Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "75720921",
    "label": "Minutes, May 26, 1926",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75720921"
}

{
    "id": "75720921",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75720921",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Minutes, May 26, 1926",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75720921",
    "collections": [
        "Safety Light Collection",
        "Records Related to Radium Dial Painters"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0000798_Page_1.jpg",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0000798_Page_1.jpg",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0000798_Page_1.jpg",
    "imageCount": 5,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75720921",
    "naId": 75720921,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 5,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0000798.pdf",
    "mediaId": "092d2d1f1bdf36d1",
    "ocrText": "May 26, 1926.\nIn accordance with an appointment arranged at the request\nof Dr. Knef to give him an opportunity to present a pr œosition to Directors\nof the Company, Dr. Knef arrived at a little after 10:30. I presented\nhim to other members of the conference who were assembled in the Company's\nconference room.\nHe was then asked to state his proposition.\nDr. Knef opened by saying that he had come to us looking\nfor justice. That he had been to great expense of time and money investigating\na disease that he called \"Radium Necrosis\" and used specifically the names\nCarlough, Maillefer, Kuser, Maggia, saying that these girls had suffered from\na disease and that he had a large number of others that he was treating and\nhad been treating. He produced for examination X-Ray films which he stated\nwere pictures of the jaws of some of the cases mentioned and of some other\ncases, calling particular attention to one strip film that he said was a case\nthat had come in about ten days before.\nHe also produced a small glass\njar which he said contained a fragment of the jaw bone of one of our former\noperators.\nThe early part of his statement was rambling. The principal\npoints reiterated were that if we would play ball with him he would play\nball with us. That he was a very valuable man to have with us and not against\nus.\nThat the consideration was that he must be paid not only for work which\nwe would ask him to do on examinations of former employees but on those that\nwould come to him for treatment in jaw conditions.\nThat he must be paid\nby somebody and the class of patients that he had been treating were not\nable to pay adequate fees and that he must get the money out of us.\nDr. Knef was asked to state his proposition. He replied\n- 2 -\nthat he wanted a list of all former employees and their addresses so that he\ncould get in touch with them for purposes of examination and treatment. That\nhe wanted us to pay him $10,000. which he said was small compensation for all\nthe work that he had done on the cases that he had treated since certain of\nthem involved great effort and a large amount of time directly with the\npatients as well as for research work. He mentioned a treatment machine\nthat he had designed. He said it was a secret. He would divulge it to us\nif we would play ball with him. The rest of his proposition was that we\npay him $2.00 an office call for all former employees that he could get into\nhis office. When asked if he thought most of them would come to him, he said\nhe thought it could be arranged because he would speak to some of the dentists\nin the district and that they would be glad to send him any work of this kind.\nDr. Knef said that if we did not accept his proposition and\nplay ball with him, he would bring suit against certain of his former\npatients to collect large fees. That he was in a position to make any\ncharges he desired and that in turn these people would sue us for heavy\ndamages. That in that event, he was in a position to testify for them in\nsuch a way that he would guarantee that we would lose the suits because he\ncould produce evidence that could not be controverted by any lawyers or\nmedical experts and that he was, without blowing his own horn, the greatest\nexpert in the conditions that he referred to.\nOn the other hand, if we pay him the money, he can testify\nfavorably for us. He said an expert witness's opinion was what he wanted\nit to be. That it was customary for experts to testify for the people who\npaid them. He proposed to work for the side that his bread was buttered on.\nHe illustrated this by referring to the strip film mentioned above and saying,\nthere is a case that I can say is pyorrhea or that it is radium necrosis.\n- 3 -\nNobody can prove otherwise, and I do know the case to be tubercular.\nHe\nsaid that he could go on the stand and think that the moon was made out of\nblue cheese without perjuring himself.\nDr. Knef explained that if we did not play ball with him\nthat there were cases that would be brought against us that would not be\nsettled out of court and that there would be no Kalisches in the proposition.\nAnother member of the conference asked whether his proposition meant in so\nmany words that if we paid him what he asked he could save us a great deal\nof expense and trouble and if we refused he was in a position to make a lot\nof trouble for us and would do so. Dr. Knef said, yes.\nDr. Knef was asked point blank whether his attitude was not\nentirely one of $10,000. plus. He replied, yes, that he must be paid, that\nhe could be a most valuable man to us from a business view point. On bing,\nquestion, he explained that it was not his intention to disclose to any one that\nhe had a contract or a \"gentlemen's agreement\" with the Company. That he\ncould tell his patients when they came in that they were suffering from\npyorrhea and other diseases and hold them along so that they would move out\nof town, get married, and eventually die of other causes. He explained that\nif he collected any fees from these people he would credit them to the\nCompany. He was questioned at some length on the details of handling and\nexplained that he was sure that he could cover things up and protect the\nCompany satisfactorily. When asked whether any proposed arrangement with\nthe Company should not be for future services since we had had nothing\nwhatever to do with the past work, he said that that would not be sufficient.\nHe must have the $10,000. and intended to get it one way or another.\nOne\nof the other conferees stated that we did not believe that radium had anything\nto do with the condition that he referred to.\nDr. Knef said, well, people\n- 4 -\ncan believe as they wish. That he was master of the situation and that he\ncould be ferocious as a lion or as gentle as a lamb.\nTo illustrate how threatened court proceedings could be\nhandled, Dr. Knef told a story about a girl patient for whom he had\nextracted a tooth, who had gone home, and later developed a serious swelling\nin the jaw, and the girl's father threatened to bring a suit against Knef\nfor mal-practice. He explained in some detail how a professional man must\nprotect his reputation. He said that he had a letter from the father's\nlawyer which he ignored entirely, but met this lawyer on the street some time\n/\nlater and told him that if the suit went on that he, Dr. Knef, knew how to\nprotect himself. That he was protected by three insurance companies, but\nif professional reputation was at stake, he would use means for protection\nwhich he described as a threat to put the girl's father and mother on the stand\nand embarrass them by asking personal questions in regard to diseases such\nas syphilis, and if the case went on he would break up their home.\nIn conclusion, Dr. Knef was told that his proposition was\nabsolutely immoral and that the Company would have nothing whatever to do\nwith it. Dr. Knef said, immoral is it ? Is that final ?\nYours truly,\n-\nARoeder-HM\nPresident."
}