COMPANY MEDICAL RECORDS SHOWN TO JURORS IN TRIAL
By Elise Ackerman
Mercury News
In a move to undermine damaging testimony from a former IBM nurse, attorneys Thursday showed jurors medical records they said demonstrated the computer company responded appropriately to an ex-employee who contends her breast cancer was caused by exposure to toxic chemicals.
Alida Hernandez, 73, and co-plaintiff James Moore, 62, allege that IBM knew of the dangers of hazardous chemicals at its San Jose plant and hid that danger from them.
Former IBM nurse Audrey Misako Crouch testified Wednesday in Santa Clara County Superior Court that medical personnel at the Cottle Road facility had withheld information about chemical exposure from employees to prevent ``mass hysteria.'' Crouch testified that there was an unwritten policy to treat symptoms of exposure, ranging from nasal discharge to elevated liver enzymes as ``alternative lifestyle events.''
In a testy cross-examination, IBM attorney Mary Ellen Powers tried to prove that information was not kept from Hernandez's private doctors. She produced correspondence between the IBM medical department and Hernandez's doctors that referred to Hernandez's history of low-level chemical exposure. Powers also showed jurors a chart with measurements of airborne chemicals in Hernandez's work area.
``Wasn't this consistent with practice of `good occupational medicine?' '' Powers asked Crouch.
``Yes, ma'am,'' Crouch said sheepishly, admitting she had not completely reviewed Hernandez's file. But Crouch, who now oversees emergency medical training for the San Jose Fire Department, stuck to her assertion that valuable health information was not conveyed to patients.
Crouch said the nurses were not supposed to probe for workplace causes of health complaints if they found an alternative explanation, such as allergies or diet. ``I was instructed to stop once I found the alternative lifestyle because that was the answer we would accept,'' she said.
Hernandez has complained that her medical reports were given to her in sealed brown envelopes that she was supposed to deliver to her supervisor. ``This was IBM's policy,'' Crouch confirmed.
``This isn't because IBM was trying to prevent the employee from knowing, was it?'' said Powers, suggesting that IBM was simply trying to protect employees' privacy.
``The employees never knew what we wrote here,'' Crouch insisted.
The 12 jurors and six alternates watched with interest as the two women squared off. Initially cheerful, Crouch grew defensive as Powers repeatedly challenged her credibility.
Could Hernandez's medical reports have caused ``mass hysteria?'' Powers asked.
``No, I think you are misconstruing when I said mass hysteria,'' replied Crouch. ``They didn't want the employee to go back to the line and share that because other people would say, `OK, yes, I have the same problem.' ''
At one point, Powers asked Crouch to read from a handbook called ``Chemical Hazards of the Workplace,'' which she kept on her desk. According to the book, acetone, one of the main chemicals in Hernandez's work environment, ``is considered to be a low risk to health because few effects have been reported despite widespread use for many years.''
But Richard Alexander, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said the correspondence cited by IBM's attorneys grossly understated Hernandez's chemical exposure. Earlier in the trial, Hernandez said she handled as much as a gallon of acetone a day.
Copyright 2003 - New York Times
