leading to the job site. There is no evidence that protective clothing was worn.
In April 1963, at the age of 33, claimant experienced dizziness, malaise and
being short-winded and he sought medical attention. During the summer of
1963 claimant noted a striking loss of hair on his face and body. Because of
persistent anemia he was hospitalized. In September 1963 he was hospitalized
with the finding of aregenerative or aplastic anemia. He received repeated
transfusions, cortico-steroids, hormones and vitamins from September 1963
CASE NO. 38
until March 1966. By May 1969 the marrow had completely recovered and
claimant was then asymptomatic.
Type of Injury: Aplastic Anemia.
Medical records showed that during claimant’s periods of exposure he
received no medication except “‘griseofulvin” — 9 tablets of 500 mg each for
trichophyton, an infection of the skin. The lesions cleared and did not recur
BEC's Decision: Claim Accepted. No compensation. No permanent disability
and no lost time. All intermittent periods of absence were covered by annual
and sick leave. Reimbursement for medical expenses and travel expenses
incidental to testing was made.
for one year. In June 1962 he took six more tablets again with prompt
disappearance of the skin lesions.
Medical Evidence: A hematologist reviewed claimant’s entire hospital records
and he expressed the following opinion:
Date of Decision: 1970.
Claimant's Allegation: That his illness was caused by radiation exposure during
{Claimant] was working in an area where there was potential
employ ment.
exposure to X-ray radiation. He did not always wear a dosimeter to
detect the amount of radiation exposure ....In addition, there is no
record of any blood examinations during the period of his employment.
From a review of the history and pertinent clinical and hematologic
Facts: Claimant was employed as an electrician for a Government agency. He
first commenced work in September 1961. He was assigned as an electrician to
assist in the installation and testing of an MeV electron generator, a
dynamitron accelerator. His job included maintenance, trouble shooting and
electrical construction on certain jobs. He also worked on a night shift for a
period of time and evidence indicated there was less supervision of his exposure
to radiation. The claimant wore no film badge or dosimeter. In performing
work in one building evidence showed he worked in two or three feet of work
space and that four dosimeters were shared by eight men involved in this job.
The occasions and amount of exposure could not always be determined since
dosimeters were not available for all workers and the monitoring was only
checked at intervals. It was necessary for him to remove the belt whenever he
replaced defective tubes or parts. After this particular assignment was
completed he returned two or three hours a week. The period of exposure was
from September 1, 1961 through January 1962 and on infrequent occasions
until October 1962. No symptomsof radiation exposure were found in any of
the other personnel on this job.
On March 19, 1963 2 private contractor was called in to inspect a simulator
in another building. The job site was on a bridge crane suspended from the
cefling and about 60 feet from the floor. The job of the private contractor was
to make radiographic records of some 300 high stress points. They shot these
found st floor level was in the range of .02 mR/hr which was considered safe
tolerance for personnel. However, danger signs were placed on the catwalk
120
[claimant's] occupation and the development of the aplastic anemia.
The attending intemist supported the relationship as probably being due to
prolonged exposure and the same opinion was expressed by the staff of one of
the hospitals where claimant had been treated.
The possibility of a drug induced marrow depression was considered andit
appeared that the drug fulvicin (griseofulvin) an antifungal drug, was the only
medicine that might have been involved. One medical doctor expressed the
opinion that the radiation was the more likely cause of the claimant’s illness
than was the drug. He supported this opinion by stating that the administration
of the second course of the drug did not immediately effect any noticeable
change in the patient's symptoms.
The Bureau’s Medica! Director noted that the medical opinion negating the
drug in question as e causative factor was based on facts that were “not quite
accurate” since other medical evidence showed that the claimant's lesions
cleared after a ten-day course of treatment with the drug. However, he also
noted the medical support for the relationship between the radiation and the
disease and he said:
ee a ee cl eee —eemegeeto,
X-rays on March 20, 21, 25, 26, and 27, 1963. Two employees of the
contractor stood behind the X-ray machine and the claimant was also on the
bridge the entire time of the operation pointing out where the pictures were to
be made and positioning the direction of the shots, He was within 10 to 15 feet
of the X-ray machine which was a LX 140 KVP with a fixed 2mA. Seventy-one
exposures were made and the exposures were of 3 minutes each. The radiation
findings, in my opinion, there is a definite causal relationship between
In summary the Bureau has accepted that the claimant has been
exposed to a degree of radiation, shortly following which he had
symptoms consistent with anemia and the subsequent diagnoses of
aregenerative anemia treated for several years with good response and
return of normal matrow-function. There is support for the relationship
between the radiation and the disease, the time relationships are good
and in my opinion, after reviewing the entire record, the relationship
121