The issue of the defendant's liability was previously ascertained. See Jensen v. Elgin, J. E. Ry. Co., 15 Ill. App.2d 559, 147 N.E.2d 204. An earlier judgment for $50,000 was reversed and the cause remanded for a new determination of the amount of damages.

A question which arose at the trial below and which may arise on another trial of the damage question is whether the testimony of Dr. Spiegel was admissible. A detailed description of Dr. Spiegel's testimony is set out in Jensen v. Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Co. 15 Ill. App.2d 559. Jensen injured his back on Thursday, July 29, 1954. He immediately reported the injury to his superior and went to the company hospital where a doctor examined him, taped his back and gave him pills to relieve his pain.

To support its contention that the medical testimony of Drs. Schoedinger and Lam was improperly admitted, the defendant relies solely on Jensen v. Elgin, Joliet Eastern Ry. Co., 24 Ill.2d 383, 182 N.E.2d 211. The situation in Jensen, however, is not controlling of that in the present case. A more detailed exposition of the testimony of the questioned physician in that case is set out in Jensen v. Elgin, Joliet Eastern Ry. Co., 15 Ill. App.2d 559, 147 N.E.2d 204. In Jensen, the Illinois Supreme Court considered the subjective nature of the symptoms related to the doctor and the failure of the doctor to utilize x-rays, a myelogram or a discogram ( 24 Ill.2d 383, 388).

[1] Our courts have held that there should be no recovery where there has been a failure to prove a causal connection between the injury and the event at issue. Jensen v. Elgin, J. E. Ry. Co., 15 Ill. App.2d 559, 147 N.E.2d 204, 210; Allison v. Chicago Transit Authority, 336 Ill. App. 224, 83 N.E.2d 386. [2] Plaintiff undertakes to establish such causal connection by or through opinions expressed by Dr. Scott and Dr. Bonnett.

In Bowman v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 11 Ill.2d 186, 142 N.E.2d 104, the court held that an Illinois reviewing court has no right to reweigh conflicting evidence and remand an F.E.L.A. case because it finds the jury verdict to be against the weight of the evidence. In Jensen v. Elgin, J. E. Ry. Co., 15 Ill. App.2d 559, 147 N.E.2d 204, the court, on rehearing, held that in F.E.L.A. cases the court does not have the right that the finding of the jury on damages is against the manifest weight of the evidence. It is also so held in Coleman v. Gulf, M. O.R. Co., 17 Ill. App.2d 220, 149 N.E.2d 656 and in Pennell v. Baltimore O.R. Co., 13 Ill. App.2d 433, 142 N.E.2d 497.

The fundamental basis of a right to recover must necessarily be a showing of a causal connection, ascertainable from the evidence and the record, or circumstances which clearly establish such connection, before a recovery can be sustained. Under the facts and circumstances on the record before us, we cannot say that there was positive proof of actionable negligence as the proximate cause of the injuries suffered by plaintiff (Withey v. Illinois Power Co., supra; Deming v. Hallberg, 221 Ill. App. 180; Jensen v. Elgin, J. E. Ry. Co., 15 Ill. App.2d 559, 147 N.E.2d 204). In the latter case cited, the plaintiff had, likewise, maintained an action under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, to recover damages for a ruptured intervertebral disc which he received as the result of defendant's negligence in maintaining a defective switch.

We find ample evidentiary basis for the implied finding by the jury that the injuries claimed were in fact suffered as a result of the collision. Smith v. Illinois Valley Ice Cream Co., 20 Ill. App.2d 312, 322, 156 N.E.2d 361. The defendant relies upon the authority of Jensen v. Elgin, J. E.R. Co., 15 Ill. App.2d 559, 147 N.E.2d 204. In that case, plaintiff's judgment was reversed and the case remanded because the verdict was found excessive.

[7] This court can see no merit in the contention of the defendant that the testimony of Dr. Diller should have been stricken. The facts in the case of Jensen v. Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Ry. Co. 15 Ill. App.2d 559, 147 N.E.2d 204, are dissimilar. In that case the diagnosis of a ruptured intervertebral disc or a herniated posterior longitudinal ligament was vague and uncertain.