Did you Bring 18 the disc with you? 19 A. No, sir. That I did not. 20 Q. I would like to mark the deposition 21 notice as Exhibit 1, the report as Exhibit 2, 22 the individual sheet and fact sheet collectively 23 as Exhibit 3, the letter from Bice Cole is 4, 24 the list reference materials regarding brakes is 25 5, the list of deposition and trials is 6, and 9 1 then the abatement record as 7. 2 A. Bear with us a minute if you would, 3 please. 4 (WHEREUPON, certain documents 5 were marked Deposition Exhibit 6 Nos 1 through 7, inclusive, 7 for identification, as of 8 October 1, 2009.) 9 BY THE WITNESS: 10 A. Okay, sir. 11 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 12 Q. Okay. Does your report, which we've 13 marked as Exhibit 2, reflect the materials you 14 reviewed in preparation of the report? 15 A. Yes, sir. 16 Q. All right. Now, with respect to the 17 abatement records; what are they? 18 A. The abates and records are a series of 19 perhaps several hundred pages that reflect 20 documents from the Florida Air Environment - 21 excuse me -- air section of the Environment 22 Resources Management Program that provide both 23 for notification, performance of abatement, 24 disposal facility correspondence, and other 25 materials related to projects including those 10 1 conducted at American Airlines. 2 MS. COLE: You mean Eastern Airlines? 3 THE WITNESS: Eastern Airlines. I'm sorry. 4 Thank you. 5 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 6 Q. What significance, if any, do those 7 records play, in your opinion, in this case? 8 A. Again, as I stated, I just received 9 these. But I can conclude from looking at 10 these, Mr. Ruckdeschel, that there was a 11 significant volume of variety of 12 asbestos-containing materials in several Eastern 13 Airlines facilities located in and around Miami 14 Airport. 15 Q. Okay. Which facilities? 16 A. If we look specifically at some of the 17 records, the buildings include: Eastern 18 Building 22, Eastern Building No. 21, Hanger 19 2144, Eastern Building 25. 20 And, I believe those are the locations 21 that can be gleaned from the records as related 22 to Eastern Airlines. 23 Q. What is the date, the earliest date of 24 any of those records? 25 A. Again, as I said, I just received 11 1 these. 2 Q. Now is my chance to ask you questions 3 about them so - 4 A. Well, if you want me to go through each 5 individual one to be sure, I would be happy do 6 that. 7 Q. If you're going to talk about them at 8 trial and rely on them at trial, that's what I 9 want you to do. 10 MS. COLE: Mr. Ruckdeschl, are you referring 11 to just a year or the month, date, and year? 12 MR. RUCKDESCHEL: Year is fine for now. 13 BY THE WITNESS: 14 A. Okay. It appears that many of these 15 records carry dates of 1992. And some with 16 1991. 17 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 18 Q. Do any of the records indicate when any 19 of that material that may have contained 20 asbestos was installed? 21 A. Many of the records carry the age of 22 the facility with many of them talking of the 23 age being 30 years. And I believe, as I was 24 thumbing through these earlier, Mr. Ruckdeschl, 25 that there's also a 15-year date that was used 12 1 on one or more of the buildings. And some of 2 the 20-year, 22-year time frame. 3 Q. Do any of the records mention Mario 4 Santana? 5 A. I do not believe so. 6 Q. Do any of the records contain any 7 measurement of airborn dust levels during the 8 period that Mario Santana worked at Eastern 9 Airlines? 10 A. I don't believe so. 11 Q. Do any of the records allow to you 12 ascertain whether any of the products referenced 13 in the records were in the work area that 14 Mr. Santana worked in? 15 A. The records often describe the location 16 vis-a-vis floor location or perhaps the entirety 17 of the location of a specific building where the 18 abatement activities are being or have been 19 conducted. 20 Q. That doesn't answer my question. Do 21 any of the records allow you to ascertain 22 whether any of the materials were found in 23 Mr. Santana's work areas in any of the 24 buildings? 25 A. I don't know at this time without 13 1 looking at that and comparing it to any records 2 that we may have related to the precise 3 locations that Mr. Santana worked. 4 Q. What precise locations did Mr. Santana 5 work in? 6 A. My understanding is that he worked in 7 the buildings, at least during the first 15 8 years where operations were being conducted on 9 the airplanes. I believe Ms. Santana stated, in 10 fact, that during his career he'd worked on 11 essentially every airplane that Eastern Airlines 12 flew. 13 Q. Which buildings did Mr. Santana work 14 in? 15 A. That's information I requested today 16 from Ms. Cole. 17 Q. And what information is contained in 18 the abatement records regarding the manufacturer 19 or trade name of any of the products that were 20 abated? 21 A. I believe the only reference that I saw 22 would have been for Transite and a couple of the 23 locations. I saw no other reference to any 24 brand name of any asbestos containing material 25 that was to be abated or had been abated in 14 1 these notifications. 2 Q. Was there analysis by fire type of any 3 of the materials that were abated? 4 A. I don't believe so. I think they 5 rather quantified the location of material 6 vis-a-vis -- either in linear feet or square 7 footage, and then denoted what the material was, 8 sir. 9 Q. Denoted it in terms of what form it 10 was? Like it was pipe covering or duct wrap or 11 something like that? 12 A. Yes, sir. 13 Q. All right. And there's nothing that 14 would tell us what brand name it was or what the 15 various fiber types may or may not have been in 16 those materials? 17 A. Again, the only identifier that I found 18 was they did use the word "Transite" and they 19 capitalized Transite. To me, to indicate a 20 specific product that would have been 21 manufactured by Johns Manville. 22 Q. What's Transtite? 23 A. Transtite -- appears their use was for 24 wall coverings or wall finishes. 25 Q. Say that again for me, sir. 15 1 A. Was either used for wall finishings - 2 finishes, or wall coverings in the applications 3 that appears to be included in the abatement of 4 work. 5 Q. When you say "wall finishings," what do 6 you mean? 7 A. It appears through looking at these 8 abatement reports, there was a finish coat that 9 included a Transite board covering. 10 Q. Okay. Is it fair to say, Dr. Anderson, 11 that you don't specifically know what Transite 12 is? 13 A. No, sir. I believe I do. 14 Q. Okay. What is it? 15 A. The Transite that's being discussed 16 here is not of a Transite pipe, but rather as a 17 Transite sheet that was manufactured by Johns 18 Manville. The Johns Manville product generally 19 contained chrysotile and often contained 20 amosite. Percentages of each could vary, but 21 could approach as much as 40 to 50 percent of 22 asbestos materials. 23 Q. Okay. So Johns Manville manufactured 24 an asbestos cement product that was sold in 25 various stores under the name Transite, right? 16 1 A. Yes, sir. I agree. 2 Q. Sometimes that product contained 3 chrysotile sometimes that product contained 4 chrysotile and amosite? 5 A. Yes, sir. 6 Q. All right. And there's no indication 7 in the abatement record that you have whether 8 this contained chrysotile or chrysotile and 9 amosite, correct ? 10 A. That is correct. 11 Q. And often times Transite was used like 12 the word "Kleenex" as a generic identification 13 of asbestos cement; would you agree? 14 A. I would agree. As I stated, in these 15 forms it was provided with a capital letter that 16 I interpreted that to mean a trade name product. 17 Q. Are you aware of any analysis reflected 18 in the abatement records that would allow the 19 person doing the investigation to determine 20 whether the asbestos cement product was Johns 21 Manville Transite versus some other asbestos 22 cement product? 23 A. No, sir. 24 Q. You would have to do some pretty good 25 detective work to figure that out, wouldn't you? 17 1 MS. COLE: Objection to form. 2 BY THE WITNESS: 3 A. Some of the wallboard actually had the 4 Johns Manville stamps that I've seen before. 5 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 6 Q. Is there anything in the records that 7 would say that? 8 A. Again, in looking at the records, 9 certain names they capitalized, other names they 10 did not. 11 Q. Where was the -- where was the Transite 12 found? 13 A. If you give me a minute, I'll find some 14 of these records and tell you. 15 In building -- Eastern Building 21, on 16 December 22, 1992 they submitted this specific 17 form that is entitled Notification of Demolition 18 and Renovation. And on this form it specifies 19 that they're going to abate or have abated 20 40 square feet of muffler installation, 21 54,205 square feet of wall coating, 925 square 22 feet of Transite, and 120 square feet of VAT. 23 Q. 120 square feet. VAT would be an 24 abbreviation for vinyl asbestos tile? 25 A. That's my interpretation. 18 1 Q. All right. 2 A. There's others, if you want me to 3 continue -4 Q. Are they all related to Building 21? 5 A. I don't know without turning to my 6 notes. 7 Q. Keep turning to your notes then. 8 A. Then there's a second one for Eastern 9 Building 21 dated December 1, 1992, Notification 10 of Demolition and Renovation that has another 11 925 square feet of Transite. 12 Then there's one for Eastern Building 13 21 dated September 25, 1992, entitled 14 Notification of Demolition and Renovation that 15 includes a total of 55,290 square feet, 16 including wall coating, 54,205 square feet. 17 Transite in what is defined as the west 18 engine control room, of 365 square feet. 19 Transite that is defined in the west APU test 20 sale and control room, which is 400 square feet. 21 Also in that same sale and control room, 120 22 square feet of VAT, 20 square feet of muffler 23 installation. 24 And there's more Transite in what's 25 called the fuel component test stands area of 19 1 which has 160 square feet of Transite and 20 2 square feet of muffler installation. 3 And they offered a grand total, again, 4 of 55,290 square feet. 5 Q. Right. So this is another form that 6 describes the same building and basically the 7 same materials, 120 square feet of asbestos 8 tile, the wall covering, whatever that might 9 have been; would you agree? 10 A. I can't say that because this has a 11 much larger quantity and has specifications of 12 buildings or areas within Building 21. 13 Q. Okay. This is all confined to Building 14 21? 15 A. Well, I'm not done yet. 16 Q. Okay. 17 A. I want to be sure since you asked me. 18 This was, you know, your chance to ask me 19 questions. Let's be sure. 20 Q. Sure, take your time. 21 MR. PARNELL: Sue, you should never have told 22 him you had to catch a plane. 23 MS. COLE: So be it. 24 MR. RUCKDESCHEL: It would go a lot quicker 25 if I had the records. 20 1 MS. COLE: I just got them. Would have gone 2 quicker if we hadn't had an objection to them. 3 BY THE WITNESS: 4 A. And I believe, Mr. Ruckdeschl, those 5 are the only records that specify at an Eastern 6 Airlines building, Transite. And again, I'm 7 going through with great rapidity, so I trust I 8 didn't miss anything. 9 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 10 Q. All right. Now, do you have any 11 indication that Mr. Santana ever worked in 12 Building 21? 13 A. Again, I have requested that 14 information after I obtained these records. 15 Q. So the answer is no as we sit here 16 today? 17 MS. COLE: Objection to the form of the 18 question. 19 BY THE WITNESS: 20 A. As I sit here today, I have asked for 21 that information. I have not obtained it as of 22 yet. 23 By MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 24 Q. So you have no information, as we sit 25 here today, that he ever worked in Building 21? 21 1 A. That is correct. 2 Q. All right. Now, Dr. Anderson, the 3 piece of Transite sitting on the wall going to 4 give off asbestos fibers unless somebody puts 5 energy onto that board? 6 MS. COLE: Objection to form. 7 BY THE WITNESS: 8 A. Without looking at all this, Mr. 9 Ruckdeschel, because on many of these forms they 10 describe friable versus nonfriable materials. 11 So I would have to go the next level. A 12 nonfriable piece of Transite, I do not believe 13 should exert asbestos fibers in its, you know, 14 customary and normal use. 15 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 16 Q. Okay. But a friable piece would still 17 have to have at least hand pressure put on it to 18 have it crumble and give off fibers, under the 19 definition of the friable, right? 20 MS. COLE: Objection, form. 21 MY THE WITNESS: 22 A. Yeah. Depending on how -- how bad a 23 shape it was in. When you're moving large 24 aircraft in and out of these buildings, I would 25 imagine just the percussions caused by moving, 22 1 and the land movement caused by moving these 2 large, you know, airplanes, if the material was 3 in very bad shape it could, nonetheless, emit 4 fibers into the air. 5 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 6 Q. What information do you have that large 7 aircraft were ever moved into Building 21? 8 MS. COLE: Objection to form. Argumentative. 9 BY THE WITNESS: 10 A. Some of the buildings are called 11 hangars, and they actually give the square feet 12 on some of the buildings. 13 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 14 Q. Which buildings are called hangars? 15 A. Again, I would have to go back through 16 these. That, you know that - 17 MS. COLE: I tell you what, Mr. Ruckdeschel, 18 since Dr. Anderson just got these today, and we 19 just got them yesterday or the day before, if he 20 is going -- if he is going to give testimony 21 regarding these records, I will make him 22 available for another short deposition on that 23 subject prior to his testimony at trial, and in 24 the meantime, I will get you the records which 25 I'm having put on the disc just as as soon as I 23 1 can, hopefully by tomorrow or Monday. 2 MR. RUCKDESCHEL: I don't agree to that. I 3 may agree to something like that after I have a 4 few moments to consider your suggestion, but I 5 don't agree to it right now. And I'm going to 6 continue this exploration for the moment. 7 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 8 Q. Dr. Anderson, what records are there 9 regarding Building 22 in the materials you have 10 received? 11 A. Give me a moment. Building 22, there's 12 several records. The first of which is dated 13 October 1, 1992, again, Notification of 14 Demolition and Renovation. That's the first 15 record on Building 22. 16 The second one is a form entitled 17 Florida Department of Environment Regulation 18 Notification of Demolition and or Removal with 19 Fee Schedule, with a handwritten date of 20 10/23/91. That's Building 22. 21 And then, there's a cover letter dated 22 October 23, '91, which I assume relates to the 23 one I just described that is addressed to Dade 24 County Environmental Resource Management from 25 Wayne Blackwell and Company each -- Inc., excuse 24 1 me, that relates to Building 22. 2 Q. Anything else regarding Building 22? 3 A. Again, I'm going through these very 4 rapidly again. I don't believe so, but I -5 Q. Do any of the three documents regarding 6 Building 22 that you just referred to, contain 7 information about what asbestos containing 8 materials, if any, were found in Building 22? 9 A. The first record that's dated 10 October 19, 1992 states that renovation work was 11 conducted, but it does not have the 12 quantification of the type of material. 13 The second record I described states 14 that they're going to abate 50,000 square feet 15 of surfacing material that is friable. 16 The third regulation -- regulation, 17 this is the third correspondence that relates to 18 the one I just described, sir. 19 Q. Okay. Where in the building was a 20 50,000 square feet of surfacing material 21 located? 22 A. Third floor, s -- S/R 3. 23 Q. Do you know anything about the 24 configuration of Building 22; other than it had 25 three floors, at least? 25 1 A. The building size was 200,000 square 2 feet; it had 3 floors; it was 20 years old; they 3 were to start the demolition on 11/16 -- excuse 4 me -- 11/06/91, and complete it on 11/13/91. 5 And also included in his documents is a 6 layout - 7 MS. COLE: Al, we can hear you. Please mute 8 your phone. 9 BY THE WITNESS: 10 A. -- is a layout of the airport. Again, 11 I haven't had the opportunity to look at this 12 layout with respect to the location of this 13 building, Mr. Ruckdeschel. 14 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 15 Q. Okay. Do you know where in Building 22 16 Mr. Santana may have worked at any given time? 17 A. No, sir. I do not. I have requested 18 such information. 19 Q. Do you have any information that any of 20 the materials that may have contained asbestos 21 in Building 22 ever contributed to airborn 22 asbestos levels in the work areas in Building 22 23 that Mr. Santana worked in? 24 A. Not at this time. I do not know that. 25 Q. And if there are there's no factual 26 1 information that we have available to us at this 2 time that would tell us whether or not that 3 happened, right? 4 MS . COLE: Objection to form. 5 BY THE WITNESS: 6 A. Whether or not that happened meaning 7 what? I'm sorry. 8 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 9 Q. Whether or not any of of those 10 materials ever became respirable dust in 11 Mr. Santana's workplace? 12 MS . COLE: Objection to form. 13 BY THE WITNESS: 14 A. That I don't know at this time. 15 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 16 Q. What additional information would you 17 need to know? 18 MS . COLE: Objection. Calls for speculation 19 BY THE WITNESS: 20 A. Yeah, it would be advantageous first to 21 start with the buildings in which Mr. Santana 22 had worked. And then from that, 23 Mr. Ruckdeschel, I can determine what other 24 class of information would be advantageous for 25 analysis of any such exposure. 27 1 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 2 Q. What was the bulk sample analysis of 3 the material in Building 22 - 4 MS. COLE: Objection to form. 5 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 6 Q. -- if any? 7 A. I don't understand the question. 8 Q. What kind of asbestos and how much was 9 in the material in Building 22 reflected in the 10 documents you just talked about? 11 A. These, were, again abatement documents 12 specifying the location and quantity and not any 13 specifications on the type of asbestos that may 14 have been contained in the materials. 15 Q. And what about percentage of asbestos? 16 A. No, sir. Since they didn't identity 17 what type of asbestos, then they did not 18 identity the percentage as such. 19 Q. Did you meet with Ms. Cole yesterday 20 prior to this deposition? 21 A. We had dinner. 22 Q. Okay. Did you talk about this case? 23 A. I had my wife along. 24 Q. Did you talk about this case? 25 A. No. No, sir. 28 1 Q. All right. 2 A. My wife -- my wife wasn't real 3 interested. I don't know about yours, if you 4 have one, but my wife wasn't that interested in 5 hearing more work stuff. 6 Q. Well, sometimes that's the consequence 7 of being a spouse. So I just want to make sure 8 I got a clear answer to the question. 9 A. Okay. 10 Q. Did you speak with Ms. Cole about this 11 case prior to starting the deposition? 12 A. Yes, sir. 13 Q. When, how many times, and for how long? 14 A. My recollection is after I issued the 15 report, we had a discussion. I believe she 16 called, or one of her helpers called, to get a 17 deposition date. And then we met this morning 18 for a while and talked about this case. And she 19 provided these records that I reviewed before my 20 deposition. 21 Q. Have there been any written 22 communications between you and Ms. Cole or her 23 law firm or any representative of Western Auto 24 other than the cover letter for the materials to 25 you and your report to them, for example, 29 1 emails? 2 A. No, sir. Not, not that I recall. 3 Q. Do you have people that work with you, 4 sir? 5 A. Yes, sir. 6 Q. Okay. If I expand that last question 7 to include communications between Ms. Cole, her 8 law firm, and Western Auto, and you or anyone 9 working for you or with you, does any of that 10 change? 11 A. No, sir. 12 Q. All right. 13 A. I don't think she's ever talked to 14 anyone else, other than to meet people in my 15 office here. 16 Q. And Ms. Cole's letter reflects what she 17 sent you, correct? 18 A. Yes, sir. 19 Q. And we've marked that as an exhibit? 20 A. Her letter? Yes, sir. 21 Q. All right. And your report reflects 22 what you've reviewed, and we've marked that as 23 an exhibit? 24 A. That's correct. 25 Q. All right. Have you published anything 30 1 in peer review in medical or scientific 2 literature regarding asbestos? 3 A. Yes, sir. 4 Q. Okay. When is the last thing you 5 published? 6 MS. COLE: For the record, Dr. Anderson is 7 looking at his CV. 8 BY THE WITNESS: 9 A. In March, 2009, I published an article 10 entitled, Dose Reconstruction the Use of Dose 11 Reconstruction and the Determination of Human 12 Exposure. And in that manuscript, there's a 13 discussion of dose reconstruction application 14 and use in asbestos cases. 15 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 16 Q. Where was that published? 17 A. The Journal of the America Society of 18 Testing and Materials. 19 Q. Did you receive any funding for the 20 work that led to that article? 21 A. No, sir. 22 Q. Other than that article, have you 23 published anything in medical or scientific 24 literature regarding asbestos? 25 A. I have an article under review entitled 31 1 State of the Art for Drywall Products Supply 2 Companies During the Post World War II Era 3 Through the Early 1970s. 4 Q. How did that come about? 5 MS. COLE: Objection to the form. 6 BY THE WITNESS: 7 A. I missed the question. I'm sorry. 8 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 9 Q. How did that come about? 10 MS. COLE: Objection to the form. 11 BY THE WITNESS: 12 A. I - 13 MS. COLE: I don't think he understands your 14 question, Mr. Ruckdeschel. 15 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 16 Q. All right. You've done some work in 17 the litigation field for drywall joint compound 18 companies, correct? 19 A. Yes, sir. 20 Q. You testified as an expert to the 21 defense in personal injury litigation involving 22 allegations of injurious exposure to asbestos 23 from joint compound, correct? 24 A. Yes, sir. 25 Q. Is it that work that led to this 32 1 article that you just referenced? 2 MS. COLE: Objection to form. 3 BY THE WITNESS: 4 A. I would -- I would rather classify it 5 as my interest in the lack of some of the 6 literature relating to these type of building 7 products. 8 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 9 Q. All right. Let me -- let me try 10 and -- you were interested in the lack of 11 literature regarding joint compound? 12 A. How joint compound came about; how 13 joint compound was manufactured; the era that 14 joint compound was manufactured containing 15 asbestos; the type of asbestos that was used in 16 joint compound; a review of the epidemiological 17 studies related to drywall workers; and then the 18 related potential toxicity from workers engaged 19 in using drywall materials. 20 Q. Did any of your joint compound clients 21 provide any funding for the work that led to the 22 article that's in press? 23 A. No, sir. 24 Q. For whom have you provided consulting 25 work in the joint compound field where that work 33 1 has been disclosed? 2 In other words, if you have been hired 3 as a consultant, but that work has not been 4 disclosed to the public, I don't want you to 5 tell me about that. 6 A. Okay. 7 Q. So there's Kaiser Gypsum, who else? 8 A. Georgia Pacific, Kelly Mower, Welco, 9 and I believe that's it. 10 Q. Did you ever do any work for Bondex? 11 A. Oh, I'm sorry. And Bondex. 12 Q. And your -- you have been asked to act 13 as a consultant for Western Auto in this case 14 relating to the allegation relating to brakes, 15 correct? 16 A. Yes, sir. 17 Q. All right. What other companies have 18 hired you to work with them regarding brakes in 19 the litigation context? 20 MS. COLE: Objection to the form of the 21 question in as much as it asks for work done on 22 a consulting-only basis. 23 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 24 Q. All right. Where that work has been 25 disclosed? 34 1 A. At this time, no other cases. 2 Q. Is this your first brake case? 3 A. Yes, sir. 4 Q. Have you done work with Ms. Cole 5 before? 6 A. Yes, sir. 7 Q. In what types of cases? 8 A. I believe there's been one other case 9 with Ms. Cole for Kaiser Gypsum. 10 Q. And when Ms. Cole approached you to 11 work with her regarding brakes in this case, 12 what, if anything, did you have to do to 13 familiarize yourself with cases involving 14 allegations of exposure to asbestos from brakes? 15 MS. COLE: Objection to the form of the 16 question. 17 BY THE WITNESS: 18 A. I had been working on assimilating the 19 scientific literature and reviewing the 20 scientific literature, both from worker exposure 21 as well as from epidemiological and medical 22 perspectives, for the last few months and 23 essentially had that work done before Ms. Cole 24 contacted me. 25 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 35 1 Q. Was that work done in anticipation of 2 potentially being involved in litigation? 3 MS. COLE: Objection to the form. 4 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 5 Q. They're not allowed, asbestos brakes, 6 being used in the United States anymore, are 7 there? 8 A. Not to my knowledge. 9 Q. Okay. Is it fair to say that in 10 getting yourself familiar with asbestos and 11 brakes and the rest -- the issues that you're 12 going to talk about in this case, that you were 13 doing that work to get ready to testify? 14 MS. COLE: Objection to the form of the 15 question. 16 BY THE WITNESS: 17 A. Whether or not I would testify was not 18 the motivation. The motivation was to be able 19 to help firms like Miss Cole's firm in cases 20 where there was exposure, or alleged exposure, 21 to asbestos from brakes. 22 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 23 Q. Okay. That's fair enough. Thank you, 24 sir. 25 Now, had Ms. Cole or anyone else 36 1 suggested to you that this might be a way to 2 expand your consulting business by becoming 3 familiar with brakes? 4 A. No, sir. 5 Q. How is it that you determine, "Hey, 6 maybe I'll go out and learn about brakes too"? 7 MS. COLE: Objection. Argumentative. 8 BY THE WITNESS: 9 A. Many of the other cases in which I had 10 been retained, there is a frequent notification 11 of workers that were potentially exposed to 12 brakes. 13 Since short fiber chrysotile that was 14 used in joint compound was used in brakes as 15 well, then I believe the toxicological issues 16 would have been consistent with the two. 17 Therefore, my desire was to look at 18 brakes and see the similarities. And then I 19 found the literature was interesting with 20 respect to the very low exposure concentration. 21 So it became a natural adjunct to my building 22 product practice to expand into this area. 23 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 24 Q. Did the articles on your reference 25 list, did any of the lawyers that you've worked 37 1 with in the joint compound field provide you 2 with any of those materials that they might have 3 had handy? 4 A. I don't believe so. 5 Q. Going out and familiarizing yourself 6 with the published literature regarding brakes, 7 did you evaluate where the funding came from for 8 the articles on which you now rely? 9 MS. COLE: Objection to the form. 10 BY THE WITNESS: 11 A. Some of the articles, there are funding 12 sources that are noted. So yes, sir, I paid 13 attention to that. 14 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 15 Q. Did it cause you any concern when 16 article after article published at the expense 17 of the big three auto makers synthesized prior 18 studies to conclude that there's no damage for 19 brakes? 20 MS. COLE: Objection to form. 21 BY THE WITNESS: 22 A. I guess I looked more importantly, Mr. 23 Ruckdeschel, at the data that was presented and 24 then made my own interpretations and drew my own 25 conclusion from the data rather than relying 38 1 solely on conclusions made by those that 2 conducted the studies. 3 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 4 Q. Okay. In your report Reference 2, you 5 cite that Dr. Paustenbach's article from 2003 6 regarding historical exposure of mechanics. Are 7 you familiar with that article? 8 A. Yes, sir. 9 Q. In looking at that article, did you 10 then go back and pull each of the underlying 11 studies that Dr. Paustenbach lumped together in 12 that study and averaged out? 13 A. I had already obtained most of the 14 studies that Dr. Paustenbach had utilized. 15 Q. Had you looked at all of them? 16 A. Without going through every reference 17 that Dr. Paustenbach utilized, I know I used 18 most of, if not all of the references, and 19 pulled those and looked at those. Yes, sir. 20 Q. You mentioned a few questions ago that 21 you became familiar that joint compound and 22 brakes both used short fiber chrysotile, or an 23 answer somewhere along those lines. What do you 24 mean by that? 25 A. In looking at joint compound, Grade 7 39 1 and depending upon the supplier, generally a 2 Grade 7 RF material was utilized in joint 3 compound. 4 Going through the basic literature, I 5 believe it's a study by Rice at the University 6 of Cincinnati. Dr. Rice detailed the type of 7 asbestos that was used in other products. And 8 in looking at her study, she denoted also a 9 Grade 7 asbestos was used in brakes. 10 So that was for friction products, I 11 think is how she classified it, Mr. Ruckdeschel. 12 And from that, I drew the conclusion that brakes 13 used Grade 7 asbestos as well. 14 Q. Okay. And what does that mean in terms 15 of the length of the fibers? 16 A. If you look at the basic references 17 that describe both the milling process and the 18 fourth sieve process that we go through, the 19 fourth or the last sieve to come up with a 20 Grade 7. And the Grade 7 then generally had a 21 particle or -- excuse me -- a fiber size that 22 was 3 microns or less in length. Again with the 23 3-to-1 length-to-width ratio that was defined. 24 The Quebec Standard Test provided that 25 there's literature from the Mineral Handbook and 40 1 from ATSDR that describes the various several 2 fiber links. 3 Q. So Grade 7 chrysotile was less than 3 4 microns? 5 A. Yes, sir. 6 Q. In general? 7 A. In general. Yes, sir. 8 Q. Okay. And what's the reference for 9 that? 10 A. There's a couple. ATSDR in the 11 toxicological profile discusses fiber length, as 12 well as the Mineral Handbook, and I would have 13 to get you the exact date of that. 14 Q. Are you talking about the report on 15 carcinogens? 16 A. You mean for ATSDR? 17 Q. No. No, I just -- I have heard -- I 18 have seen in references in expert reports that 19 the Eighth Report on Carcinogens, from whichever 20 branch of the government publishes that, that 21 there was a reference to less than 3 microns for 22 Grade 7 chrysotile. 23 And I'm just wondering if that's the 24 same reference you're talking about or whether 25 it's something else? 41 1 A. No. It's something else. 2 Q. Okay. 3 A. But that's good to know. I appreciate 4 you telling me that. 5 Q. Always happy. What is a micron 6 compared to a millimeter? 7 A. Well, a micron is 10 to the minus 6, 8 and a millimeter is, you know, 10 to the minus 9 3. So you're talking -- we're talking, you 10 know, 10-to-3 difference. And a micron is 11 essentially, what, 125 thousandths of an inch? 12 Q. Okay. A micron is a thousandth of a 13 millimeter? 14 A. 10 to the minus 3. Yes, sir. 15 Q. Okay. So an asbestos fiber that's 3 16 microns long would be short in your mind? 17 A. Very much so. 18 Q. Okay. What about an asbestos fiber 19 that is 3,000 microns long. Would that be long 20 or short? 21 A. 3,000 22 Q. Yeah. 23 A. That would be large. Yes, sir. 24 Q. Okay. I just -- you know, 3 25 millimeters is pretty small in sitting-in-the 42 1 conference room terms, so I just want to have 2 some perspective here. What about like a 3 hundred microns long; would that be long or 4 short? 5 MS. COLE: Objection to the form of the 6 question. Move to strike the commentary. 7 BY THE WITNESS: 8 A. That would be long. If I can help 9 maybe a good young, healthy set of eyes could 10 see something, a particle including a fiber 11 that's 50 to 70 microns in length. 12 Q. I got it. Okay. And that would be a 13 long fiber? 14 A. Yes, sir. 15 Q. How does fiber length relate to the 16 ability to cause disease? 17 A. To me, it's an important factor. 18 MS. COLE: He answered your question. Are 19 are you still there? 20 MR. RUCKDESCHEL: I am. I -- I apologize. 21 Could you say it again, please? 22 BY THE WITNESS: 23 A. I said it. Length is an important 24 factor in the the toxicological -- potential 25 toxicological effects. 43 1 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 2 Q. Explain to me how so. 3 A. Depending upon the length and aspect 4 ratio of a particle, including a fiber, if that 5 fiber can't evade the self defense mechanisms of 6 the respiratory system and make it into the 7 applicable area of the lung, then fiber length 8 becomes important when the fiber rests in the 9 alveoli. 10 If we would look at an alveoli of 11 having 1 to 3 macrophages, the macrophages are 12 probably 7 to 14 microns in size. And if it is 13 a longer fiber than the macrophage, we may have 14 frustrated phagocytosis. 15 If it's a smaller fiber, then the 16 macrophages can preform phagocytosis and remove 17 the fiber very actively and effectively. 18 Q. Doctor, we didn't do what I normally do 19 at depositions of people I haven't spoken to 20 before at the beginning. So let me go through a 21 list of things. 22 What is your professional 23 qualifications? You're an industrial hygienist? 24 I don't have your CV here? 25 A. Okay. My undergraduate degree -- I had 44 1 a double major chemistry and biology with a 2 minor in economics. My Masters has a specialty 3 in industrial hygiene. And my Doctorate is in 4 toxicology with a Minor in engineering. 5 Q. Where did you get your undergrad, 6 Master's, and Doctorate? 7 A. All of my education is through the 8 Oklahoma University system of schools. 9 Q. I'm sorry. The -- the what 10 universities system? 11 A. A little school called Oklahoma 12 University that will be visiting your area over 13 the weekend. 14 Q. Hmm, Okay. And how did you end up in 15 Wisconsin? 16 A. After obtaining my Master's, my first 17 job was with the Johnson Space Center with 18 Kelsey-Seybold Clinic in Houston, Clear Lake 19 City, Houston. 20 That was about the time the 21 Occupational Safety and Health Administration 22 was coming out, and the government gave me an 23 opportunity to relocate to Little Rock, Arkansas 24 and help open an OSHA office. 25 I moved, then, to Little Rock, Arkansas 45 1 where I remained for a number of years. And a 2 company by the name of A.O. Smith Corporation 3 made me a job offer I couldn't refuse, with the 4 understanding I would never move to Wisconsin. 5 So two years later, I moved to 6 Wisconsin. 7 Q. I went to the University of Wisconsin, 8 so I think you ended up in a good place. 9 A. I have been here for 26 years so yes, 10 sir. 11 Q. Now, sir, you're not a medical doctor? 12 A. No, sir. 13 Q. You're not a pathologist or risk 14 assessor? 15 MS. COLE: Objection to the form. 16 BY THE WITNESS: 17 A. I performed risk assessments. Again, 18 my doctorate is in toxicology and risk 19 assessment was on of the practices that we 20 utilized. 21 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 22 Q. Okay. Is it your belief that most of 23 the asbestos that goes into a brake in the 24 factory is less than 3 microns in length? 25 MS. COLE: Objection to form. Foundation. 46 1 BY THE WITNESS: 2 A. I don't know. I have never thought 3 about that. 4 I believe that the asbestos that went 5 into brakes was a Grade 7 chrysotile. I have no 6 reason to believe it would have been a longer 7 fiber than that based on the information that I 8 have received and looked at in the literature. 9 But I really haven't spent any time thinking 10 about that, sir. 11 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 12 Q. Okay. But most of it that went in was, 13 in your opinion, Grade 7 chrysotile and the 14 majority of Grade 7 chrysotile is less than 3 15 microns in length, because that's the size of 16 the hole in the sieve? 17 MS. COLE: Objection. Form. 18 BY THE WITNESS: 19 A. Well, the hole in the sieve is a little 20 bit different. I mean, if you want to go 21 through the dynamics of how the sieves work, but 22 suffice it to say through the grading system, 23 the Grade 7 would be 3 microns, some of it would 24 go up to 8 microns. But by in large, we are 25 talking 3 microns or less. 47 1 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 2 Q. Okay. Have you performed, in your 3 professional life, dust monitoring for asbestos? 4 A. I was with the Occupational Safety and 5 Health Administration for approximately 5 years. 6 While at NASA I was also engaged in 7 sampling. 8 And then my work career with (A.O. 9 Smith) and now in consulting, I have conducted 10 thousands of air samples, both personal and 11 ambient samples for asbestos. 12 Q. Have you ever done so in a garage or in 13 a setting in an attempt to evaluate the release 14 of asbestos dust from brakes? 15 A. No, sir. 16 Q. When's the last time you gave a 17 deposition? 18 A. What's today, Thursday? 19 Q. Thursday. 20 A. Within the last two weeks. 21 Q. How current is your testimony list that 22 we marked as an exhibit? 23 A. I believe, short of today's deposition, 24 it is up to date. 25 Q. How many proceedings are reflected on 48 1 it? 2 MS. COLE: I think it's Exhibit 7. 3 BY THE WITNESS: 4 A. Seven is - 5 MS. COLE: Maybe it's 6, it's towards the 6 end. 7 BY THE WITNESS: 8 A. Off the top of my head, I think there's 9 about 100 depositions noted and probably 40 10 trials. 11 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 12 Q. What percentage of those have been 13 asbestos related cases? 14 A. Which one? Depositions or trials? 15 Q. Well, if it's different then give me 16 both. 17 A. If we look at trials, I believe there's 18 only 4 asbestos trials and there will be over 30 19 other trials. 20 Q. Give me a feeling for the types of 21 cases the other 30 have been. 22 A. By in large, human toxicology. Here's 23 one that relates to, I believe it's polynuclear 24 aromatics in the soil. 25 Here's a case polychlorinated biphenyls 49 1 in soil and ground water. 2 A couple cases related to lead 3 exposure, several mold cases. 4 And then I had one a couple weeks ago, 5 several weeks ago, three weeks ago or so, that 6 related to improper disposal of hazardous waste. 7 That's kind of an overview of the 8 trials, Mr. Ruckdeschel. 9 Q. All right. And are the depositions 10 consistent with the breakout of the trials? 11 A. I would suggest that there's a much 12 higher percentage of deposition from asbestos 13 than other things. 14 Q. Have you ever provided testimony in any 15 case at the request of an individual suffering a 16 personal injury from a toxic substance? 17 A. Yes, sir. 18 Q. When and what was that case about, or 19 cases? 20 A. You want the trials first? 21 Q. Sure. 22 A. Let's -- it may take me a minute. 23 Q. Take your time. 24 A. All right. Here's a case. It was a 25 creosote case that I was working for a 50 1 plaintiff, and they had real property damage 2 related to an occupant of one of their 3 properties. 4 Q. That was a property damage case? 5 A. Yes, sir. 6 Q. Okay. 7 A. Okay. Then here's an insurance 8 recovery. That's super-front side. Here's a 9 case related to mold and a structure. 10 Q. Another property damage case, or was 11 there an allegation of illness? 12 A. Allegation of illness. 13 Q. And did you provide testimony that the 14 individual who had retained you was suffering 15 from a mold related condition? 16 A. Yes, sir. 17 Q. Okay. When was that? 18 A. There's a few. That would have been in 19 the last four years. I don't have the -- on my 20 list, Mr. Ruckdeschel, I don't have the dates 21 for all the trials. 22 Q. Understood. 23 A. Then, yeah there's -- I believe there's 24 3 different 3 or 4 different trials related to 25 mold exposures from a plaintiff's side. So 51 1 that's the trials, sir. 2 Q. Okay. And the depositions, any 3 different? Any -- let me ask you this way. 4 Have you ever testified a deposition 5 for an individual claiming a personal injury 6 from a toxic substance, other than mold? 7 A. I believe so. 8 Q. Okay. What kinds of substance? 9 A. Let me look at my list again. Here's a 10 case where there was an organic material that 11 was used in a finished coating that was used in 12 a house. 13 Here's a case where an employee was 14 exposed to an acid; I believe it's sulfuric 15 acid, both from dermal exposure and inhalation. 16 Q. Is that information reflected in the 17 testimony list? 18 A. No, sir. Just has the caption of the 19 case. 20 Q. What's the case that you're referring 21 to, then? 22 A. Roth versus NorFalco. And I believe, 23 going through again very rapidly, that's my best 24 recollection. 25 Q. Okay. In -- let's change gears a 52 1 little bit. In the process of performing a 2 brake repair on a vehicle that has drum brakes, 3 where -- what are the steps in the process of 4 changing drum brakes where there are 5 opportunities for exposure to airborn asbestos 6 from that work? 7 A. I would suggest that the first 8 opportunity is actually when, you know, the tire 9 is removed and the whole drum is exposed, and 10 then when the drum is sectioned to expose the 11 inner workings or the shoe. 12 Then when the shoe is removed and the 13 internal mechanism has to be sanded to allow the 14 new shoe -- or cleaned; let's put it that way. 15 And if there's any burrs or any sanding 16 that might be necessary from remaining 17 materials, then that would be the main 18 opportunities. And in cleaning out that housing 19 would be the main opportunities. 20 Q. And cleaning out, at least in the 21 various times in the past, occurred with the use 22 of compressed air or a dried brush; is that 23 consistent with your understanding? 24 A. Or some type of cloth. 25 Q. Okay. And there are currently 53 1 regulations that prohibit the use of compressed 2 air to blow out brake drum assemblies, correct? 3 A. That's my understanding. Yes, sir. 4 Q. And those have been in place, at least 5 with OSHA, for decades? 6 MS. COLE: Objection. Form. 7 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 8 Q. You agree? 9 A. I'm trying to remember exactly when 10 that came in. I don't recall the exact day that 11 came in, Mr. Ruckdeschel. 12 Q. Have you read Dr. Paustenbach and his 13 colleague's paper, Measuring Asbestos Levels 14 from Opening Boxes and Handling New Brakes? 15 A. Yes, sir. 16 Q. So would you agree there's an 17 opportunity for exposure to some quantity of 18 airborn asbestos from those activities? 19 A. Yes, sir. 20 Q. All right. And then in removing the 21 drum, there's an opportunity for exposure? 22 A. Yes, sir. 23 Q. And cleaning out the drum, whether with 24 a rag or a brush or compressed air, there's an 25 opportunity for exposure? 54 1 MS. COLE: Objection to form. Compound. 2 BY THE WITNESS: 3 A. Yes, sir. 4 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: I'm sorry. Go ahead, 5 finish. 6 THE WITNESS: I have been informed we have 7 five minutes or less now, that he needs to take 8 a break to change the tape. 9 MR. RUCKDESCHEL: All right. 10 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Okay. We're going off the 11 record. This is end of tape one of the Dr. 12 Anderson deposition. We're off the record. 13 (WHEREUPON, a brief break was 14 had.) 15 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the beginning of 16 Tape Two of the Dr. Anderson deposition. The 17 time is 2:49 p.m. and we are back on the record. 18 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 19 Q. Doctor, we left off talking about the 20 removal of the drum and cleaning out of the 21 brake assembly. 22 Would you agree there's an opportunity 23 for exposure to asbestos in cleaning out the 24 drum brake assembly after the drum is removed? 25 A. Yes, sir. 55 1 Q. Now, are you aware that, at times in 2 the past, individuals filed the edges of drum 3 brakes that were going back onto the cars? 4 A. I have read that. Yes, sir. 5 Q. And also sanded the base of those 6 brakes? 7 A. Yes, sir. I have read that as well. 8 Q. In fact, Dr. Paustenbach discusses that 9 in his exposure paper that you cited reference 10 to. 11 A. That is correct. 12 Q. And would you agree that there is an 13 opportunity for exposure to airborn asbestos 14 from filing or sanding asbestos containing brake 15 shoes? 16 A. Yes, sir. 17 Q. What about in the handling of the shoes 18 themselves? Have you ever handled drum brakes? 19 A. Yes, sir. 20 Q. Okay. Handling them makes your hands 21 kind of gray and dusty, doesn't it? 22 MS. COLE: Objection to form. 23 BY THE WITNESS: 24 A. It can. 25 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 56 1 Q. And there's an opportunity for either 2 exposure to airborn asbestos dust from that, if 3 there's asbestos misused or potentially to 4 transfer some asbestos to clothing if you wipe 5 your hands on your pants after that; would you 6 agree? 7 MS. COLE: Objection. Compound. 8 BY THE WITNESS: 9 A. If the brake material, the friction 10 product, had asbestos as a constituent and the 11 asbestos was contained on the surface of the 12 material, and then you transferred it to your 13 hands. And then if your hands were wiped on 14 your clothes, yes, you could have some transfer 15 of the asbestos, meeting all that criteria, to, 16 you know, to your clothing. 17 Q. I noticed that you have performed a 18 calculation of some sort of your estimate of 19 Mrs. Santana's potential exposure to asbestos 20 from the work her husband performed on brakes; 21 is that correct? 22 A. Yes, sir. 23 Q. And in doing so, you used 24 Dr. Paustenbach's average eight hour time 25 weighted average figure from his 2003 paper as 57 1 the dose level, correct? 2 A. No. That was used as the exposure 3 concentration. And from that, I then calculated 4 the dose. 5 Q. I'm sorry. I -- I used wrong word. 6 And I appreciate your qualification. 7 So the exposure level came from 8 Dr. Paustenbach's paper? 9 MS. COLE: Objection. Form. 10 BY THE WITNESS: 11 A. Exposure concentration. Yes, sir. 12 Q. And Dr. Paustenbach, in his paper, 13 looked at a bunch of studies that have been 14 performed by other people, correct? 15 A. My recollection is that's correct, in 16 looking at approximately 200 brake jobs that 17 were evaluated in other studies. 18 Q. Right. He did not go out and collect 19 dust samples to do it. He used other people's 20 work? 21 A. In that paper, yes, sir. 22 Q. Okay. And then he looked at that work, 23 and he combined the average exposure levels from 24 the studies he looked at into an average of the 25 averages. Is that a fair characterization of 58 1 how he came up with his mean exposure level? 2 A. Yeah. He calculated both the range, 3 and then from the range, he calculated the 4 average of those exposures. 5 Q. Right. So he -- he took -- in the 6 studies that he looked at the authors had 7 reported a level and a range in most of them, 8 right? 9 A. Yeah. I hate to keep correcting, but 10 just to be correct, an exposure concentration 11 then Dr. Paustenbach loaded that exposure 12 concentration vis-a-vis the range of exposure 13 concentrations. Then he calculated, he being 14 Dr. Paustenbach, calculated the mean of those 15 values. 16 Q. Okay. And you took the average, the 17 mean, M-E-A-N, average as calculated by 18 Dr. Paustenbach, and used that as your exposure 19 level? 20 A. Exposure concentration again. Yes, 21 sir. 22 Q. Right. And the -- in Dr. Paustenbach's 23 papers, there was a range of exposure 24 concentration levels? 25 A. That is correct. 59 1 Q. In which of the papers that 2 Dr. Paustenbach looked at, did individuals file 3 or sand the brakes as Mrs. Santana describes her 4 husband doing? 5 A. I would have to look at each and every 6 one again. I know there's a table that 7 Dr. Paustenbach provided of the work activities. 8 Q. Well, rather than having to go through 9 that entire paper, Doctor, is it fair to say 10 that you assumed that Dr. Paustenbach's average 11 as reported in his paper, included at least some 12 studies that included those activities? 13 A. Yeah. Looking at his table now, which 14 is table 2. There are working activities that 15 are specified for each of the values that 16 Dr. Paustenbach utilized. And in those there 17 are work activities, I believe which are 18 consistent with the work that Ms. Santana, and 19 to a lesser degree, Rory, provided regarding 20 Mr. Santana's brake servicing work. 21 Q. Okay. And just -- I'm pulling that 22 page up so I have it here, but I have to rotate 23 it, I'm sorry, because it's the wrong way for 24 me. 25 So Table 2 which is on Page 789? 60 1 A. That is correct. Starts on on 789. 2 Q. Dr. Anderson, did you go and pull the 3 articles that are on your friction reference 4 list? 5 MS. COLE: Objection. Form. Asked and 6 answered. 7 BY THE WITNESS: 8 A. Yes, sir. 9 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 10 Q. So you personally went and got each of 11 these articles? 12 A. Oh, not me personally. I had them 13 pulled. 14 Q. And it's your impression of, in forming 15 your opinions in this case, that 16 Dr. Paustenbach's 2003 paper provides a 17 reasonable estimation of the exposure 18 concentration levels that resulted or may have 19 resulted from Mr. Santana's work with brakes? 20 MS. COLE: Objection. Form. 21 BY THE WITNESS: 22 A. I believe this exposure concentration 23 would have likely exceeded the exposure of 24 Mr. Santana, because each and every study that 25 Dr. Paustenbach references was conducted indoors 61 1 and was of a mechanic who did this type of work 2 on a more regular scheduled basis. 3 So I believe there will be more -- a 4 greater exposure, but I did not adjust the mean 5 value used in Dr. Paustenbach's study as the 6 exposure concentration for calculating my dose 7 of Ms. Santana. 8 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 9 Q. You -- you have assumed for purposeS of 10 your dose calculation that Dr. Paustenbach's 11 mean is a reasonably accurate estimation of the 12 upper end of Mr. Santana's potential exposure? 13 MS. COLE: Objection. Form. 14 A. Yes, sir. 15 Q. And the basis for that is what? 16 A. Again, his work was conducted out of 17 doors. 18 Again, if we look at Table 2 in 19 Dr. Paustenbach's study, we can see that many of 20 the studies were utilizing compressed air, 21 specifically if we look at Table 2 on Page 789. 22 Essentially every exposure concentration 23 depicted on that table uses compressed air as 24 the cleaning method. 25 When we look at other work practices, I 62 1 believe they are more representative of 2 Mr. Santana's work. But I didn't adjust that. 3 Secondly, as I described, Mr. Santana 4 performed the work out of doors. Where there 5 was likely much more ventilation than you would 6 have inside of a, of a work bay at an automotive 7 shop. I did not again make any adjustment for 8 that. 9 And thirdly, since we're talking about 10 Ms. Santana, I did not -- cannot discount her 11 distance away, even though she said she was 12 adjacent to her husband, she was not performing 13 the work. I nonetheless calculated the dose as 14 if she was actually performing the brake work 15 and not her husband. 16 So I didn't make any of those 17 adjustment, Mr. Ruckdeschel. 18 Q. And what information was contained in 19 the depositions of Mrs. Santana or her son on 20 how long it took Mr. Santana do a brake job? 21 A. Neither one of them had any information 22 describing the length of time that was required 23 by her husband to perform the brake jobs. 24 Q. When you say neither one of them had 25 any information, were either of them asked? 63 1 MS. COLE: Objection to the form of the 2 question. 3 BY THE WITNESS: 4 A. I don't believe so. I don't recall, as 5 they were describing the work, them providing 6 any definitive information about how he 7 performed the work, other than it was evenings 8 and weekends while he was still conducting or 9 performing two different occupations, serving in 10 the Boy Scouts, doing work with the PTA. 11 And then some of the work, at least, 12 was conducted on weekends when they had the 13 family over for the weekly barbeque. 14 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 15 Q. Now, the Paustenbach study that we have 16 been talking about in Exhibit -- reference 2 on 17 your report, was paid for by the big three auto 18 makers, correct? 19 A. I believe on the last page is where he 20 makes that acknowledgement. Yeah, it's on page 21 803. 22 Q. And do you have -- do you have any 23 understanding as to how much money the big three 24 auto makers paid Dr. Paustenbach and his company 25 ChemRisk and his former company Exponent for the 64 1 work they performed defending the big three in 2 brake cases alleging asbestos disease in the 3 past seven years? 4 MS. COLE: Objection to the form. 5 Argumentative. Relevance. 6 BY THE WITNESS: 7 A. No, sir. I have no knowledge of that. 8 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 9 Q. Would it change the amount of reliance 10 you place on their -- on their work if you found 11 out that it was in excess of 35 million dollars? 12 MS. COLE: Objection to form. 13 BY THE WITNESS: 14 A. No, sir. Because again, I looked at 15 the data and the base documents that 16 Dr. Paustenbach used to calculate the data, and 17 it's a simple mathematical process. And I 18 didn't see any errors in the mathematical 19 process. 20 Q. But you're not saying you've gone back 21 and looked at each of the studies 22 Dr. Paustenbach combined to form his average in 23 the 2003 paper and critically evaluated 24 Paustenbach's math, are you? 25 MS. COLE: Objection. Form. Compound. 65 1 BY THE WITNESS: 2 A. No. I didn't redo the math. And if I 3 give you that -- that interpretation, I'm sorry. 4 What I said was the method in which he 5 employed the study and used the airborn 6 concentrations from the studies to calculate the 7 math and perform the mean, seemed consistent 8 with what any researcher would do. 9 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 10 Q. And Reference 1 in your report, which 11 shows up at the bottom of Page 4 in the text of 12 the report, is a citation to Mr. Finley and 13 Dr. Paustenbach's paper from 2007; is that 14 correct? 15 A. Yes, sir. 16 Q. And are you aware of who paid for that 17 paper? 18 A. Again, I believe if we look at 19 Page 654, there's acknowledge that Daimler 20 Chrysler, Ford Motor Company, and General Motor 21 almost entirely funded this work. 22 Q. Okay. And if Dr. -- Mr. Finely's 23 paper cited at Reference 1 that gives you the 24 estimation of two hours for performing a brake 25 job by a "do-it-yourselfer?" 66 1 A. Yes. It's Dr. Finley. And yes, sir. 2 Q. All right. And you didn't perform any 3 independent research to figure that out, did 4 you? 5 A. I looked at the base documents that 6 Dr. Finley talks about to derive the 1 to 7 2 hours. I believe there is -- yeah, okay, the 8 Johnson study, a Mark Roberts and Zumwald, and 9 Ashe, (sic) and another study by Roberts. 10 Q. Now, with respect to Mrs. Santana's 11 potential exposure from shaking out her 12 husband's clothes after he performed brake 13 repair, you used the same exposure level 14 estimate as you did for being present during the 15 brake repair; is that correct? 16 A. Yes, sir. I did. 17 Q. And that was based on a quotation from 18 which of the three papers referenced on Page 6? 19 You see the indented quote that says in 20 quotation marks "Exposure might reach 21 occupational limits," closed quote? 22 A. Yes, sir. 23 Q. Which of the three references provided 24 that quote? 25 MS. COLE: Objection to form. 67 1 BY THE WITNESS: 2 A. I believe it's Hillerdal, but I'll have 3 to pull that to be for sure. That's a good 4 point, so thank you for pointing that out. 5 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 6 Q. All right. So it's your belief, at 7 least as we sit here today, that it's 8 Dr. Hillerdal's paper from Journal of 9 Occupational and Environmental Medicine? 10 A. I didn't look at that one before my 11 deposition, but that strikes a nerve. But to be 12 sure, I would need to look at them again. 13 Q. All right. When they indicate exposure 14 might reach occupational limits, are they 15 talking on a long-term or a short-term basis? 16 In other words, is that a peak limit or 17 a time weighted average limit? 18 A. It would be a representative exposure 19 to which the worker that was wearing the clothes 20 had the exposure. 21 So that over time, the representative 22 exposure would be equivalent to the 23 concentration over that period of time. Thus 24 they would be equivalent to the exposure levels 25 of your workday. Thus, in this case, it will be 68 1 the same, 0.4 fiber per ccs that are utilized 2 for performing the brake work. 3 Q. What exposure did you account for, if 4 any, for contamination of the Santana's laundry 5 room from the shaking out of asbestos 6 contaminated clothing? 7 A. I accounted that for any such 8 concomitant-type contamination by using the 9 extended wash cycle time of one hour for each 10 and every of the one-and-a-half laundry events 11 that Ms. Santana would perform through 100 weeks 12 of brake jobs that her husband might have used 13 the Wizard brand brakes. 14 So I tried to compound that type of 15 exposure, Mr. Ruckdeschel, to account for any 16 other exposures. Whether it be the house, as he 17 sat on the couch, if in fact he did, you know, 18 did with dirty clothes. And any other exposure 19 that might have existed from her working with 20 the work clothes to launder them. 21 Q. Okay. If Mrs. Santana shook out 22 asbestos contaminated clothing in the laundry 23 room on Monday and then had to do laundry for 24 the three kids on Tuesday in the same laundry 25 room, there would be asbestos in that room the 69 1 next day, right? 2 MS. COLE: Objection. Form. 3 BY THE WITNESS: 4 A. There might be. 5 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 6 Q. And if that asbestos had settled on a 7 surface that she brushed off or applied some 8 sort of energy to in terms of dumping clothes 9 down, those clothes could then become 10 contaminated and cause the asbestos to get back 11 up in the air, right? 12 MS. COLE: Objection. Calls for speculation. 13 BY THE WITNESS: 14 A. Yep. I don't know. You know, perhaps. 15 BY MR. RUCKDECHEL: 16 Q. Does it take -- let me ask you this. 17 In your opinion as an industrial hygienist, does 18 exposure to chrysotile asbestos carry a risk of 19 disease? 20 A. I believe with any contaminant that the 21 dose determines any resulted potential for 22 disease or disease process. And with certain 23 exposures to chrysotile, I believe there is some 24 risk of disease. 25 Q. Does that risk include the risk of 70 1 mesothelioma? 2 A. If we look at lifetime automobile 3 mechanics, we don't see an increased risk above 4 that of the normal population for lifetime auto 5 mechanics for mesothelioma from those workers 6 that have worked with brakes for at least part 7 of their occupation. 8 Q. Okay. My question was about chrysotile 9 though, not just about auto mechanics. So can 10 you answer it with respect to chrysotile before 11 we move on to talk about cars? 12 MS. COLE: Can you please reask the question 13 that you want answered? 14 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 15 Q. Sure. Does exposure to chrysotile 16 carry with it risk of mesothelioma? 17 MS. COLE: Objection to form. Overly broad. 18 BY THE WITNESS: 19 A. I believe there may be a dose of 20 chrysotile that there may be an association with 21 mesothelioma. 22 Again in my evaluation of the 23 literature and work with short fiber chrysotile, 24 Grade 7 fiber -- Grade 7 chrysotile, in lifetime 25 auto workers and that in lifetime mechanics, I 71 1 do not see an increased risk of mesothelioma. 2 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 3 Q. What about lung cancer for chrysotile? 4 Before we get into specific trades, does 5 exposure to chrysotile carry with it a risk of 6 lung cancer? 7 MS . COLE: Objection to form. Overly broad. 8 BY THE WITNESS: 9 A. Yes, sir. I believe so. 10 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 11 Q. And the dose of chrysotile required to 12 cause a lung cancer, in your mind, higher or 13 lower than the dose required to cause 14 mesothelioma? 15 MS . COLE: Objection to form. 16 BY THE WITNESS: 17 A. I believe it would be lower. 18 BY MR. RUCKEDSCHEL: 19 Q. You have used, several times in the 20 last couple questions, the term "lifetime auto 21 mechanics," what are you talking about? 22 A. If we would look at a worker who 23 engaged in an automobile mechanic process 24 throughout his work career, where he performed a 25 variety of mechanic's duties including working 72 1 with brakes, both changing and installing, at 2 lifetime doses of those workers performing their 3 job, day in and day out, through a working 4 careers and experiencing that type of dose, we 5 haven't seen mesothelioma cases above that of a 6 background level. 7 Q. Okay. Now, that is not work that you 8 have personally performed in your professional 9 life, correct? 10 A. That is correct. 11 Q. All right. So tell me what studies it 12 is that you are relying upon in reaching that 13 conclusion. 14 First, what are the studies that look 15 at lifetime auto mechanics. And I'll take these 16 in sequence, so I'll tell you all three. 17 The next is which of the studies that 18 indicate that those mechanics actually worked 19 with brakes? 20 And third, what's the -- which of those 21 studies indicate they worked with brakes, you 22 used the phrase "day in and and day out." 23 So the first one I want to ask you is 24 what studies are there of lifetime auto 25 mechanics that you're relying upon? 73 1 MS . COLE: Objection. Overly broad. 2 BY THE WITNESS: 3 A. The first would be the study by Hessel, 4 et al. 5 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 6 Q. Dr. Hessel's 2004 paper paid for by the 7 big three auto makers? 8 MS . COLE: Objection to form. Argumentative 9 BY THE WITNESS: 10 A. Dr. Hessel's study, 2004. 11 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 12 Q. And that was paid for by the big three 13 auto makers, right? 14 MS . COLE: Objection to form. 15 BY THE WITNESS: 16 A. I believe he makes that 17 acknowledgement 18 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 19 Q. Okay. What else? 20 A. Then if we look at Teta. In fact, if 21 we turn to my report and the references used in 22 my report, it's the Hessel reference which is 23 Number 6, Mr. Ruckdeschel. 24 Q. Got it. 25 A. And then references 26 through 33 74 1 inclusive. Then there's a series of 2 epi studies, that are actually cohort mortality 3 studies, which are references 34 through 39 4 inclusive. 5 Q. Okay. Let's go through these in turn. 6 Does Dr. Hessel's reanalysis of the 7 Spertus data, which he published in 2004, 8 contain information that allows us to determine 9 that these people were lifetime auto mechanics? 10 A. I believe it talks about those that 11 were engaged and identified in the records as 12 being auto mechanics. I don't believe they had 13 contact with each and every worker, to quantify 14 their lifetime and how long they had spent 15 performing that work. 16 Q. Is there information in Dr. Hessel's 17 reanalysis of Dr. Spertus' data, published in 18 2004, that indicates that these individuals were 19 lifetime auto mechanics? 20 A. I did my best to answer that. 21 I -- they were thrown in the cohort as 22 being an auto mechanic. There was not a 23 specific survey that was administered for any 24 member of the cohort to identify that they had 25 been doing it, essentially their entire life. 75 1 Q. Okay. Would you agree then that you 2 cannot rely upon the Hessel study for 3 determination of lifetime auto mechanics? 4 MS. COLE: Objection to form. 5 BY THE WITNESS: 6 A. No, I disagree. It gives us a very 7 good analysis that is representative of workers 8 who were engaged in automobile-type work and 9 evaluating any resulting disease process from 10 those auto mechanics. 11 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 12 Q. Did Dr. Hessel consider the duration of 13 the individual's work as a mechanic? 14 A. I believe so. 15 Q. Okay. And he considered greater or 16 less than ten years, correct? 17 A. Yes, sir. 18 Q. All right. Did any of the other 19 studies consider the duration of the work -- and 20 let's just work through some of them in the 21 order that you've got them on your paper -- on 22 your reference list, starting with 26, did 23 McDonald's? 24 A. I don't believe they stratified their 25 data on work time performed; rather they drew 76 1 the conclusion that, again, the workers - 2 actual work being performed was representative 3 of their work. That's the best way I could 4 describe it. 5 Q. Well, the extent of the discussion of 6 the workers in the category Garage in the 7 McDonald's paper, is less than one half of one 8 sentence; is it not? 9 A. I believe so. 10 Q. There's no description of any of the 11 work practices, correct? 12 A. No. 13 Q. There is no description of whether 14 these individuals actually performed brake 15 repair? 16 A. That's correct. 17 Q. There's no -- there's no information 18 that the brakes were studied to determine 19 whether they did or did not have asbestos, 20 correct? 21 A. That's correct. 22 Q. There's no information regarding how 23 frequently, if ever, any of the individuals 24 studied did any repair on any brakes, correct? 25 A. I don't recall that part of it. 77 1 Q. All right. And the category they 2 looked at was Garage, correct? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And did that include people that washed 5 cars in garages? 6 A. I believe it would have been any 7 employment that they put in that category. 8 Q. Would a cashier have fallen within that 9 category? 10 A. That I don't know. 11 Q. Let's go to the Teta study. Teta's 12 next, reference 27. Dr. Teta looked at the 13 category Auto Repair and Related Services, 14 correct? 15 A. I believe. 16 Q. What are related services? 17 A. I don't recall, without pulling that 18 one, exactly the whole group of workers that he 19 put in that related category. 20 Q. Dr. Teta -- just for the record, 21 Dr. Anderson, Dr. Teta is a woman. 22 A. Okay. 23 Q. Dr. Teta's related services could 24 include many people that are not exposed to 25 asbestos; would you agree? 78 1 MS .. COLE: Objection. Form. 2 BY THE WITNESS: 3 A. Since I didn't know all of the work 4 classes that was included in that category, I 5 couldn 1t answer that. 6 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 7 Q. And there's no information in 8 Dr. Teta's study as to whether any of the people 9 in the category of Auto Repair and Related 10 Services actually did brake work, right? 11 MS . COLE: Objection to form. 12 BY THE WITNESS: 13 A. That's correct. 14 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 15 Q. There's no indication in Dr. Teta's 16 study as to what work practices or dust control 17 measures were utilized if any brake work 18 occurred, right? 19 A. Again, that was out of the scope of her 20 study. Rather it was looking at association of 21 disease with exposures in various categories of 22 work. 23 Q. And there's no indication in 24 Dr. Teta's study that any brake work that may 25 have occurred, occurred with asbestos containing 79 1 brakes, correct? 2 MS. COLE: Objection to form. 3 BY THE WITNESS: 4 A. That's correct. 5 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 6 Q. All right. The next reference, I'm 7 going back then to Hessel for a minute. Dr. 8 Hessel did control for whether people did, in 9 fact, do brake work, correct? 10 A. Yes, sir. 11 Q. But it's not known from his paper 12 whether the brakes contained asbestos? 13 MS. COLE: Objection. Form. 14 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 15 Q. Right? 16 BY THE WITNESS: 17 A. That is correct. 18 Q. We don't know if he used any dust 19 control measures, right? 20 A. I thought he mentioned the lack of 21 control measures in that cohort. 22 Q. All right. Well, can we agree that the 23 paper will either say that or it won't? 24 A. That is correct. 25 Q. All right. And there's nothing in 80 1 there about whether they filed or sanded brakes, 2 right? 3 A. That's correct. 4 Q. How long did they take after exposure 5 for mesothelioma to develop? 6 MS. COLE: Objection. Lack of foundation. 7 BY THE WITNESS: 8 A. If we look at latency, I would suggest 9 probably 20 to 30 years. 10 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 11 Q. Okay. And would you agree that if an 12 exposed group in a study had not had at least 20 13 years pass from the beginning of exposure, not 14 finding mesotheliomas would not be reflective of 15 a lack of disease causing potential? 16 MS. COLE: Objection to the form of the 17 question. Quadruple negative. 18 BY THE WITNESS: 19 A. I'm kind of working through the 20 question here in my mind. 21 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 22 Q. Sure. Let me try and simplify it. 23 A. Okay, please. 24 Q. If they don't wait for the latency 25 period to get to a point where you would except 81 1 to see disease, not finding disease doesn't 2 really tell us much, does it? 3 MS .. COLE: Objection to form. 4 BY THE WITNESS: 5 A. I wouldn't call it, "doesn't 6 necessarily tell us much," it may not be as 7 definitive a study as a study that we have the 8 capacity for the longer latency period. 9 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 10 Q. Okay. If I take a group of a thousand 11 people who are exposed to asbestos in 1995, and 12 we do an epidemiological study of them in 2005 13 and find no mesothelioma, because the latency 14 period has not run, we don't know whether 15 they're going to get mesothelioma later or not; 16 would you agree? 17 A. I agree. 18 Q. Okay. Which of the studies that you 19 rely upon account for the latency period? 20 MS . COLE: Objection to form. Overly broad. 21 BY THE WITNESS: 22 A. I would have to pull each study to look 23 at the exposure time for each of the cohorts. 24 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 25 Q. Dr. Goodman and his colleges performed 82 1 a metaanalysis of the number of these studies 2 which you've cited in your paper as reference 3 number 33? 4 A. Yes, sir. 5 Q. Okay. In that paper they performed an 6 analysis of various categories that these 7 studies fell into in terms of their strengths 8 and weaknesses. Are you familiar with that? 9 A. Yes, sir. That one I am. 10 Q. Would you defer Dr. Goodman and his 11 colleagues' finding that only the Teschke study 12 accounted for latency? 13 MS. COLE: Objection to form. 14 BY THE WITNESS: 15 A. I believe his metaanalysis -- the 16 metaanalysis of Goodman looks at all of the 17 variables and accounts for latency. But that 18 does not discount all the other studies that 19 have been performed. 20 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 21 Q. I think I asked a poor question. 22 Dr. Goodman and his colleagues report, in their 23 chart, which scores the strength of the various 24 studies that McDonald, Teta, Hessel, Woitowitz, 25 Agudo, and Hanson did not account for latency in 83 1 the study. Do you have any reason to dispute 2 their statement? 3 MS. COLE: Objection to the form of the 4 question. 5 BY THE WITNESS: 6 A. No. Not at this time. 7 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 8 Q. All right. Now the Hessel study and 9 the Teschke study and the Woitowitz study look 10 at at least some groups with respect to where 11 they specifically did brake work; would you 12 agree? 13 A. Yes, sir. 14 Q. But Agudo, Hanson, and Teta, and 15 McDonald did not, correct? 16 MS . COLE: Objection form. 17 BY THE WITNESS: 18 A. Agudo, Hanson. 19 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 20 Q. Teta and McDonald. 21 MS . COLE: Objection. Form. 22 BY THE WITNESS: 23 A. No. They looked at what they called as 24 "mechanics," so I don't know what you're asking 25 I'm sorry. 84 1 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 2 Q. Well, they didn't look at whether these 3 individuals did brake work. Agudo just said 4 mechanics motor vehicles, and there's no 5 information that those mechanics actually did 6 brake work, right? 7 A. That I will agree with. 8 Q. And have you read the Hanson paper 9 that's cited by Goodman? 10 A. I know I have it. I'm sure I have. I 11 don't recall it as I sit here. 12 Q. Okay. Are you aware that that's simply 13 an email to Dr. Goodman's colleague and not a 14 published study? 15 A. I don't recall. 16 Q. All right. Would you customarily rely 17 upon an email in forming your professional 18 opinions? 19 A. No, sir. I said no, sir. 20 Q. Okay. Now you indicated in an answer 21 about twenty minutes ago, that the studies of 22 lifetime auto mechanics, including those working 23 with brakes who did that type of work day in and 24 day out, shows that there was no increased risk 25 of mesothelioma. 85 1 Are the studies that you cite in your 2 reference the studies that you're talking about? 3 A. Yes, sir. 4 Q. And those studies will either contain 5 information regarding the duration of work and 6 the frequency of work with brakes of the people 7 studied in those studies or they won't, right? 8 A. That's correct. 9 Q. The Goodman Paper cited at Page 33, is 10 a paper that was funded by the big three auto 11 makers, correct? 12 A. That's my recollection. 13 Q. And Goodman didn't do any original 14 research. They just took the averages from the 15 other papers then statistically combined them 16 into a metaanalysis? 17 A. That's the only way I know how to do a 18 metaanalysis is to look at two differing 19 evaluations, two parameter values, and then 20 compare them. 21 Q. Okay. And the Laden Paper at reference 22 30, do you know who paid for that paper? 23 A. No, sir. I don't recall that one. 24 Q. There's a reference in the paper, an 25 acknowledgement of funding by a law firm. Do 86 1 you know that that law firm represents as 2 National Asbestosis Counsel, the company called 3 Borg Warner? 4 MS. COLE: Objection to the form of the 5 question. Calls for speculation. 6 BY THE WITNESS: 7 A. No, sir. I do not. 8 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 9 Q. Do you think that it would have been 10 appropriate for Dr. Laden to indicate who the 11 patriot of the law firm that was paying her was, 12 in the acknowledgement of the paper? 13 MS. COLE: Objection to the form of the 14 question. Argumentative. 15 BY THE WITNESS: 16 A. I can only tell you what I would have 17 done. And I would have made an acknowledgement. 18 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 19 Q. An acknowledgement that it was being 20 funded ultimately by a company that sold 21 asbestos brakes and clutches? 22 MS. COLE: Objection. Assumes facts not in 23 evidence. 24 25 BY THE WITNESS: 87 1 A. Yes, sir. 2 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 3 Q. Okay. All right. Are individuals in 4 the job categories contained in the studies we 5 have just been talking about, McDonalds, Teta, 6 Hessel, Teschke, Woitowitz, Agdo, and Hanson; 7 are individuals in the the job categories 8 studied there at increased risk of lung cancer? 9 MS. COLE: Objection to the form of the 10 question. Overly broad. 11 BY THE WITNESS: 12 A. I don't recall. 13 BY MR. RUCKDSCHEL: 14 Q. When you have an epidemiological study 15 that forms an estimate of relative risk, if the 16 relative risk estimate is over 1, that indicates 17 an increased risk, correct? 18 MS. COLE: Objection. Form. 19 BY THE WITNESS: 20 A. Yes, sir. 21 MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 22 Q. Okay. And if you had a finding of 1.3 23 as the relative risk, that would indicate that 24 amongst the groups studied, the exposed -- if we 25 are talking about a study looking at exposure on 88 1 a particular disease outcome, the exposed group 2 had 30 percent more disease than the unexposed 3 group? 4 MS. COLE: Objection. Form. 5 BY THE WITNESS: 6 A. That is correct. 7 BY MR. RUCKDESCHEL: 8 Q. And if the confidence interval for that 9 study was at both ends, above 1, then the 10 results would be statistically significant, 11 correct? 12 A. Yes, sir. 13 Q. And the more narrow the confidence 14 interval, the stronger the statistical 15 significance of the study. 16 A. I would agree. 17 Q. All right. And so if -- well, let me 18 ask you this. 19 Do you find that the Goodman 20 metaanalysis was performed competently and by 21 reliable scientists? 22 A. I believe so. 23 Q. And are you aware that the metaanalysis 24 of all of the lung cancer studies resulted in a 25 statistically significant 1.6 relative risk 89 1 estimate for lung cancer? 2 A. I would -- I would have been surprised 3 for this cohort if it was shown otherwise, 4 because of the smoking situation and exposure. 5 Q. What information in any of the studies 6 combined in the Goodman metaanalysis is there 7 regarding the smoking habits of the workers? 8 A. No. Again, this was a metaanalysis of 9 taking results from the other studies and 10 comparing it -- comparing, through a bivariant 11 analysis, statistical analyses of the 12 association between those other studies 13 outcomes. 14 I wouldn't know how, without doing 15 nonparametric statistics to account for a 16 smoking exposure, unless the smoking exposures 17 was completely spelled out in the other studies. 18 Rather, what I'm suggesting is this 19 cohort in general has generally a smoking habits 20 and a smoking habits likely had a causative 21 impact, and perhaps even a synergistic impact on 22 lung cancer in this cohort again. 23 Q. What's the reference or references you 24 have for, what I believe you just said, which is 25 mechanics smoke more than other people? 90 1 A. Personal experience. 2 Q. All right. 3 MS. COLE: Mr. Ruckdeschel, about how much 4 longer do you have? 5 MR. RUCKDESCHEL: Sue, I'm sorry. I'm trying 6 to go as fast as I can, but it's going to be a 7 while. 8 If you want to pick up next week at a 9 time when we can get back on the phone, I would 10 be willing to do that and I can finish my 11 questions. I have got a lot more questions 12 about the science. 13 MS. COLE: Let's go off the record, please. 14 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're going off the 15 record. The time is 3:33. We're off the 16 record. 17 (WHEREUPON, a discussion was had 18 off the record.) 19 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're going back on the 20 video as well to end the tape. 21 MR. RUCKDESCHEL: That's a great idea. Good 22 thing we've got somebody that knows what they're 23 doing. 24 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the end of tape 25 two of the Dr. Kim Anderson deposition, to be 91 1 continued. The time is 3:37 p.m. We are off 2 the video record. 3 (WHEREUPON, the following 4 proceedings were had off the 5 video record:) 6 MR. RUCKDESCHEL: This is John Ruckdeschel, 7 we had a discussion off the record. 8 We are going to adjourn Dr. Anderson's 9 deposition until 1:00 p.m. eastern time on 10 Thursday, September 8th - 11 MS. COLE: No. October 8th. 12 MR. RUCKDESCHEL: -- I'm sorry. October 8th 13 2009, 1 p.m. It will be by telephone. And in 14 the interim, I will have a chance to look at the 15 abatement records; is that correct, counsel? 16 MS. COLE: Yes. And you'll send out the 17 notice noting that 1:00 p.m. Eastern is noon 18 central? 19 MR. RUCKDESCHEL: Yes. And I will try and 20 have the appropriate call-in information as 21 well, including myself. 22 MS. COLE: That's fine, thank you. 23 MR. RUCKDESCHEL: All right. We're concluded 24 for today. Thank you. 25 FURTHER DEPONENT SAITH NOT. 92 1 (Whereupon, the deposition was 2 adjourned by agreement of the 3 parties. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 93 1 INDEX 2 WITNESS EXAMINATION 3 DR. KIM ANDERSON 5 4 By Mr. Ruckdeschel 5 6 7 8 9 EXHI B I TS 10 DR. ANDERSON DEPOSITION EXHIBIT MARKED FOR ID 11 NUMBER PAGE/LINE 12 13 14 15 16 17 No. 1 18 No. 2 19 No. 3 20 No. 4 9/22 9/22 9/24 9/24 21 No. 5 10/1 22 No. 6 10/1 23 No. 7 10/2 24 25 94 1 STATE OF WISCONSIN ) ) 2 COUNTY OF WAUKESHA ) I, Janet Pollard, a Notary Public within 3 and for the County of Waukesha, State of Wisconsin, and a Stenographic Reporter of said 4 state, do hereby certify: That previous to the commencement of the 5 examination of the witness, the witness was duly sworn to testify the whole truth concerning the 6 matters herein; That the foregoing deposition transcript 7 was reported stenographically by me, was thereafter reduced to typewriting under my 8 personal direction and constitutes a true record of the testimony given and the proceedings had; 9 That the said deposition was taken before me at the time and place specified; 10 That I am not a relative or employee or attorney or counsel, nor a relative or employee 11 of such attorney or counsel for any of the parties hereto, nor interested directly or 12 indirectly in the outcome of this action. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I do hereunto set my 13 hand and affix my seal of office at Waukesha County, Wisconsin, this 1 day of October, 2009. 14 15 Notary Public, Waukesha County, 16 Wisconsin. 17 My commission expires 3/31/2013. 18 19 20 21 Janet Pollard, 22 Stenographic reporter 23 24 25 95 1 CAPTION 2 The Deposition of KIM ANDERSON, 3 taken in the matter, on the date, and at the time and 4 place set out on the title page hereof. 5 It was requested that the deposition be taken 6 by the reporter and that same be reduced to 7 typewritten form. 8 It was agreed by and between counsel and the 9 parties that the Deponent will read and sign the 10 transcript of said deposition. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 96 1 CERTIFICATE 2 STATE OF : 3 COUNTY/CITY OF : 4 Before me, this day, personally appeared, 5 KIM ANDERSON, who, being duly sworn, states that the 6 foregoing transcript of his/her Deposition, taken in the 7 matter, on the date, and at the time and place set out 8 on the title page hereof, constitutes a true and accurate 9 transcript of said deposition. 10 11 12 KIM ANDERSON 13 14 SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this 15 day of, 2 0________________________________________________in the 16 jurisdiction aforesaid. 17 18 19 20 My Commission Expires Notary Public 21 22 *If no changes need to be made on the following two pages, 23 place a check here _______, and return only this signed page. 24 25 97 1 DEPOSITION ERRATA SHEET 2 RE: Esquire Solutions 3 File No. 18951 4 Case Caption: MARIA SANTANA 5 vs. BONDEX INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al. 6 Deponent: KIM ANDERSON 7 Deposition Date: October 1, 2009 8 To the Reporter: 9 I have read the entire transcript of my Deposition taken 10 in the captioned matter or the same has been read to me. 11 I request that the following changes be entered upon the 12 record for the reasons indicated. I have signed my name to 13 the Errata Sheet and the appropriate Certificate and 14 authorize you to attach both to the original transcript. 15 16 Page No.Line No.Change to: 17 18 Reason for change: 19 Page No. Line No. Change to: 20 21 Reason for change: 22 Page No. Line No. Change to: 23 24 Reason for change: 25 98 1 Deposition of KIM ANDERSON 2 Page No. Line No. Change to: 3 4 Reason for change: 5 Page No. Line No. Change to: 6 7 Reason for change: 8 Page No. Line No. Change to: 9 10 Reason for change: 11 Page No. Line No. Change to: 12 13 Reason for change:________ 14 Page No. Line No. Change to: 15 16 Reason for change:________ 17 Page No. Line No. Change to: 18 19 Reason for change: 20 21 SIGNATURE: 22 KIM ANDERSON 23 24 25 DATE: 99