with you the only reason that there is a mention of of a commission decision my brief or snacks or any kind of presidential value but simply just illustrate a point i know that that's not binding on the court in any way  thousand and four with dr city again reporting that she was having problems and both wrists and then she related that point in time to working so she files or a report of her employer saying she's having problems that she relates to working she tells her doctor she's having problems related to working in two thousand and four in two thousand and six she goes back and sees dr going to lead us again complaining at that time only if they're left arrest and again at trial denies that these things happened and then there's also reference in the medical records to her relating to her problems beginning maybe as early as two thousand and two when she goes to see  so either she's not telling the truth that trial or all of these prior records are false but either way you've got a less than credible situation where i think that the claimants been impeached second is is there an injury in two thousand and four and one in two thousand and seven or than the third solution is what the commission found that there was only an injury in two thousand and seven is my position that there was no injury at any time if you could look at the object if not all of it but her testimony is so grossly inconsistent with either of those three scenarios that first of all it impeaches her credibility all together on actually began to impair her ability of the world when she was formally diagnosed with carpal tunnel isn't that part of the mix here in the making this determination do we simply say well it looks like she's being disingenuous she sort of she had it so nothing else matters is that how we decide the case when she was the one that took the initiative and filed the claim stating that she believed she had carpal tunnel may have to believe me him right well that is a big question though that may have because throughout all of these years she underwent forty m g studies three of which are in the record all of them are negative she sees four or five different physicians at different facilities throughout all these years always consistently complaining of the same symptoms and relating it to her work yet only one of them dr mance found that these symptoms were carpal tunnel syndrome all of the other doctors looked at the evidence looked at the m g and said no you don't have carpal tunnel maybe you have and that i just may be the apple but we don't conclude carpal tunnel man most of all of these doctors is the only one who's in the dark about her prior history he's the only one who has no reference in his records her specific duties are and in fact the theory passing reference he makes saying that she uses her left hand the majority of time at her work was contradicted by her she said she only used her left hand to scan groceries and that by hook count was about twenty to twenty five percent of her job by the respondents job description it was ten to fifteen percent of the job but either way seventy five percent of the eighty five percent of her job was doing other things that with her left hand she's a right handed person so if we're focusing on the phrase carpal tunnel syndrome i think that this is a red herring in this case because i don't believe she has carpal tunnel i don't think she's established that she has  tunnel syndrome all she's established is that she had some symptoms in her wrist that she began complaining about back in two thousand and four and so far of all the doctors that she's seen the vast majority have found know it could be some conflicting medical evidence but at the end of the day isn't that was in the province of the commission which medical testimony and evidence that wish to believe there is one of the will as i fully agree with the rule those states that the commission is supposed to draw a reasonable inferences from credible evidence ok and in this case without even weighing the evidence to be given away you have been overwhelming position where all of these doctors are in line except for one guy you have all the objective evidence in the form of the e m t in line with the other doctors not with this one doctor and you have the one doctor who's going out on a limb who clearly doesn't have an apprehension of what type of work this person does or what her past medical history is he doesn't testify any elaborate and tell us that he after reasonable consideration these things into a kind of took anything into account to reach this decision all we have is it is a very brief office notes where we don't even know what was going through his money and gives us legally speaking can a claim  us coming in and saying i am the only expert here and this is my opinion therefore i'm buying anything else you better go with my opinion but he doesn't have to be the only ones but doesn't know but he has to have what what's going on in this case basically is that a doctor can basically say whatever he wants and if if he says this is related in spite of the fact that you have ten or eleven pieces of evidence all to the country and nothing supporting it therefore that's enough for the claim it will get the commission obviously believed that apparently but i don't know because they just signed off on the arbitrator's decision there is no further discussion of those of those particular issues even if we get to the point assuming for the sake of argument that dr masses opinion can went to such great effort she documents the manifestation date with her own report and her own medical treatment and clearly there's a long be refutable trail of evidence that that she was aware the fact that she had an injury to her wrists and in her opinion that it was work related in april of two thousand and four she didn't file replication until the summer of two thousand and seven the commission and the arbitrator both elected to just completely dance around that issue there's no specific finding of why they chose the date of accent they chose there's no specific analysis of how that compares with all this other evidence and there's no specific finding as to whether or not she complied with the filing required the circuit court kind of excuse that saying the commission can do whatever it  decision but that still doesn't address the legal issue of how can they make that finding when there's an re but it advocates and she herself even admitted filling out those reports well over three years before she filed for w claimant who clearly had documented that the injury existed and the nature of the work related illness and clearly waited more than three years and filer twenty eight and this court said that's that she basically cut her self on the manifestation day she can't come back now and say there's a new manifestation you know i guess to need him not to get into another debate with you on this of all the of farmers of the decision by the commission you know when you start talking we have nothing if in fact if you read the commission's decision you wouldn't even know if that was an issue raised at trial but it was in fact if you read the record i made a oral presentation about the issue right before the testimony  and trucks and and so to merely frame it as a do we go against the commission's ruling unmanifest weight issue because yes n that evidence that i think that we have not heard nor seen in the parlance brief that there is any argument that our evidence wasn't sufficient to meet our burden and support the decision of the commission flawed for several reasons firstly he's the treating physician he has the unique ability to meet with his patient spend time with her and determine what her concerns are it is never been the decision of this court or the commission that you w each dot there says i've retained expert first as a treating physician i think the case is it clearly established that more deference can be given to a treating physicians opinion than a section twelve opinion and in this case the commission specifically from the back the coase findings the section twelve physicians were not credible that dr massey did dr masses findings were one and based on the evidence it i believe it's the commission's province to make those determinations they looked at the evidence and they found that dr masses opinion even in light of the arguments of the review of work stud it has never been the standard of this court that a treating physicians opinion is is not given the way that a section twelve physicians opinion is simply because the section twelve thing is based on this litigation the treating physician here and especially in cases of beggar vacation which we're facing here it is always been the decision of this board that the province of making those facial determinations is the commissioner to try or effect there to give be the weight of the evidence that submitted and make a determination based on the credibility of the witnesses it's the arbitrator in the commission that witnesses the testimony sees the demeanor of the parties specifying and makes a judgment as to credibility in this case they specifically found that that or cones position was not credible his findings were not credible or were not persuasive they specifically addressed it they didn't ignore dr there so i did not have the opportunity to answer understanding the commission's ruling on the statute limitations do we get the same degree of deference to bed as we do the other issues were strictly a credibility  well i believe that a statute of limitations argument can be a good to know of a decision on your part if it's not addressed by the by the underlying arbitrator commission in this case i think the case law unique set of facts i believe that the supreme court looked at and that is that the fumes so we did not have knowledge at the time that it was carpal tunnel related to our work  the court basically said the claimant is not an expert they see and say that code for tunnel syndrome is related to their employment or caused by their employment they could have those suspicions but they are not  export and therefore they don't have the ability to make that bad medical decision that what they are experiencing is not only related to the employment but cost by the employee and i think that's the distinction the supreme court und facts that that was the appropriate ruling i think what would be the entire area of the case law including the duran case the ice cream on your case is that the court has to look at these fact intensive situations just i don't dispute that your honor but the world we have been in this case is is it similar to bring in you have an individual that had suspicion that her work was causing the problem but she went the world and that's still a question always been and i believe that's a fact and intensive question properly in the province for the commission to disarm in the credibility of the witnesses that present  and i believe that is where we find ourselves today i would like to have a hard and fast rule with as you're espousing but they don't know that we can we can honestly say at this point state that there is that hard and fast issue has been confirmed we have an employee that has been with an employer for a long time and continues working with that employer the only difference between this case and i ask you my dear is as to my own let's leave the employer acknowledged because the connection with the condition of being in this case the employer did it otherwise we have the same set of facts other than this employee was not told it was carpal tunnel until after the statute of limitations would have run this would put her in an untenable position had she had to f this matter in two thousand and four when she first exhibited any issues in a hurry and i could have proved the case for in two thousand and four she was promoted to management in two thousand and five she was promoted again in two thousand and six it would be most difficult to show that that there was some disabling condition of her employment back in two thousand and four based on these facts situation i think clearly arbitrary to look that that look bad dr my asking the first actor to tell her that she has carpal tunnel syndrome and just her requirements work dr miles found those ok either every major cause for carpal tunnel syndrome and in this case the doctors do not disagree they both agree on objective symptoms they simply disagree on what the result it does go back to what justice forward referred to as the manifest weight standard itself yes there is deference given to the commission but it's not absolute deference that's why there is a manifest ways here because in those cases where the commission decides who makes a decision that's contrary to the manifest weight then there is no more deference given at that point indure and the supreme court found that the way her commission went about achieving its decision in that case was not supported by the credible evidence or reasonable inferences to be drawn from it and that respect i'm asking this court to use that same type of analysis as it reviews the evidence in the record and looks at whether the commission relied on credible evidence or reasonable inferences and it's my argument that they did not act because they took the least likely possible evidence and crafted it to achieve a result rather than looking at whether the evidence to begin with was credible the durian court also enjoys the oscar mayer decision that mr protein was referring to and concluded that you don't have to have a medical opinion and they specifically say that in the jury and opinion so in this case we do have prior medical treatment as we head injury and i mean this case we have this accident report where she says i have carpal tunnel syndrome and it's work related back in two thousand and four i don't think that it's credible or where were the opposite of disingenuous is for the claimant to show up in two thousand and eight under oath and say oh i didn't know i had carpal tunnel or that it was work related because i didn't realize that until i saw my sex doctor in doctor man so and then the last thing i just want to point out that came up during  this my wrist started hurting very badly when i do my and when i do any activity i believe it could be carpet tunnel due to stocking and ringing at the register could be yes but then she went to a doctor and described her symptoms to him and he did the e m t would reach them he said the m g is negative and he recommended conservative treatment for her which she underwent for several  didn't have carpal tunnel and so my primary position is that she never did have carpal tunnel in her symptoms don't change between two thousand and four and two thousand and seven and it to get back to what mr or tina was asked her job duties never changed either yes she went from being a clerk to an assistant manager to a manager but in fact she said that their job duties were the same the managers are working managers for the first half of the day they run the store and they do everything