are whether or not i'm against the manifest weight of the evidence for the commission to fail the fight because connection between mr pratt's right middle finger finger and bilateral cup final syndrome couple of issues dependent on those evidence under the international harvester pace in light of cases cited there is an injury brought about by treatment of another work related injury hence it's not a second it's a specific accident rather than for me treatment of the ring finger and trigger finger the ballot in the middle finger is doctor again unfortunately it is couched in terms of could have died because there is no other evidence in the record that addresses this the commission's decision isn't that the opposite it was your honor and i think this case is it is a little different because of the fact that the only medical evidence that was related to treatment i'm broke and i were citing international harvester for a proposition of wa if there are factual differences between these two cases and the outcome was the opposite of this case i still believe that proposition of fox does help us well on the right hand because that is the only i don't know about but he did not issue an opinion or give any testimony that he ever told mr pratt that his right middle finger condition was unrelated to his work or more importantly it was unrelated to the this was very intensive a lot of p r whether they got thirty eight hurt my house out of the country but if you look at the testimony of mr wright it's clear that he doesn't care for that entire property the amount of breaking and things that he does he only does it not have issued an opinion as to the last time dr caplan if you read his deposition testimony only knew about carpal tunnel on the right side therefore he could not have told mr pratt i don't believe your life carpal tunnel is related to your work he didn't know it existed will rely in my brief on that issue and i'd offer no argument le he did not have any problems with either of his hands or the right little thing and remember that we're talking about four conditions both hands the right length finger and the right middle thing we've accepted responsibility for the right wing for doing the commission february two thousand and five the fusion treats him from february of two thousand and five until sometime in may of two thousand and during that period of time he performed the surgery on the right ring from what the finger w responsible for but during that entire period of time between february of two thousand and five and may of two thousand and five when the fishy treated him he did more with the she didn't because of the bad august eighth of two thousand and five that this gentleman may just first complained of his right middle thing with regard to the renter then after the surgery in june of two thousand through september nineteenth two thousand and five we've accepted that responsibility all over cotland said that because this man didn't make his first complaint about the right middle finger responsible for what happens as a result of an injury one part of the body then customs the company i think there might be in the event that this man had been working at the time that there was a onset but we're not talking about that situation we're talking about a man that had been off work from february at least at least as of february two thousand and five and told first complaint in august of two thousand and and was not back to work until some time after august the twenty ninth two thousand he then proceeds to work from for a five month period from august the twenty ninth of two thousand and five until february the twenty third of two thousand and six february the twenty third of two thousand and six he was laid off and he never worked for this company again some time after that and then starts complaining about both hands and you know for some reason consuls chose to pick a second accident paid of in two thousand and seven which the commission's rules you know they didn't prove and i'm still on but again if if if there's no accident in two thousand  which is then ruling on ns and that issue is not before the court today then we go back to the other option in october of two thousand and three and what they're asking you to do is to somehow fashion an accidental injury that resulted in bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome that occurred in two thousand and three for which there were no complaints until sometime in two thousand and six or two thousand so what about a more subtle argument that maybe all of you know that's true because when he left in to the data back in the two thousand and three for which he's alleging that there was an onset of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome by his own testimony as prior to his first visit with  his own testimony from february two thousand until he was released to return to work in august of two thousand and five and after that point there was only a five month gap where he didn't work and so we seem to be