and whether the original decision of the workers compensation commission so fine that she did not was proper via original decision from the arbitrator found that mr petty gave notice and made reference to an examination b medical treatment it was simply happenstance on march ninth two thousand an april tenth or so miss patty then files an application for adjustment of claim alleging carpal tunnel syndrome arising from her work as of that they'd she had not been seen by any doctor on march ninth two thousand once you wasn't seen by a doctor in fact she wasn't seen by any physician for her wrists until she was seen by dr david brown who's an orthopedic surgeon in st louis so the procedural history was the arbitrator of ruled initially in favor of mrs petit on the first decision and the work comp commission when looking at the facts the testimony in this pity a trial and the sequence  question effect when looking at the testimony from the trial where mistakes testified on cross examination that she didn't see any doctors between may march five should in march ninth two thousand and nine end of may five two thousand and nine  know that you had credible tunnel syndrome from your word before you saw dr brown on may five two thousand and nine because it was about three weeks after she filed replication and she replied absolutely so to be consistent the issue is first on the initial decision that the commission applied to this is the law of illinois correctly and they did and it was the commission's decision looking at these facts that proper notice was not given that's a factual determination unfortunately on the circuit court level on the first appeal   there wasn't a breakdown of the physical condition to perform the work on march ninth two thousand and nine there was no medical notice medical diagnosis on march ninth two thousand and nine it cast the net it is almost on point were cast in ada says the only thing that occurred in cast an edit employee tried to use the last day of work as the date of loss and the court in case the native said you can't do that then the only significant thing about the last day of employment in our it's not a duran situation where the employee was confused or as duran points out the employee had equivocal belief as to what if what condition of the employee head or the employee's condition worsened until the d the court in case this said you have to get a data loss as to when the employee under the bell was standard when the employee reason believe or reason a person would have known that they had a worker's compensation claim and injury and that was not the date of last even point same as here if you take miss patty at her word where she says i knew it probably a year before i left you point i knew certainly as of january of two thousand and nine that i had crippled tunnel syndrome not that i had problems in my wrists or that i had trouble sleeping the night or that i had pain she's used the word uncross in nation that's why a move could min the pleading form to add notice is a defense she testified i knew a couple tunnel syndrome the diagnosis and they also knew that it was work related presumably i think there was some insinuation that in the trial transcript of her testimony the point the relevant point though is she used that term and i'm the may five two thousand and five appoint with dr brown which is cited by ms fein a brief in by the court on the first commission decision it all i did was confirm a belief as even duran says isn't that the test isn't when the condition of the work related illness is really apparent to a reasonable physician it's when it's really apparent to the employee and there are cases where the courts have held there's a day lost before the day the diagnosis is made and here there can't be any doubt in this case that miss patty believes she had a work related condition from her employment before the diagnosis a formal diagnosis was actually made because she files for application for just of claim before she sees dr browne the first doctor who who diagnos of years without significant medical complications or loss working time may be prejudiced that the actual breakdown of the sickle structure occurs because of the time of limitations of by statute similarly an employee is also frankly just in the giving of notice the employer if your issues required to inform the employer within forty five days of a definite diagnosis of repayment of traumatic conditions and its connections of the job since it cannot be presumed that the initial condition will necessarily be generated to a point which impairs the of ois ability to perform the duties to which he or she is assigned requiring notice of a potential disability is a useless act so this is not until the employee actually becomes disabled that the employer has it that the condition waxed and waned in her belief was equivocal and enduring and the condition continued to deteriorate and she continued to work that's not the facts in this case in this case there is no ten there is no evidence that the condition deteriorated and therefore she quit working if work because i couldn't do the work anymore i would have a much weaker argument but nothing occurs then other than the layoff date and i think my position is consistent with the rand because on the facts of duran says you have to leave you still look at the saying the date then the pulley leaves work for reasons unrelated to the claim reasons unrelated to the medical diagnosis the ability to work or any knowledge employee has that can be a data loss  it would make it would make a quagmire a jungle of how to determine dates of loss and repair the trauma cases and that's important for both parties to know there has to be some guide rules or has to be some some traffic signals as to how we what about the causation you also had a problem with it it is an easy to address and brief but briefly there's two there's two competing male opinions one is you have dr david brown who when he first saw the employee as an please the court oh good morning as you've heard the question today is identifying the manifestation date according to commission decision one as has been questioned the question is whether this complies with or is consistent with iran and i think mr decision to is well the circuit court decision is completely consistent with duran primarily because if you take a look at a commission decision one they're focusing exclusively on when lisa or believed she had a condition without taking into account the second prong of that of the rand which says you also have to have an injury and what this defined as an injury so publication for multi states we use that all the time it's called the last exposure it's called of the date of last injurious exposure lots of states use it doesn't create a quagmire in fact just the opposite it is an objective date it's a date that you can point to unlike being able to point to the d g botch or believe she had an injury that stick by fire even the commission said it's sunday january they couldn't even give a date and the interesting part is if they had said well january fifteenth two thousand nine was it well that's only because he had asked the date of january of two thousand and nine if i alleged a date of january fifteenth two thousand and nine they would have asked her on cross examination your thought or believed it was january fourteenth two thousand and nine when she would have had to say well employer and says i think i have carpal tunnel will you send me to a doctor that's the way it's supposed to work alternatively it's with the date that we when they say no we sent her to another doctor could i have amended to include the date of  carpal tunnel cage that you file before the manifestation day because in our world what we're saying is human to rand said it's an awareness of a potential disability so she's trying to give notice to her employer as soon as she thinks she's got a work related condition not saying it was that the doctor came back and said it's rheumatoid arthritis it's diabetes it would have been dismissed but she's trying to do is give notice and what we try to do was to give notice to the employer at the first available date that would have been that traffic sign post he also testified that she didn't want to take time off work to be with the doctor and have treatment and then once she was let go she had time to do that and there are to the evidence yes that is correct that she was saying she was who says i think i have carpal tunnel the problem i've got with that is i want to do that same thing mr green says i need that objective definitive signpost  then but then the other issue would have been if i didn't file the application how could i have then done the the other things such as requesting pre medical treatment of the employer which was a person she did she filed notice and requested that they provide her treat treatment before we did anything and so isn't that the purpose of the work compact for her to go to the employer and say i think i have carpal tunnel will you provide me with medical treatment long before i send her to my doctor and if asked that's what we're looking to do here then there was no other date that i could use asides the last state that she worked because she had been diagnosed and wouldn't be diagnosed for months after and so that's why i'm stuck in a quagmire that i'm trying to figure out what beat do i possibly use i don't want to use january because that's an amorphous date it's a day i don't even know when she would have said if i asked her when he first think you knew about this well if she said november december well then i'm out of time with notice but that's different from what guideposts we're looking for them to be that the person was first diagnosed that's an easy one but if they've already been diagnosed they don't think it's work related and they don't consider work related to later that's a second guidepost asker meyer actually talked about the last person works and use that is to date the last state that they were employed there so there are other cases that focus on the last state of employment but because of the fact as just to sort of point out she hadn't yet said you know i can't work and she was laid off before she could actually go to the doctor to determine what the diagnosis was she could have anywhere along the way which would have simplified everyone's world here today but she did and so when she came to me i had to identify an objective and i think the last state that she was exposed to the activities because look at it this way if she went to a different employer and started doing hand intensive activities we would be focusing on how long she was working for that new employer and the date of employment would have become very relevant to all of station date on something like well no you can't if there is no other objective data base i would say that it can be one of the objective time or the objective factors that can be looked at because the courts have said we're looking for objective point factors here but we want to be flexible so if we have no other fear if we don't have a date of diagnosis we don't have to keep a disability we don't have any of those other factors why not use this one it certainly makes sense because what we're looking at is has the condition caused it and to what extent and when did it stop think of it this way if it's i'm sorry ok absent that you say back in this worker support march ni yes because of the fact that she had the belief of a potential disability she provided notice for her employer try to provide treatment that could be a reasonable objective date not the most ideal i would agree with you but certainly and after year one they have some mild symptoms but don't tell anyone well that's really not the date then were burglars so what they believe because there's no injury no no diagnosis you could be to date to now they're having some symptoms but still no treatment if they're laid off shortly thereafter isn't the real question after their diagnosis let's say three months down the road has the condition of that tear progressed what was the tear really present there at the time they left well that's kind of what we're talking about here at the time she left did she have purple tunnel because really that's what they when you look at the public policy whenever they're reading all that when you're reading all the pieces they're saying we're really trying to say is employer if you're the one that was really the cause of all of this let's not nit she worked she testified she was having symptoms and the symptoms had progressed from january to march why not you said it's an objective but just it's better than saying when do you believe so this is some sort of london you're asking us to sort of  so what i was simply asking is that by the time that it gets to to the second commission decision they modified the permanent partial board it's a manifest we decision i don't know that i could ever argue that they're not the modification of their numbers but i have any evidence to support i get something that should be looked at but decided that it's not my burden to establish the loss and on the regional commission decision the reason why they didn't say a specific day loss i believe is from the testimony of miss hitty who who says at trial i knew i had trouble tunnel syndrome i knew his work related i absolutely knew that before i saw dr brown and so the commission says based on that testimony from trial because that was a trial testimony dialis added from her that's why the commission said we're going to save the day losses sometime in january of two thousand and nine and since the application wasn't filed until april ten or so two thousand and nine and she agreed on trial testimony that she didn't tell how thinking it can't notice at that time of the method station that the manifestation if the employee is claiming another data loss but under what the white decision your honor you can have the white case did so you can have a manifestation day after the well my question is can you have a manifestation date after the filing of the application for just one point i don't think you can it doesn't make any sense well i know this may be sad but the fact of the matter is you got a woman with carpal tunnel and you've got causation she did a reasonable person would not be of the opinion that their injury would work related or she should have been filing the application for adjustment one i think that's exactly right but but but then you have to look at the facts  employee actually come about with this information and i think that's what commission did here because of this factual scenario where she files the application practice that for the record i find no difference between what she did in january when she said she suspected all the way up to me when the doctor told you she had carpal tunnel there's no evidence in this record of any increase symptoms that caused her to seek medical treatment or that she should have medical treatment didn't al think there is any difference and that's why the commission came up with the january of two thousand and one they lost because even under duran duran was saying these are our events which can establish  please call the next day