HENRY GILBERT GARRARD III
KING OF FALSE EVIDENCE
While Henry Garrard III defended Pittsburgh Corning from 1982-1999, his State of the Art (SOA) defense was based on the Threshold Limit Values (TLV) – which HAD NO VALUE and HAD NO BASIS IN FACT.
“The origin and development of the asbestos Threshold Limit Value: scientific indifference and corporate influence.” “In this article, the authors address the historical development of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists' asbestos exposure guideline. They demonstrate that the proposed guideline was known to be inadequate when it was first proposed, was severely criticized between 1946 and 1968, but nonetheless was promulgated annually and remained unchanged 1971.” Int J Health Serv. 1995;25(4):667-96. Egilman DS1, Reinert AA.
In other words, LOTS OF PEOPLE DIED because of the corrupt, dishonest corporations and their lies from 1933 through the early 1990’s because litigation never told the truth. And in fact, Henry Garrard III taught his fellow defense lawyers how to perpetuate the lies:
In a 1987 seminar for defense attorneys entitled ‘‘State of the Art Defense: Is it Real?,’’ Henry Garrard III, a defense attorney, described how defense counsel should use the SOA defense in asbestos litigation:
…Although OSHA is a creation of the 1970’s, the basic mindset of the general public is that the government has been involved intricately in control of workplace exposures almost forever. Most of the people today have not grown up in an atmosphere that did not include significant government involvement. This can become a play for state-of-the-art throughout… Probably the final thing to consider is the necessity to warn and the different timings of warnings is to attempt to get the jury to place themselves back in the 1960’s, 50’s, and 40’s with the realization that times were different and expectations were different. Human factors experts or historians in general may be experts that we as defense lawyers have overlooked which might be helpful in making these presentations. Additionally, industrial hygienists who are not medical doctors probably should be used to a greater extent than they are used now to show the newness of that field and how they in fact rely upon the threshold limit value concept in general. After all, the threshold limit value concept is probably the best thing the defense has in its arsenal.
The asbestos product manufacturer courtroom defense is also based on the argument that manu facturers and downstream companies that used or sold products had no duty to warn of hazards and thus have no liability if their products resulted in exposures were under the TLV. This defense tries to convince juries that the TLV was statutory rather than voluntary and that the government would have intervened to protect workers and the public had the industry’s products exceeded this limit. Essentially they argue that mere existence of a proposed safe level (the TLV) allowed them to escape liability that resulted from injuries that occurred to workers who were exposed to asbestos or asbestos-containing products that the industries sold. However, because the TLV was not health protective for either asbestosis or lung cancer, the companies must also contest the historical acceptance of the asbestos– cancer relationship.
As early as 1976, the AIA – an organization of asbestos product manufacturers and fiber suppliers – gathered to design the SOA defense. The defense was dependent upon the work that MetLife and others had previously done to cover up important cancer and TLV information. The AIA formed a ‘‘Legal/ Medical Research Program’’ and stated that ‘‘the primary purpose of the Legal/Medical Research Program is to improve the quality of defenses for asbestos companies involved in third party liability suits in tort.’’ [emphasis added]
In 1986, OSHA did indeed lower the PEL to 0.2 f/cc – considered ‘‘the lowest level feasible’’ at that time. OSHA estimated that cancer mortality risk for lifetime exposures (45 years) at 0.2 f/cc would be 6.7 deaths per 1000 workers, and 3.36 deaths per 1000 workers at 0.1 f/cc. © W. S. Maney & Son Ltd 2014
Source: Dust diseases and the legacy of corporate manipulation of science and law David Egilman, Tess Bird, Caroline Lee DOI 10.1179/1077352514Z.000000000104 International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 2014, VOL. 20, NO. 2 115
DEFINE RESOLUTION PLEASE MR. GARRARD! DEAD PLAINTIFFS?
So Mr. Garrard’s bio on his own website states “More importantly, as lead counsel for Pittsburgh Corning Corporation, he worked extensively with lawyers from across the country towards resolution of cases, and during his time as counsel for Pittsburgh Corning he resolved thousands of cases.” From website “Surgicalmeshhelp”