Document aJka7gpObow9nmYB0Q8MrqB3R

April 16, 1957 The Legal Aid Society 312 West Kinth Street Cincinnati, Ohio Dear Mr. Lovell: Your letter of April 13th con cerning finds me somewhat at a loss in g f ^ n ^ ^ ^ ^ p r o p e ^ a d v i c e * I saw Mr J H H H H p in September of 1953 at the request of theiJn^^inaustrial Commission* At this time I arrived at a diagnosis of lead poisoning on the basis of jtBBUBBtSBSBM s t o r y 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 b omDatib^ with that diagnosis. On the other hand Mr. H0H(Phad rather extensive evidence of chronic i n f e o t i o n i n t h e mouth 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 th Commission that in my opinion he was suffering from the residual effects of an occupational lead exposure. 1 saw Mr. QS&BSBKKEagain in January of 193if- and in April of 193^* 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 m y experience uncomplicated eases of* Iga^aoisoning recover much more promptly than did and X felt that his obvious infectious 1es 1onTM w e r e .in.large 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 treatment was given, and I have Lovell 2 no precise knowledge of the progress of his illness since April of 1935-* However I doubt very much the likelihood of any permanent disability from his occupatlonai lead exposure, and I would not be willing to express an opinion as to the character of his present disability without seeing him again* My sympathies have been very deepl; aroused by the unfortunate circumstances of Mr.| . illness and of his life since his illness* I sneuia oe very glad to see him and to do anything further in a medical v?ay that is possible. If his present disability is sueh 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. I 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, 1,1.D. HE 0016613.