Free Reply Brief - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv—01560-JFC Document 15-3 Filed 05/26/2005 Page 1 0f 3
EXHIBIT B

Case 1 :04-cv—O1560-JFC Document 15-3 Filed 05/26/2005 Page 2 of 3
It of 18 DOCUMENTS
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
The New York Times
May 13, 2005 Wednesday
Late Edition — Final
SECTION: Section C; Column 1; Business/Financial Desk; Pg. 5
LENGTH: 708 words
HEADEJNE: Civil Suits Over Silica in Texas Become a Criminal Matter inNew York
BYLINE: By JONATHAN D. GLATER
BODY:
A federal grand jury has been convened in Manhattan to consider possible criminal charges arising out of civii
litigation over exposure to siiica and asbestos, according to lawyers involved in the civil eases.
The grand jury has subpoenaed documents from at least one ofthe companies that screened peopie who later
claimed they had suffered injuries as a result of exposure to silica, a material that can cause respiratory disease and that
is used in making giass, paints, ceramics and other niateriais.
The federal investigation comes amid questions about some silicaaelated claims that emerged in federal court
proceedings in Corpus Christi, Tex. Several doctors testified there that they had diagnosed siiicosis in patients they had
never met or interviewed.
Some ofthe doctors had made diagnoses of asbestos-related disease in claimants at one time, then silicosis inthe
same claimants at a later time ~» with no mention of what happened to the earlier iliness. That testimony may have cast
doubt on claims, many of them already paid, that were tiled in the past over asbestosaeiated disease.
Lawyers involved, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because ofthe criminal investigation, said they did
not know whether individual doctors who had made the questionable diagnoses had yet received subpoenas from federai
prosecutors. They cautioned that the investigation appeared to ‘oe in its early stages.
A spokeswoman for the office ofthe United States attorney in Manhattan declined to comment.
The silicosis litigation has been centered in Texas, far from Manhattan, so it might appear odd that the grand jury
has been convened by prosecutors in the Southern District of New York. Criminal tawyers who are not involved in
either the civil cases or the criminai investigation, however, said that it was not unusual for prosecutors in the Southern
District, who often tackle corporate and securities fraud cases, to take on complex frauds in other places.
"The Southern District has often taken an interest in broad, complex fraud cases where there is some effect in New
Yorl~:," said Amy E. Millard, a former Manhattan federal prosecutor who practices at Clayman & Rosenberg. "Because
the prosecutors in the Southern District of New York are among the most experienced in cornpiex white~coliar matters,
the Southern District would often feel in some sense a responsibility to step in, investigate and bring charges, as long as
there was a `zegitirnate basis for doing so."
Some links may exist to tie the potentiai silica claim fraud in Texas, Mississippi and other states with New York: at
least one of the entities that might have been a victim is based in New York. The Manvilie Persona} Injury Settlement
Trust, set up in l98S to compensate people injured by exposure to asbestos or produc-ts containing asbestos that were
rnariufactured or sold by the Johns Manvilie Corporation, has offices in New York.

Case 1 :04-cv-01560-JFC Document 15-3 Filed 05/26/2005 Page 3 of 3
Page 2
The New York Times May 13, 2005 Wednesday
Of course, asbestos —- a eancencausirrg substance used as a tlarne retardant —- is not the same thing as siiioa, and
the lung injuries caused by each substance differ. (Lawyers for both sides, unsurprisingly, disagree over how common it
is for one person to suffer injuries as a result of exposure to both.)
Large amounts of money are at stake. According to Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania and
chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has pushed for legislation to deal with asbestos litigation, more than
70 companies have filed for bankruptcy as a result of asbestos claims. Tens of thousands of silica claims have also been
filed against companies and insurers.
Evidence was entered in the Texas court that some doctors had little training in how to interpret X-rays to tirid
signs of siiica-related iliness and that they reached their eonciusions after spending just minutes looking at an X—ray or -
- worse —- just a prepared report based on an X—ray. Some doctors backed away from their conclusions; one cut short his
own testimony to ask for a lawyer,
One doctors testimony was "raising great red Bags of fraud," said Ianis Graham Jack, the federal judge presiding at
the hearing in Corpus Christi.
The convening of a grand jury suggests that federal prosecutors in Manhattan heard her.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com
LGAD—DAT1i`.: May IS, 2005