Document Rpn8Mzej1Mr2MpBrDEgVdbO6V

/fxJ Zt iAV /. '&dL& 0D3?125 '<1;>V-. '71st* Street* , Cleveland* Ohio Gplnloh February 3$ 1344 V An opinion as to the nature of this claimant* ilinec in August of 134p must rest upon the statementa of Dr. Cerom Gross. In the absence of a satisfactory record of Dr. Gross1 scaminatlon the statement chat the patient, when examined had VocJotsiriai colic* vomiting* constlxtlean* impairment of grip* load line* stippling of BBC3 in smear*, must be accepted by this reviewer a true, unless it cun be discredited 'by evidence to the contrary, iio'such evidence ` 13 available* inasmuch as there Is no information obtained fyent other- Bxsnlna lions during this period. By the time- of Dr. AaryBk*s exa . miration on -;cveneer o* there Dad been ample tin for the disap- 'ic-ar-Enca of s;-mpt-aais or signs of plumbieti. . Granting the occurrence of illness as described *' the only basis in the record for differential diagnosis Is found in tho vMenccrfor or against the aigaifloaace of this men* lead exposure. 5ihe shortness of the claimant a exposure to lead is the only valid .- reason for question.' Ibis must not c taken ten seriously in view or the manifest potential hasanS of th manufacture of storage batteries* Che stippling of the erythrocytes (on our count-there were, about 43 erythrocytes per 5-s microscopic fields) * while not . providing proof, suggesta that- there was `significant lead exposure. .Moreover/the en&lytieel data obtained by D r . iiaaEOl would a e m to indicate that'there had been significant load -exposure. Th report on the analyses from Dr. Grossf office is not very convincing- by reason of the statement that O'.03- (no volume or weight relationship given) la normal* If Dr. H&nzol obtains such figures on normal * persons* .his' Method of analysis is not sufficiently precise * or else ho is. not taking proper precaution against th eoataainatlon of blood samples at some, point. The mean value of normal results ''on th . hole blood* b y 'the most sensitive methods of analysis available la about. o.u3 sag. per la-j grams * while- th highest normal value does not exceed O.o6# Only in the rarest Instance do normal values g beyond .>.up rag* per.10o grams* This appears to represent a certain care lessness in Dr. Gross* report* rather than Dr. Hsnsol's (th. 1stter*a report is not i n 'the: record) since th secs report (as well as the fee'- bill}, gives the informati^aa on, the urine as follows# ^Jriae lead j .3 - normal '3.3* again .without referenceto any voight, or volume relation ship. It ^aay be presumed that this saaiis mg. oi -a per a.a.tr* mi- tpm-%-. til#. Jn&Tml waltap vas intended canfe* o.-,jyw%* per lifer, ''J ' i a t i r s tio' av e r age o r ajean M a l v a lu e . A c t u a lly , li - f .:t a "U .v 3 sag* p e r l i t e r stay be r egar d ed a %rlthlh tit J"i,:!'!;:'jin Aha oaus of &mplm- of. one liter or sacre in. voliaae* " report desjonatratep suets carelessness la dealing ant tjru per^insht facems as to Juow.fy on* serious > the -r.ecuracy or other coacervelions 4Mfc. :Sfeatwwts :th d reco rd ssp^rifeutis vr* Qzmm.* A letter of Dr. e*"; dftted % e ^ ii3er -2 9 , 12*3 * s t a t e s t h a t a n a ly se s on t h e b l an di uh ip' r an i# o il Septem ber 23 , ** * Furyget: replied, that the l . lf h h ls r eview er ' i s so t a b le 'xfcbfcit#;'.'iof. :ocr r ep oad eace * slic e "^h an ^ y t lc&X ^ r e a u lt l,^ ih e ir a o u fe e , .and. t b d a t e o f sam plin g Conclusion* i'lie diagnosis rests pr-ita&rlly on iho opinion of Dr* Gross, ''hist opinion is not too veil support a, hut it is no* disofetlliedt as a natter of record, horefore, on the record, the reviewer sdaits doubt., hut accepts the opinion for lack of contrary vi&enpe* Ih ex&ainaiion of :\r?* Faryssek justifies the conclusion that the claiiaant has no present, disability. H E 0016788