Findings of the ECAR: \n affirming the Bureau's denial the Board stated:
The medical evidence submitted since its prior review does not

cannot be ruled out, particularly with respect to total body count findings,

persistent borderline leukocyte and platelet counts, and perhaps the poor
wound healing”.

establish any compensable disability due to appeliant’s
employment-related exposure to radiation. The reports by the two
radiologists, together with medical evidence previously in the record,

BEC subsequently referred appellant, with the case record and a statement

of accepted facts, to a Board-certified radiologist, for an examination and
opinion regarding causal relation between appellant’s exposure to ionizing

establish that the right hand condition is not causally related to the
radiation exposure and that appellant does not have any
employment-related disability.

radiation and the delayed healing of his hand. He wasalso asked to express an
opinion as to whether appelfant’s other disabling conditions were caused or
adversely affected by his employment-related radiation exposure. He examined

appellant on January 3, 1968. He pointed out that there was “no evidence of
tadiation change as evidenced by atrophy, hair loss or telangiectasia in the skin

of either lower extremity, of the left hand, the visible remaining right fingers,
or in the mucous membranes of the oral cavity’ and he further stated that
because of the short range of beta rays given off by strontium 90, any injury
caused by such radiation would have been to the most superficial tissues, that
is, the skin, that skin healing had not been a problem after the injury to the
tight index finger, that a review of the contemporaneous medical notes
indicated that healing of the finger progressed normally but that osteomyelitis,
perhaps complicated by a foreign body, had perpetuated infection and required
amputation, and that the norma! white blood count at the time of the finger
injury and the lack of any increase in pulmonary infections secondary to
appellant’s preexisting chronic pulmonary condition indicated that the
exposure to radiation had not resulted in a depression of his body defenses to
infection. He concluded that the right arm disability due to causaigia and loss
of function from disease was not causally related to the radiation exposure. He
also negated causal relation between the radiation exposure and appellant's
cardiac and cerebral vascular disease, dermatological findings, bilateral cataracts

and chronic pulmonary condition.
To further assist in resolving the question of causal relation, the BEC

referred appellant, with the case record and the statement of accepted facts, to
another Board-certified radiotogist, who examined him on July 2, 1968. The

radiologist had blood and bone marrow tests made, which were nondiagnostic.
A consultant in dermatology also reported that the skin lesion on the left leg
was typical of localized neurodermatitis and that the nose Jesion appeared to
be an actinic keratosis. The radiologist reported, after a careful study of the

case history, that the radiation exposure was only 10 percent of the permissible
meximum and that this was insufficient to result in decreased resistance to
infection. He stated that the healing of the primary infection of the right index
finger was ogmplicated by a secondary infection involving the tendon sheaths.
He negated causal relation between the radiation exposure and the infection of
the right index finger, pointing out that the bone marrow studies had excluded
the possibility of disease in the bone marrow or blood forming organs. He:
stated that the only disability which could possibly have been caused by
radiation would have been the leg skin lesions, but that those lesions did not
have the characteristics of radiation dermatitis. The doctor concluded that
appellant did not have any disability causally related to his exposure to
radiation in his work.
BEC medical advisers concurred in the opinions of the two radiologists, and
the BEC denied modification ofits earlier decision.
1St

150

[linia

ee

_-

do

Select target paragraph3