In order to prevail, appellants must establish that the pre-existing physical impairment was an essential factor in causing the death (Matter of Bruton v Becho Serv. Sta., 28 A.D.2d 1038, affd 23 N.Y.2d 932; Matter of Roberts v Star Woolen Co., 283 App. Div. 1122). The board has found, as a matter of fact, that appellants failed to do so and, upon our review of this record, we believe substantial evidence supports its decision (Matter of Kronwitt v Glickman Corp., 28 A.D.2d 762). Decision affirmed, with costs to respondent Special Disability Fund against the employer and its insurance carrier. Koreman, P.J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Mahoney, JJ., concur.

"The practice of reciting salient portions of the evidence on both sides of the case seems to us a good one, which should not be discouraged; but ultimately the decision, if it is to be a decision, must state which of the alleged facts in evidence the board has accepted as true." ( Matter of Ferreri v. General Auto Driving School, 22 A.D.2d 718; Matter of Mitskevich v. Grumman Aircraft Eng. Corp., 27 A.D.2d 867, affd. 21 N.Y.2d 855; Matter of Kronwitt v. Glickman Corp., 28 A.D.2d 762; Matter of Krebbeks v. Lakeland Concrete Prods., 26 A.D.2d 856; Matter of De Tura v. Eastman Meat Markets, 3 A.D.2d 486.) In this case the recitation of testimony is followed by the decision proper, which consists of no more than the conclusory statement quoted above, with no indication whatsoever of the board's factual findings or as to which basis, of the two or more possible ones, the board rested its decision upon. Regrettably enough, the decisions hereinbefore cited seem to indicate the board's continued misapprehension, if not, indeed, its disregard of fundamental and long stated principles and the basic necessity for decisions adequate to permit intelligent judicial review.