between the radiation exposure is much more probable than with the short use of the drug fulvicin. This relationship is supported by several physicians involved in the medical management ofthis claimant. BEC's Decision: In accepting the claim the Bureau informed the claimant: “After a study of all the factual and medical evidence in the case the Bureau has determined that the aplastic anemia was proximately caused by conditions of employment.” However, no compensation benefits were payable as claimant had no fost time from work and no permanent disability. CASE NO. 39 Type of Injury: Granulocytopenia. BEC's Decision: Claim Accepted. No compensation; No pay loss. Date of Decision: 1970. Claimant's Allegation: That his granulocytopenia was caused by his exposure to ionizing radiation as an X-ray technician, ' Facts: Claimant, a 42 year old male, had been an X-ray technician in a hospita! for 20 years, since about 1948. A routine blood count on October 23, 1969, showed a depression of his white blood count and by November 18, 1969 to as low as 3,300 white cells with only 40 percent neutrophiles. Records of the employing hospital showed that claimant’s routine work as | an X-ray technician consisted of taking X-rays, assisting radiologists during fluoroscopy, and taking X-rays in wards and surgery with portable machines. The employee worked continuously from 1951 unti! January 1970. His prior exposures are unknown. A statement from the hospital indicated that monitoring of the claimant from date of employment was done with pocket dosimeters and film badges worn on his person. en Medical Evidence: The medical diagnosis from the hospital was granulocytopenia due to radiation exposure.’ In the hematology report dated March 18, 1970 to the Bureau the hospital’s medical doctor said concerning diagnosis: Employee is asymptomatic.... Diagnosis: Impression was “granulocytopenia due to radiation exposure” with recommendation of ‘ \ ' min 122 ln i “absolute avoidance of further radiation exposure.” Employee was assigned... to duties where no radiation exposure exists. Employee continues to get repeat blood counts on a monthly basis. Recent counts show improvement of white blood ceil count. On March 12, 1970 white blood count was 4,260 differential showing 51 neutrophiles, 40 lymphocytes, 2 monocytés and 7 eosinophiles.. If this improvement in his monthly blood counts continues there is a possibility of his return to his duties as Medical Radiology Technician within the next year. ‘It should be noted that the medical opinion establishing a causal relationship between the claimant’s exposure and his disease, made no reference to the amount of claimant's exposure during his employment as an X-ray technician. However, a review of the hospital's film badge records on file with the Bureau, indicates that claimant had received a total cumulative exposure between 1951 and 1969 of 12.870 roentgen. 123