sought. His report in this respect therefore remains open to question. The employee was referred to the Marine Hospital, Louisville, Kentucky, where he was admitted November 17, 1944, and discharged November 28, 1944. After physical and X-ray examinations, the Marine Hospital reported no evidence of fracture of the skull, increased intracranial pressure, or evidence of hematoma. The employee's alleged symptoms of blindness were stated to be inconsistent with any type of brain damage. No objective symptoms of disability were noted at the hospital. The examination was made by Passed Assistant Surgeon (R) John S. Lewis, whose qualifications in respect to the specialty of radiology are not stated. The employee was returned to the Marine Hospital, Louisville, on January 18, 1946, and was discharged January 23, 1946, where he was examined by the same physician, who compared certain films which the employee had in his possession with those made at the hospital. The conclusion after this verification of the X-ray negatives was that "there is no definite evidence of any fracture." Again the statement was made that the patient's "vague and indefinite statements, and the statements that he does make are inconsistent with any type of brain damage." The employee was subsequently referred to the U. S. Marine Hospital at Chicago, Ill., where he was admitted May 28, 1946, and discharged May 31, 1946. There he was examined by Dr. Lewis J. Pollock, attending neurologist, who found no evidence of disease or residual of injury to the central or peripheral nervous system. The attending specialist in roentgenology at the hospital, Dr. James T. Case, reported as follows: There is no evidence of fracture in our films, or in the films which have been placed before me for review. The findings are entirely normal throughout. We see suture lines and vascular channels, but no evidence of fracture in any of the films. (Signed) James T. Case, M.D. In addition to the medical reports from Government facilities, there is a report in the record of Dr. Hoy Newman as follows: This is to state that I examined and X-rayed Leroy Conner, November 1944, and now again July 5th. On both examinations X-ray shows a fracture in the left occipital region. There is also a fracture in the left frontal which is due either to a direct blow or to a contre-coup force. Dr. Newman's qualifications are not stated in the record. There is no report in the record by the Dr. Stone who is referred to in the employee's application for review. As mentioned, the evidence in this case is in conflict. Both Dr. West and Dr. Newman report that X-ray examinations disclose a fracture of the skull. Contrarily, the Marine Hospitals at Louisville and Chicago report negatively in respect to skull fracture. The X-ray films in the employee's possession were apparently twice compared with those made at the Marine Hospitals, with inability of the radiologists at either hospital to identify a definite pathology, such as a fracture of the skull. Resolving the conflicting evidence, it is the Board's conclusion and determination that the weight of the substantial, probative and reliable evidence is such as to cause conviction that the employee did not sustain a fracture of the skull as the result of his injury on December 14, 1943, and in view of this determination the Board necessarily affirms the compensation order, Rejection of Claim, filed March 14, 1947. In the Matter of HAROLD HENDRIX, and NAVY DEPARTMENT, BUREAU OF AERONAUTICS, U. S. NAVAL AIR TRAINING BASE, PENSACOLA, FLA. Docket No. 54.-Hearing September 4, 1947; Appearances: No appearance for appellant; John F. Overend, Esq., for the Director, Bureau of Employees' Compensation. OPINION The application for review filed in this case states that it is an appeal from the decision of the Director, Bureau of Employees' Compensation, dated May 26, 1947. No reason is stated in the application for review assigning error to the decision of the Director other than the appellant's statement that he has not received "a fair nor justifiable decision." The appellant apparently complains of inability to perform any work whatsoever. The cause of this alleged inability to work does not appear in the case record upon review. This employee was injured January 14, 1946, while employed as an electrician at the U. S. Naval Air Training Base, Pensacola, Fla. While preparing to repair a light fixture, the employee climbed upon bomb racks, causing an insecure crate to fall upon him, with the result that he sustained a laceration of the left forehead. The employee was treated from January 14, 1946, to July 25, 1946, for the effects of such injury and was reported able to resume work on the day of injury, in so far as the effects of such injury were concerned. During the course of the examination and treatment for the injury described, the attending physician at the Naval Air Station found that the employee was suffering chronic myositis in the cervical region. The employee was discharged from employment because of reduction in force on April 18, 1946. On July 24, 1946, the employee reported to the Industrial Dispensary at the Naval Air Training Base complaining of pain in his head, which he claimed was due to his injury of January 14, 1946. X-ray report and report of physical examination were essentially negative. Thereafter he was admitted to the U. S. Naval Hospital, Pensacola, Fla., with a diagnosis made August 7, 1946, after clinical examination, as follows: "Myositis, chronic." He was discharged from the hospital August 7, 1946, apparently having been admitted July 25, 1946. The employee was sent to the U. S. Public Health Service Relief and Quarantine Station, Pensacola, Fla., for a physical examination on November 19, 1946. Such examination did not disclose any disability other than slight pain on percussion over cervical spine between the scapulae and in the cervical region, with the head flexed upon the chest and rotated to left and right. The employee's physician, Dr. L. C. Fisher, states that a diagnosis was made on March 27, 1946, of "sprained back" with the advice that the employee remain away from work several days. There is no other medical information of any significance in the case record. It is the burden of the employee to establish by evidence that he is entitled to compensation and in the present case the record is devoid of any evidence of disability due to an injury sustained while in the performance of duty except for the short period during which the employee received treatments on the day of injury and thereafter. If the employee is at present disabled for work, the record does not disclose the cause of such disability. It may be inferred from the record, however, that the employee's disability may, in part, be due to chronic myositis, cervical region. The record, however, would not support a finding that such myositis was caused or aggravated by the injury sustained by the employee on January 14, 1946. The employee has sought to support his claim by statements of fellow employees, and others to the effect that these persons have known the employee prior to the date of injury and that the em 953364-51- -5 ployee had not complained about his back prior to date of injury, but that subsequent thereto he has complained thereof. Such evidence is not proof of causal relation between that disability which causes the employee to have pain in his back, and the injury which the employee sustained on January 14, 1946. The question whether the employee's present condition is due to the injury of January 14, 1946, necessarily involves proof (a) as to the precise nature of the disability from which the employee suffers, and (b) proof in the nature of medical opinion evidence sufficient establishing that the disability is causally related to the employment. In both respects the record is entirely deficient in proof, and it is necessary, therefore, to accept the decision of May 12, 1947, in substance, rejecting the claim, as proper under the evidence in the case. In the Matter of NORMAN N. PERENICK, and WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION, (U.S.M.S.T.S., SHEEPSHEAD BAY, BROOKLYN, N. Y.) Docket No. 60.-Decided October 1, 1947 Case submitted on record without hearing. OPINION The appeal in this case is from a compensation order filed by the Director, Bureau of Employees' Compensation, on May 15, 1947, in which the claim of the employee was rejected on the ground that the disability from which he is suffering was neither caused nor aggravated by injury or disease sustained or incurred while in the performance of duty, or by reason of any condition imposed upon him as a result of his service. In his appeal the appellant asserts that he was "functionally and organically" normal prior to his enrollment and that the strenuous work imposed upon him and the conditions under which he served were the direct cause of his disability. It appears from the case record that the claimant was an enrollee of the U. S. Maritime Service Training Station, War Shipping Administration, Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn, N. Y., and that he was separated from service January 12, 1945. The cause of discharge was a personality defect of long standing, marked by difficulty in adjustment to school and later training in the Maritime Service. The case record does not disclose that any injury was sustained, nor that the conditions under which the claimant served were such as to cause or aggravate a preexisting personality defect. Aside from the absence of a record showing of employment conditions from which causal relation between employment and disability might be inferred, there is no medical evidence indicating that from a medical standpoint the service of this enrollee caused or aggravated his disability. The claimant did not successfully carry the burden of proof that his disability was employment caused. The Board determines that there is no error in the compensation order filed May 15, 1947, either in respect to any fact found nor the action in relation thereto. In the Matter of IRWIN GOODMAN, and NAVY DEPARTMENT, (U. S. NAVY YARD, BOSTON, MASS.) Docket No. 56.-Hearing September 9, 1947; Appearances: Irwin Goodman, appellant; John F. Overend, Esq., for the Director, Bureau of Employees' Compensation. OPINION The application for review filed in this case is deficient in that it fails to state a proper ground for review, or to indicate the decision, determination, or other action of the Director, Bureau of Employees' Compensation, from which the appeal purportedly is taken. The Director, however, addressed his reply memorandum to the merits of the case in justification of the denial of compensation as shown by action taken upon the case on May 12, 1947. In view thereof, the Board will examine the question whether the record shows that the employee has any compensable disability. It does not appear from the case record that a final decision upon the merits of the case was actually made by the Director; however, the Director's reply treats a form letter (C.A. 225) addressed to the claimant, dated May 12, 1947, as containing his final decision. The Board will therefore cons'der the merits of the case. On October 29, 1946, the Bureau of Employees' Compensation received from the employee a Notice of Injury and Original Claim for Compensation (Form C.A. 1) in which the employee stated that on March 26, 1943, he "just doubled up" while employed at the |