Under numerous decisions of this court, an award of the Workmen's Compensation Board will not be disturbed where there is any evidence to support it. Here, there is no evidence to the contrary and the award is affirmed.

In this Workmen's Compensation case, claimant was injured on the job on July 5, 1960. On July 19, 1960, claimant, his employers and their insurance company entered into an "Agreement As To Compensation" providing for total disability for an "undetermined" period. Claimant began drawing the maximum compensation of $30 a week. On October 26, 1961, when claimant applied for a hearing through his attorney, pursuant to Rule 17 of the Board, compensation to the claimant was discontinued.

At the hearing before the single director, claimant attempted to show that he was "under the influence" when the original agreement was signed. The director refused to hear evidence of fraud and the claimant rested. The claimant was told by the director: "You asked for hearing to determine disability and eligibility and amount of compensation for injuries received. The employer, under the rules of the Board, stopped compensation to the claimant until the questions were adjudicated. This morning it has not been shown in any manner that the claimant is still disabled, that he has not returned to work, or anything that would allow me to reinstate the compensation, and unless the claimant's attorney shows those questions, he is going to deprive the claimant of his compensation, which it appears that he [may be] rightfully entitled to. Now, I want the record to show that because if there is an appeal, I want the appeal to show that the claimant's position is being prejudiced this morning. I am bound by the law just like you are bound by the law. I am bound by the rules of the Board as set out, and I see no violation of the rules up until now, but if your claimant is totally disabled, he's surely better show it before you leave here." The insurance company requested further time for medical depositions.

The deposition of Dr. William E. Schatten, plastic surgeon, showed that the claimant was injured on the inner side of his left leg by a chain saw. The physician described the operative procedure used and stated that the claimant could have returned to work on November 25, 1960, even though the injury had not completely, though substantially, healed, and that the slowness in healing was due to claimant's failure to follow the physician's directions. Claimant testified that he was unable to follow the directions.

Claimant offered no medical testimony.