T of life, in people of fair complexion exposed to the weather and sunlight .... ‘All the available facts indicated that the development of the epithelioma in the area of previous X-ray radiat ion was probably coincidental. The development of multiple epithe liomas of the face where the question of radiation is not at aif involved makes it not pnticely that epitheliomas would appear at rando m onotherparts ofthe y. CASE NO. 19 Findings of the BVA and Basis for Decisi on: The Board concurred in the opinio Type ofInjury: Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia. ns rendered by the radiology specialists and other medica l Specialists that the carcmoma was not caused by X-ray radiation. The chest, left shoulder and spine X-rays in service and thereafter did not presen t a radiation hazard and post-service dental films were several years apart. Service-connected left subdeitoid bursitis was given deep X-ray therapyat a private hospital about 15 months after discharge, and eight such treatments were authorized by the Veterans Administration in December 1950, No skin changes were noted ane on ryeatments or upon dranination in 1951 and hospitalization in of the. gray A-rayther therapy”we wasals voce, o used foT nonservice-c i onnected contact dermatitis iti BVA’s Decision: Denial Reversed. Date of Decision: 1967. Appellant's Allegation: That his chronic lymphocytic leukemia was caused by X-ray treatment received for service-connected rheumatoid spondytitis. Facts: The Appellant served from February 1942 to December 1947. In 1949 he developed rheumatoid spondylitis, which was determined to be service connected. He underwent a series of X-ray treatments for the condition. According to the veteran he had been similarly treated by a roentgenologistin Berlin in 1948. In 1962 he was found to be suffering from chronic The Board, by a 5-4 decision, however, allowed the claim on other grounds ie., that there was a causal relationship betwe en prolonged exposure to sunlight in service and the malignancy which appea red thereafter. In resolving doubtin the veteran’s favor the Board indicated that an independent medical expert, contrary to the opinions of other medica l and radiology specialists considered it “probable” that exposure to strong suntight in service played an important role in the subsequent developmen t of the veteran’s skin malignancy. The dissenting opinion disagreed with the finding of service connection as “purely speculative” in nature and said “the evidence in its entirety does not warrant invocation of the doctri ne of reasonable doubt.” lymphocytic leukemia. Medical Evidence: An independent medical specialist examined Appellant's records and he noted: According to [veteran’s] appeal he received X-ray treatment for spondylitis from a private roentgenologist in Berlin, Germany, in 1948. The dosage is unknown. The dose commonly used on the continent of Europe at that time was about 400 to 1600 r per treatment. * 2 & On April 2, 1949 at [a private clinic] he received X-ray treatments to the back from the occiput to below the sacroiliac joint. Each of, the three fields treated received a dose of 130 KV X-ray and amounting to 135 1 per field. Some overlap of fields probably occurred during the treatment, doubling the dose for some of the marrow. This treatment was then repeated once. In addition to the radiation received at the [clinic] there is probably the radiation received in Berlin which would about double the dose. Then there is in the file “he has received a number of diagnostic X-ray ee studies’, which would add 25 to 50 more r. Therefore, the minimum dose he received is 295 r. The maximum dose that his spinal marrow received is 590 £ in its entirety with the possibility that portions of the marrow might have received close to 1000 r. His cervical lymph nodes would, therefore, have received because of absorption and backscatter from 57 to 77 per cent ofthis radiation, his 65