CASE NO.41 Claimant first noted rapid deterioration of the skin on his neck and face in 1963 when he began to develop deep creases, swollen eyelids, heavy jowls, very enlarged pores, fine wrinkles all over his face and bad discoloration. He attempted self treatment with no success and in 1966 went toa dermatologist who diagnosed his condition as cutis laxa and recommended plastic surgery. Chemical peels of the face were performed in 1967 and 1968 and a face lift _ was done in 1968. Medical Evidence: At the time of his initial visits the dermatologist allegedly Type ofInjury: Cutis Laxa. BEC's Decision: Compensation Denied. Date of Decision: 1970. asked claimant if he had ever had X-ray treatments. Claimant said he indicated to the doctor he had been exposedto radiation in his job at the missile site but could not identify his exposure. Ina letter to the plastic surgeon the dermatologist stated that claimant had a skin condition ‘which may or may notbe a result of radiation received while Claimant's Allegation: That his skin condition was caused by unknown amounts of ionizing radiation to which he was exposed in the course of his employment, Facts: Claimant was employed in an administrative capacity from September 21, 1958 to February 22, 1959 at a missile defense’ site ‘in the supply and maintenance division. Claimant alleged that in his position of responsibility for logistical support of all operations and activities on the base, it was his duty to “get around”, to know what was going on in the area; that he did this every day;that he thought a film badge was required for his job, since he was under employed by [the] missile range,” that its etiology was not certain but that the condition “probably” resulted from a violent reaction to radiation to which claimant was at some time exposed. , The plastic surgeon noted the dermatologist’s opinion and he said: It is impossible to state with assurance what the etiology of the marked elastosis and cutis laxa of the facial skin is .... It must be assumed that the patient has been subject to irradiation which has speeded the aging process by causing atrophy and loss of elasticity and tone in the facial skin. during this time, but he did not know when orif he was exposed. Records did After a review of the file the BEC Medical Director reported in pertinent part: tatements from the Nuclear Effects Director and the Supply Management Analyst of the Missile Base in question indicated that there was110 possibility of radiation exposure at the missile base during the period of claimant’s The claimant apparently suffers from and has been treated for cutis laxa, a disease of unknownetiology, .. . . The microscopic appearance of the impression it was entirely possible he was exposed to ionizing radiation notshow claimant was everissued a film badge. employment; that nuclear reactors were not installed until 1960; and that reactors did not become operable on the base until August 1964. Evidence did not show that any other persons who had worked with claimant had been sick or had required treatment for radiation exposure. In February 1959 claimant decided to leave the job at the missile range and return to a job he had previousty held at another base in an administrative capacity as a Program Coordinator. Service records and a statement from the military surgeon indicated that from February 1959 to November 1963 the claimant’s job required on-site visits to certain missile installations; that these various missile site facilities “‘may have had sources of microwave and ionizing tadiation” which was “very limited”; that claimant’s assignment did not require him to wear a film badge; and that his personnel records did not include any records of exposure to ionizing radiation. He further stated that claimant did not personally operate or maintain any equipment; that he never had any contact with radiation tests and calibration equipment but that he did operate radar vans on several occasions. A review of military medical files did not indicate any event where uncontrolled exposure to ionizing radiation occurred at any worksite where claimant was present. 128 this may be similar to that seen after X-ray or other radiation treatment to the skin resulting in a burn and subsequent premature aging. There is no indication in the record that the claimant received anywhere near the amountof radiation exposure that would be required to produce such a disease process. If such an exposure were obtained, the claimant would certainly know when, where and how he received it. It appears that he misled the treating physicians in telling them that he was exposed to radiation. They accepted his history and have considered that it might be the etiological factor. This opinion was not based upon objective laboratory or other scientific evidence, but only the history as given to them by the patient. In my opinion there is no relationship between the employee’s skin condition and factors df radiation exposure received at work. BEC's Decision: In denying compensation the Bureau said: The Federal Employee’s Compensation Act provides that a civil employee of the United States whois injured while in the performance of his official duty is entitled to 1) payment of compensation for 129