Document DvJa88w7rXkKN3nMaBgz0xngN

April l6, 1957 Mr, W. A, Lovell Assistant Counsel The Legal Aid Society 312 West Sinth Street Cincinnati, Ohio Dear Mr, Lovell: Your letter of April 13th con cerning flflHHHHifHHp finds me somewhat at a loss in givin^yo^^rope^advice, I saw Mrfl|flHHp in September of 1953 at the request of theTJa^^inaustrial Commission* At this time I arrived^atadiagnosis of lead poisoning on the basis of Mr>. |p--1 hi a tor? of employment and by a process of exclusion. He had discontinued his occupation some time before so that it was not possible to be certain of the exact character of the illness which was responsible for his discontinuance. That is to say, the diagnosis of lead poisoning could not be proved on the basis of clinical signs and laboratory evidences of abnormal lead absorption. It seemed apparent that the symptoms: which he described had been due to lead ab sorption, and the cl*.nical picture which he showed when I examined him was ^mDabib^ with that diagnosis. On the other hand Mr. ^HPHfph&d rather extensive evidence of chronic infection 1 n^he aouth and throat and it was entirely possible that his Illness was wholly or in part the result of this infection. Since his story presented the possibility of lead absorption, I gave him the benefit of the doubt and reported to the Commission that in my opinion he was suffering from the residual effects of an occupational lead exposure, 1 saw Mr, fBBBBKtKf again in January of 19314- and in April of 193b-* His condition had materially improved and this led me still further to believe that his illness had been due In part to his occupation. However, in my experience uncomplicated eases of jygeMgoiaoning recover much more promptly than did and I felt that his obvious infectious lesionsTwereiniarge measure responsible for his delayed recovery* I sent him to a colleague of mine, a dentist* for an opinion and for treatment of his oral infection* I am not certain of the extent to which adequate treafcipent was given, and I have -2- no precise knowledge of the progress of his illness since April of 1934-* However I doubt very much the likelihood of any permanent disability from his oceupationai lead exposure# and I would not be willing to express an opinion as to the character of his present disability without seeing him again* sympathies have been very deep!; aroused by the unfortunate circumstances of Mr.| illness and of his life since his illness* I snbulcrw very glad to see him and to do anything further in a medical way that is poss3.ble. If his present disability is such that it might reasonably be explained as a sequel to lead poisoning, I should, of course, be willing to present these facts to the Industrial Commission* However I am much more inclined to suspect that his present disability is due to chronic disease unrelated, or at least indirectly related to his former occupation. 1 have been told several times lately that the present policy of the Ohio Industrial Commission is to deny compensation in doubtful cases* I can not vouch for the accuracy of this statement but if this is the case, it would be necessary to present,better evidence than is now available to substantiate Mr. claim of primary occupational injury. Very truly yours. HAKsis Robert A. Kehoe, M.D. KF 0016613.