The opinion
MR. JUSTICE ANDERSON:
(specially concurring).
The rules regarding this cause were announced and formulated in the case of Moffett v. Bozeman Canning Co., 95 Mont. 347 , 26 Pac. (2d) 973, 977 . There the court said: “The record contains no direct evidence from which it can be said that the injury was the proximate cause of claimant’s present condition ; this, not because of failure on the part of claimant properly to present his case, but because, on the frank admission of the doctors, no man on earth knows positively the exact cause of such an affliction [Parkinson’s disease] in any given case; medical science has not advanced to a point where it can posi *406 tively trace back from the effect and declare the cause of the disease in a given patient.”
Here the disease was present but the aggravation from the accident was great, declared the claimant. How can medical science be any more positive about aggravation than it can of cause and effect.
The Moffett Case and this case are somewhat distinguishable; however, the differences, as I understand them, are that of degree alone.
I agree that the cause should be reversed.