commission's decision to be commission stated that repetitive trauma a claim has to manifest itself on the specific work date that it's causally related to work i think the court knows the  lack of a description of his work activities in the medical records choir to share the power visit with dr brian russell in february of two thousand and twelve when he can testify based upon facts which are not in evidence but which they released that we were white and that's what dr russell did but the mission also neglected to point out that dr russell came to that conclusion based on his own conversations with the apple and that was completely disregarded by them but you know that now the other thing they said was they noted a couple of times that dr russell said there was no way of knowing whether his job duties or everyday living use more of a factor  aggravate does it make any difference whether the job duties are more of a factor than aggravating his condition as long as they are a factor correct that it's right that you don't you do not have to exclude every other possibility opinion about aggravation that's what the opinion he did give was he never said in my opinion this was not caused by work to us he said i can't say with any reason that we have medical certainty that it was was right causation if you look at the evidence of this case this is really a case of two different stories the first story being the story presented in the medical records which is the story that the worker's compensation commission relied on and the story that is totally contradictory to that story which is the story that was testified to at hearing and by the petitioners doctor if you look at the medical records no way no where in the medical history in any of the records would you find any complaints and when the petitioner saying that he has the experience some sort of aggravation of his conditions because of his job duties it just does not exist in the records he began treating in december of two thousand and eleven and for the first two months his history was consistent him and him saying that i just woke up with this pain i've been having problems falling asleep at night this man is saying i'm lifting people at work and as a result i'm having problems he doesn't say that in the records and that is what the commission did relied on in showing that there was no accident if you look at this case there are actually three applications that were filed the first application is for december ten is the medical records don't support it they don't support his history at all and the only reference to anything work related in the histories noted by the doctors this is a february twenty ninth two thousand and twelve note by dr russell in which dr russell noted he originally thought he pulled his shoulder at work and didn't think much of it but now he has gone on he has been advised to turn it into a he presented to dr far and he only presented a specific dramatic event and that's evidence by the first application that was filed the december two thousand and twelve application as i stated this is a case in which they're trying to throw out a part of the reason recovery and trying to hope one of them will stay where stop the fire went through all of the records and there's no those no indication in the records that any sort of repetitive job duties could have caused this this injury because it's not noted and i think that's the biggest thing in terms of the commission looking at dr russell i've asked the court if they would really believe dr russell's opinion when he actually filled out a short term disability form for the petitioner saying that it wasn't a work related accident so i don't believe that the medical evidence supports stuck to russell's discredited his opinion because it was based on that question what do you when you think about that is that a proper basis to say you know well we're not going to give it as much weight because it was based on hypothetical i mean before wilson versus stated what his job duties were and how often he did this job and i mean isn't the question whether or not the evidence in the record supports what's in the hypothetical exactly a but decided not to adopt dr russell's testimony they decided not to adopt the petition is testimony which is contradictory to the medical records and much of dr russell's testimony which is contradictory to the medical records and contradictory to his own form it's either dr russell is committing fraud when saying that this person did not have a work injury bice by filling out a short term disability form let me ask you a question was that did that was that short term disability form did it come before the date on which he noted in his records that titian or says this is a worker's comp claim i believe it was trial and what's in the evidence in the records and i believe the commission showed didn't prove that the records were more consistent they were more credible than testimony offered up the fact two or three years case were sitting necessary true if you were called dr russell was concerned that the treatment beach take place first and that is the context in which he made a statement about turning he said were happy was