issue of notice we had a question of law that we wanted to put forth to this court which was basically only use the notice that is used for repetitive pramod cases and an accident involving a traumatic injury with an actual and time place and we had to bring this issue to your attention because the commission in this case used the manifest weight or not manifest weight that that's our standard of review sorry about he gets out of his truck he killed pain coming down the steps but his his major problem was he got out of the truck he went down to release the fifth wheel him and when he pulled it he had an electric shock shoot through his neck down his arms to where he forty five days it was sixty seven days he originally stated out the hearing but he gave notice to gail starr a month after the accident and that was brought out on direct examination and then on cross examination they went that it was not fatal to the petitioners case because he became aware of the connection of his then current conviction of dition building and his injury in september which which is not correct at the end in any event and then reported it hey mr colbert had chest pains at work he went to the e r on august twenty sixth twenty eight something like that went back to work on september first and exhaust testified that notified him that he had this problem thought it might be cancer and they eventually do a biopsy on mr colbert and they discover that he has histoplasmosis and that in october october fourth his attorney then writes a letter to the employer on november eight would have known that he had his job as moses before october fourth which is when they did the biopsy so we can't hold the employee to a standard that he can't ever meet and so my hearing loss cases is the dramatic injury case there's massive if you fail your point right well as far as we're concerned if you have a an actual date time place that's exactly what's required for it to magic injury and that's why we created the manifestation bait for repetitive trauma because there was no actual time place you never know which time you moved that which it was the one that got your arm out of whack and so we have two distinct standards but what we're asking this court and i said the only place that i could find where it had even been allowed was in tolbert but told her we were dealing with the disease which i can't understand why i wasn't brought into the v a in the first place but even based on those facts even if his injury date was his last day of work which was august twenty sixth the day he had the symptoms he told his boss he had a problem on september first so now we're dealing with it most effective notice and it goes back to the well was the employer prejudice by this or if you change it to the day he finally finds out what his actual condition is you know that we still are still within the forty five days that it in this case he clearly had a traumatic accident but there's no question about that and it's very difficult to believe that he wouldn't have known that it involved his cervical condition given the fact that he'd already had cervical conditions previously and been told you know in two thousand and five hey you might want to look for a different employment because you know you could exacerbate this and we've ended that here disagree on the actual was there notice or not both found that notice was given on october nineteenth and calendar is simply sixty seven days that we have asked this court to vacate the commission's finding that there was notice that was  case and also provide some illustration or eliminate the issue as to whether we're going to start using a manifestation weight date for traumatic playing field i think we would really be diminishing any power left in the no statute if that's what we're going to do the other issue that i wanted to address very briefly was the issue of jurisdiction and the reason that becomes an issue is and again it's a man of the evidence standard so i get that we're going to appeal here so if you just kind of following up the hill in this case they basically they looked at two pieces of testimony one thing mr welker who was  really hung up on well why would they do this why are you there's nothing in the record that says why they would do it all think clearly didn't delve into the record very deeply because there are protests and the protest took place in missouri protesters and the record showing it went from kerry hill to mcbride missouri and that is where the terminal is so if you're going to have employees take the road test you're going to go where the truck is and then why would you go and and these include the military work on saddle meant along with two prior claims that were filed in missouri and on both of those reports of injury there's a little box off to the right hand side about halfway down it's  missouri and those accidents involve injuries that were in indiana and in pennsylvania and the missouri statute is is similar enough to illinois where you have three bases it's where you primarily work it's where the contract was formed or it's where you were injured and he wasn't injured in missouri in either of those two and and and the law with over the road tuckers is basically the same there as it is here which is there is no fixed place of employment because you're an on the road truckers which by definition would not have a principal place of employment meaning the contract had to be completed in missouri and in both of those cases that was a nonevent non issue showing that his place of higher was in missouri and it's only now that this is certainly an issue so we would was seen on the m r i in two thousand and five was the same as what we see on the m r i on the x ninety thousand and the only other issue to consider with that is the fact that dr real believed that mr burns injury was incurred because he fell back after he pulled the pin and that's who they gave the right way to with with that opinion so again i know that's an uphill battle but pretty much all we can do it with because nation and that standard but unless you have any questions to refute that to say what happened next he says quote that client actually went back into the truck never noticed anything was wrong it was on a friday i went home i didn't notice anything until sunday so so when your honor said well of the commencement of the forty five he drew absolutely not i agree with you but here's the problem that requires that you appreciate that that event resulted in the ok there must be notice to the employer within forty five d s of the event did he report with forty five days of the event well the that's one of the questions when did he know of course  because they're one not qualified to this isn't a situation where his symptoms continue and you would say i have to parse i have to disagree with her because tell me if my understanding of this record wrong he testified that we get it wrong you didn't send patients problem and i would suppose if there were cases council also would have a problem where she could pull out cases and empower me to death with them but the reality is i have to rely on who the experts are which is the commission the commission understood the commonsense application here this is a gentleman who could not possibly have known that prying down on something would cause his left back of his and then he goes his doctor in the moment tells his doctor the doctor says well you know it could be from when you were doing that activity so he tells the employer and the commission correctly noted that the report filed by the said well the last the last element necessary for employment is where the last act occurred and we say that happened in chester illinois and they say no that happened over in missouri and they brought mr welker who by the way didn't hire the fight the whole time that was from the very beginning which jurisdiction which is the biggest fight in the group you know just became notice it just became no sense and we already knew it was no sex wiring had this right to go i mean it's the bottom line that shock and the justification i'm at work yeah he thought he got shot but then you found no wires he's found a loose wire so he didn't know if he got shocked or not he didn't know what happened and that's the problem here they suppose he knew c was under there and he fel something and what a way so he thought nothing of it came back by your own admission and by my own admission he came back i can't change facts i wish i could i wish i could tell my client save this and so it'll somehow suppose that you have more knowledge than a person who's a truck driver ought to have about the fact that the neck might make the hand go no i just think that it's remarkably unfair burden to put on someone in all of the respects i think the commission understood exactly what was going on here this is this especially if they pick a doctor like dr green who uses dr who and then they say we know we're not to listen to doc they bring in a gentleman there's no information in the court even kind of confess that yeah that's a red herring the whole nine when you weigh all this out you've got a gentleman sir who clearly was doing what he said he was doing no one's ever questions could ever and he he says i don't know what happened didn't think much of it i kept doing my job i talked to my doctor she says you know that might cause it he tells them and that's where they want to kill the case is that the purpose of the contact sure it's a supreme court rules three forty one  twenty one nothing yet absolutely zero this accident that's causing my prof well for my from my review of the record that the petitioner testified that it absolutely absolutely no issues from two thousand and six when he was released back to work with the fifty pound weight restriction up until the time that he get out of this tract and on a pin wheel and and has this incredible shock of pain i mean it wasn't yeah it hurt a little bit after i did this i mean he testified that went away till sunday and and if i can and i apologize because all i have is the commission record here your honour's but in the employer's exhibits there is a copy of the transcript of the conversation between a need of corinne and mr b his description of his symptoms it wasn't like he just had a cold thumb on sunday and it was all on at some point if nothing else happened to this man except pulling a fifth wheel pym and all of a sudden we're having all sorts of issues all give you that he may not have known it was neck now i think he may have because he had problems with his neck before but whatever it is it really doesn't make a difference if all of a sudden if i if i'm at work and i'm doing something related to my job i have something strange happened to me and it hurts really bad and two days later i start having pains that i haven't had before and nothing else has happened in my life except for x and somewhere in the back of my mind x becomes a potential cause now it may not be i mean very well the question could like this and said you know what this isn't even a workout but but but that's not so much the point as you just give notice of the accident the statute doesn't require the petitioner to report causation they just think give your employer some notice of the accident and have you done that even if it was you know hey i was pulling my fifth wheel off and this pin and it was really bad i got a lot of pain out of it don't know if there's anything going to come out of it or not just want to let you know i had this issue that's all he had to do he didn't have to say i have cervical stenosis so it's our position that the statute requires notice on an accident and he didn't know he had an accident the fact that he didn't link up is is you know that's just how it ended up this way and i just wanted to correct one thing there was a statement made that mr wilder was not part of the interview process as well and again i apologize for citing to the commission record and not to yours up on appeal on twenty on page twenty one mr dunn testified that the orientation was done at chester illinois down in the basement and mr wilder was the one that gave