 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dow Chemical Company v. Mahlum12/31/1998
icological tests Dow Chemical performed for Dow Corning from the 1940s into the 1960s. Given their obvious importance, a closer review of what these tests revealed appears warranted. There are over a hundred tests in the record comprising the so-called "component testing" Dow Chemical performed for Dow Corning. Nearly all of these tests are what are termed toxicological "industrial handling" tests: i.e., the purpose of these tests is to discover what safety measures should be undertaken by the employees who handle the tested material in the manufacturing process. The following is an excerpt from a typical test report Dow Chemical submitted to Dow Corning from the 1940s, into the 1960s:
"Subject: THE RESULTS OF RANGE FINDING TOXICOLOGICAL TESTS ON METHYL HYDROGEN MIXED CYCLICS"
"PROBLEM"
"The sample of methyl hydrogen mixed cyclics which were submitted to us on September 4, 1956 is being handled for the preparation of foam resins. What precautions must be taken to handle this material safely?"
"CONCLUSIONS"
"This material has a low acute oral toxicity, the LD50 for rats being greater than 2 gm./kgm. of body weight. It is essentially without effect on contact with the eyes and with the skin, and apparently is not absorbed through the skin in acutely toxic amounts. Vapor concentration attainable at room temperature should not present a problem upon single vapor exposure. However, when the material is heated to 1000C very slight irritation to the eyes may be expected."
"This material does not appear to present any unusual health hazards. The practice of ordinary care and cleanliness should be sufficient to avoid difficulties in handling."
"These Conclusions are based upon range finding toxicological tests and are limited to precautions for industrial handling of the material. The development of specific uses for this material will make it necessary to give careful consideration to the health problems presented and to the need for further toxicological studies." (Emphasis added.)
This report exemplifies the type of testing Dow Chemical performed for Dow Corning prior to the invention of silicone breast implants in 1962; over a hundred other Dow Chemical toxicological reports in the record on Dow Corning's silicone compounds mirror its format and language. Further, from time to time, Dow Corning would inform Dow Chemical of the potential use of the tested material. In such an instance, Dow Chemical often would include an opinion on the suitability of the substance for the contemplated use based on the available information provided by the range finding test; however, even these reports ended by specifically noting that the Conclusions were ultimately reliable only as to industrial handling purposes and that any specific uses in products should undergo further, extensive toxicological testing. At most, these tests may support the hypothesis that Dow Chemical undertook a duty towards Dow Corning's employees to competently test for potential handling hazards of Dow Corning's chemical substances. Cf. Miller v. Bristol-Myers, Co. , 485 N.W.2d 31 (Wis. 1992) (holding that a parent corporation may be liable for unsafe conditions at a subsidiary where it assumed a duty to act by affirmatively undertaking to provide a safe working environment at the subsidiary). These tests do not create, however, a reasonable inference that Dow Chemical undertook a duty to ensure the safety of Silastic breast implants, or any Dow Corning product for that matter, by testing Dow Corning's silicone compounds for a limited purpose.
Other tests the majority relies upon include the 1948, article co-written by Dr. Rowe, the 1956 Chen
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Nevada Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|