on its own motion then amended the application for adjustment of claims to an accident date of march seventh two thousand and three almost three four years prior to the date of accident the commission then found the precluded from changing the manifestation of the courts would you have to know it can't it clearly can conform to the evidence that's presented i'm saying that in this circumstance that commission case misapplying to breman and if you look at freeman which requires there to be the same injury for an amendment that the commission is incorrect the commission decision here is based upon an assumption that all work at caterpillar presents the identical risk of injury to the left thumb this is something that is not supported by the evidence in the record the evidence clearly establishes that the can petitioners job duties changed over his years of has all of his trial testimony he described that job and each step in that process in great detail on march seventh two thousand and three he has a single appointment with dr rogan camp and he wants to get physician dad he ran a five machine complex which we can it is soon might be the larkins medium spindle cell but there's nothing in the record to indicate that those are the same job position petitioner also tells dr show walter that his left thumb complaints began when he was working as a lathe in gear shaver there is no indication in the record at what period of time he worked in that position  it had to have been sometime prior to two thousand and three possibly even before two thousand of trauma and i feel a little bit like i'm in harry potter and that you can just invoke the word repetitive trauma and it has some kind of magical property and employee who suffers repetitive trauma however bears the same burden of proof than an employee who suffers a specific trauma and this is from the jury and that employee cast to show that his injury arises not if he's employment arising out of indicates that the origin of his injury must be testified that not every job presents a risk of injury and dr freebird specifically said to evaluate whether or not a risk of injury was present he would evaluate certain risk factors those risk factors include the repetition the forced used from performing and then he says because he has an overuse injury it must have happened at work without knowing any of the details of exactly what petitioner did i make you look at dr freebirds testimony he says that i will leave the petitioner weren't dissembling pipes or injury if they believed that that was the case or they wouldn't have had any need to amend it he had one cation back to march seventh of two thousand and three i think responded did a very good job of showing through that testimony  developing arthritis i mean he has activities of daily living the record also shows he played guitar that's an activity of daily living was his work any different than the other pivoting it's very unclear from this record   to amend an application to confront your proofs petitioner must show that the injury arises does not arise out of a wholly different injury and this is  injury because they are two separate ones in freeman when that courtroom and the application if you had a petitioner who clearly on the record was performing the event to go a duty and the commission said that it was proper to amend it proves to go back to the original date of seeing the outside doctor the petitioner had initially chosen the data surgery for his accident date this is not the case here because there were different duties or it's very unclear what he's d that walk around the half of the petitioner richard to task this case mirrors the case of the freeman united colt repressions worker's compensation or the industrial commission in the case of freeman the injured worker suffered a repetitive trauma injury to his upper extremities based upon the fact that he was required to use a wrench in an awkward position the application for just the claim in that case originally alleged accident date august twenty fifth of one nine very end that in our case your honor yes correct doctor show last year indicated that based upon what the petitioner told him during the section twelve evaluation that the job description which he wrote down in his report was a competent cause for the injury suffered by the connection giving causal connection to the march third two thousand and three incident and was essentially clinical about the july i'm sorry the two thousand and six injury but did say that the job duties of the petitioner in two thousand and six did not engineering counsel talked about lake state engineering in that there were two discrete acute injuries in that case the first was an injury that occurred at navy pier during a lifting episode a second injury occurred later during lift in indiana in the case of lake contention that more looked more closely mirrors mclean trucking as opposed to the lake state case because in our case all the petitioners job titles and the machines that he works changed throughout his thirty years at caterpillar the cause for the problem in the first the record is clear also that mr thomson did not have any problems with his left thumb prior to march third of two thousand and three that's contained in the march seventh two thousand and three note offered by the caterpillar physician dr rowan camp in that same note the plant physician and loosen bolts on fixtures heavy gripping wall changing tooling and in addition to that note by the company position there was also in the in the record an employee incident report filled out by the petitioner on march seventh two thousand and three that no to supports our contention in the commission's decision that this was a continuous injury and not to isolated injuries as caterpillar would have you believe and as was put forth in the lake state engineering case petitioner's treatment for surgeon dr free testified that the older guys a caterpillar and i think mr pitofsky based upon his testimony years caterpillar will meet that description turn to work through pain and that's exactly what this petition did you continue to work in pain for three years and the courts have stated restated that the petitioner or an injured worker will not be penalized for continuing to work through pain in the course of also been very clear especially in peoria bellwood that the purpose of the act is that the burdens of caring for the casualties of industry be borne by that industry and not the employees of the public i believe there is little doubt when the commission agrees that there was evidence they do stood trial that treatment for another seventeen months so i'm not certain that that represents working through the pain secondly dr show will occur indicates that petitioners left them complaints began while he was indicating they had were dealing with the one we repaired it activity this is not a case where there is clear evidence in the record that over a long period of time to petition or perform substantially the same duties we have a right handed petitioner who might have been using a ratchet when he was in the spindle in gear shaver but there is no indication that he was using his left hand to perform that task we don't know how any of these machines were operated with a push button machines where they operated by foot pedal like the two bending machines were again it's unclear in the record i'd also like to distinguish mclain trucking in they had case that the fish were moved to amend the application date and there was no objection by the responded clearly different in this case this case is similar to lake state engineering to show that there was a risk of injury greater than that to which the general public is exposed the petitioner must present evidence of doubt risk of injury here petitioner only showed that he worked for caterpillar during those trying her hits there is nothing on the record to indicate that that work presented a risk to his left thumb thank you