The opinion
MR. JUSTICE ANGSTMAN:
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I agree that if a disease is aggravated or accelerated by an injury sustained by an industrial accident the case is one justifying an award of compensation as held in the majority opinion. The difficulty here, as I see it, is to trace the present disability of claimant to the injury sustained in 1948. The opinion of the doctors testifying for claimant leaves the matter in doubt or at least fails to sustain the burden of proof resting upon him that any disability he now has was traceable to or produced by the injury of December 1948, rather than to the disease which he has suffered for many years.
Dr. Schiewe sums up the views of the medical witnesses as follows: “I would say that injury has very little to do with the present disability.” As is shown by the testimony of Dr. Schiewe quoted in the majority opinion the strongest he would go was to say that “possibly” a fall in 1948 might have aggravated or lighted up a pre-existing condition of Parkinson’s disease.
There are distinguishing features between this case and the case of Moffett v. Bozeman Canning Co., 95 Mont. 347 , 26 Pac. (2d) 973 . There it was sought to show that an injury caused the Parkinson’s disease. Here it is merely sought to show that the disease was aggravated by the injury.
On this record the board and the court were justified in holding that there was no evidence, direct or circumstantial, show *407 ing- that claimant’s present disability is dne to the injuries of 1948, as distinguished from the disease. Since there was proof that the injury possibly could have accelerated the disease, it is reasonably likely that evidence might be obtained to show such to be the fact. Instead of affirming the judgment, I would remand the ease to the lower court for the taking of further evidence on the question above mentioned under the powers granted us under R. C. M. 1947, section 93-216.