MARIN GOODMAN, LLP - nycal

New Jersey Office
3610 route 23 north
Hamburg, New Jersey 07419
Tel (973) 921-0515
Fax (973) 921-0580
Westchester Office
2975 Westchester Avenue
Purchase, New York 10577
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Hon. Sherry Klein Heitler
New York Supreme Court
60 Centre Street, Room 438
New York, NY 10007
Dear Judge Heitler:
MARIN GOODMAN, LLP
Attorneys At Law
40 Wall Street
Fifty-Seventh Floor
New York, New York 10005
Tel (212) 661-1151
Fax (212) 661-1141
December 2, 2008
Re: May 2009 In Extremis Objections
Diane H. Miller, Esq.,
Of Counsel
dmiller@maringoodman.com
We, along with the Sedgwick Detert Moran & Arnold firm, write as medical and defense
liaison counsel regarding the Weitz & Luxenberg cases proposed for the May 2009 In Extremis
Trial Cluster. Set forth below are defendants’ objections to the above-referenced cases. Please
note, as always, there has been little discovery and few depositions in these cases; we reserve the
right to make forum objections and any other objections once depositions commence in these
cases. Additionally, we request that Weitz & Luxenberg provide complete work histories for
each Plaintiff and that the interrogatories contain actual employers, time periods and specific
sites as opposed to “see social security printout.”
Defendants respectfully reserve the right to object, on medical and/or discovery grounds,
to any case which may be added to subsequent revisions of the NYCAL May 2009 case list.
This list of objections is based on the “Preliminary” case list posted on that date. This list of
objections is based on the “Preliminary November 24, 2008” case list posted on that date.
Weitz and Luxenberg
Ballard, Kenneth
Defendants object to this case being included in the cluster as Plaintiff has failed to produce and
application or interrogatory answers. It is impossible to determine any substantive objections
given the lack of information.
Defendants further object to this case on medical grounds as no diagnosing medicals were
provided.

MARIN GOODMAN, LLP
Attorneys At Law
December 3, 2008
Page 2 of 6
Berry, John J.
Defendants object to this case on medical grounds as no diagnosing medicals were provided.
Defendants further object as authorizations are not on file with Recordtrak.
Clancy, Arthur T.
Defendants object to this case being included in the cluster as Plaintiff has failed to produce and
application or interrogatory answers. It is impossible to determine any substantive objections
given the lack of information.
Defendants object to this case on medical grounds as no indication on in extremis status was
provided.
Defendants further object as authorizations are not on file with Recordtrak.
Cohen, Herbert
Defendants further object to this case on medical grounds as no diagnosing medicals were
provided.
Cristofoli, Fulvio
Defendants object to this case on medical grounds as no indication on in extremis status was
provided.
Doherty, Donald
Defendants object to this case being included in the cluster as Plaintiff has failed to produce and
application or interrogatory answers. It is impossible to determine any substantive objections
given the lack of information.
Figueiredo, Celestina
Defendants object to this case on medical grounds as no indication on in extremis status was
provided.
Defendants further object as authorizations are not on file with Recordtrak.
Francis, Anthony
Defendants object to this case on medical grounds as no definitive diagnosing medicals were
provided. Records indicate a diagnosis of mesothelioma or lung cancer and additional staining
was done to determine specific diagnosis. Report of staining was not provided.
Gebel, Carolyn
Defendants object to the inclusion of this matter on forum grounds. To date, plaintiff has not
been deposed. According to her “Chart A,” plaintiff alleges asbestos exposure in connection
with her work as a bookkeeper and secretary at Grumman Aircraft on “Long Island.” Plaintiff
has been a resident of Nassau and Suffolk counties for the last sixty-four years. This case is
better suited in Nassau or Suffolk County, the counties in which plaintiff lived and worked for
most of her life.

MARIN GOODMAN, LLP
Attorneys At Law
December 3, 2008
Page 3 of 6
Defendants further object to this case on medical grounds as no diagnosing medicals were
provided.
Graziano, Anthony
Defendants object to this case on medical grounds as no indication on in extremis status was
provided. Plaintiffs failed to provide any records showing primary site of cancer.
Defendants further object as authorizations are not on file with Recordtrak.
Hamaker, James K.
Defendants object to this case on medical grounds as no diagnosing medicals were provided.
Hind, William Thomas
Defendants object to this case on medical grounds as no diagnosing medicals were provided.
Defendants further object as authorizations are not on file with Recordtrak.
Hull, James C.
Defendants object to this case on medical grounds as no indication on in extremis status was
provided.
Innes, James C.
Defendants object to this case on medical grounds as no indication on in extremis status was
provided. Medical reports indicate that margins are free and cancer does not invade the pleura.
Defendants further object as authorizations are not on file with Recordtrak.
Johnson, Dwight
Defendants object to this case on forum grounds. There appears to be no basis to keep the case
in NY –Interrogatories provided by plaintiffs fail to allege any NYC exposure NYC or residence.
Kempf, Joseph
Defendants object to this case on medical grounds as no indication on in extremis status was
provided.
Killenberger, Robert B.
Defendants object to this case on medical grounds as no definitive diagnosing medicals were
provided. Records indicate carcinoma or mesothelioma. Immunostaining favors carcinoma.
Lamoreaux, Roy G.
Defendants object to this case on medical grounds as no indication on in extremis status was
provided. Medical reports indicate that margins are clear.
Lesnefsky, Leonard
Defendants object to this case on medical grounds as no indication on in extremis status was
provided.

MARIN GOODMAN, LLP
Attorneys At Law
December 3, 2008
Page 4 of 6
Mascitti, Luigi
Defendants object to this case on medical grounds as no diagnosing medicals were provided.
Plaintiff only provided a radiology report.
McHugh, William G.
Defendants object to this case being included in the cluster as Plaintiff has failed to produce and
application or interrogatory answers. It is impossible to determine any substantive objections
given the lack of information.
Defendants further object to this case on medical grounds as no diagnosing medicals were
provided.
Defendants further object as authorizations are not on file with Recordtrak
Medalia, Tullio
Defendants object to this case being included in the cluster as Plaintiff has failed to produce and
application or interrogatory answers. It is impossible to determine any substantive objections
given the lack of information.
Defendants further object as authorizations are not on file with Recordtrak.
Mistretta, Jospeh
Defendants object to this case on medical grounds as no indication on in extremis status was
provided. Medical reports indicate that lymph nodes are clear.
Neal, Brian
Defendants object to this case being included in the cluster as Plaintiff has failed to produce and
application or interrogatory answers. It is impossible to determine any substantive objections
given the lack of information.
Defendants further object to this case on medical grounds as no indication on in extremis status
was provided. Medical reports indicate that lymph nodes are clear.
Defendants further object as authorizations are not on file with Recordtrak.
Oliver, George
Defendants object to this case on medical grounds as no diagnosing medicals were provided.
Defendants further object as authorizations are not on file with Recordtrak.
Olsen, Samuel
Defendants object to this case on medical grounds as no diagnosing medical record was provided
showing lung cancer. Pathology report shows only a liver biopsy with a notation that lung
carcinoma is not fully documented in their records. Additionally, no indication on in extremis
status was provided.
Defendants further object as authorizations are not on file with Recordtrak.

MARIN GOODMAN, LLP
Attorneys At Law
December 3, 2008
Page 5 of 6
Parker, Stewart C.
Defendants object to this case on forum grounds. To date, plaintiff has not been deposed. His
interrogatory responses, however, reveal that plaintiff did not work anywhere other than in
Ontario, Canada, and furthermore, that he never has resided in the State of New York. Under the
circumstances, this case would be more appropriately filed elsewhere.
Defendants further object to this case on medical grounds as no diagnosing medicals were
provided.
Paul, Richard R.
Defendants object to this case on medical grounds as no indication on in extremis status was
provided. Records indicate no pleural invasion and tumor is confined to the lung.
Restivo, Angelo
Defendants object to this case on medical grounds as no indication on in extremis status was
provided.
Ruddell, Denis
Defendants object to this case being included in the cluster as Plaintiff has failed to produce and
application or interrogatory answers. It is impossible to determine any substantive objections
given the lack of information.
Defendants further object to this case on medical grounds as no diagnosing medicals were
provided.
Defendants further object as authorizations are not on file with Recordtrak.
Sassano, William
Defendants object to this case on medical grounds as no indication on in extremis status was
provided. Records indicate staging as T1 N2.
Stanton, Brian J.
Defendants object to this case on medical grounds as no indication on in extremis status was
provided.
Topolski, Richard
Defendants object to this case on forum grounds. To date, plaintiff has not been deposed. His
“Chart A,” however, reveals all site-specific work locations being in the Buffalo area, over the
course of a career spanning thirty years, with the sole exception of work performed in “apartment
buildings and various other sites in Flushing, New York” in 1961 and 1962. This lack of
specificity, combined with the fact that plaintiff’s entire residential history appears to be in the
Buffalo, suggests that the more appropriate venue for this matter is upstate New York.
Valdinato, Frank
Defendants object to this case on medical grounds as no diagnosing medicals were provided.
Defendants further object as authorizations are not on file with Recordtrak.

MARIN GOODMAN, LLP
Attorneys At Law
December 3, 2008
Page 6 of 6
Zarrello, Frank
Defendants object to this case on medical grounds as no diagnosing medicals were provided.
Zito, Robert
Defendants object to this case on medical grounds as no indication on in extremis status was
provided. Medical records provided indicate lymph nodes are negative.
Defendants further object as authorizations are not on file with Recordtrak
cc: Laraine Pacheco, Esq.
Special Master
Law Office of Laraine Pacheco
2401 East Calle Sin Controversia
Tucson, AZ 85718
cc: Charles Ferguson, Esq.
K:\DMiller\Letter\Ltr to Judge Heitler re May 09 In extremis objections.doc
Respectfully submitted,
Diane H. Miller