arbitrator the commission found that those witnesses were credible for a cracker or does that leave well where it leads me is that i believe that first off on the specific accident they did testify that day all of their records again this becomes an issue of what's the date and that's what i understand your point he testified to the it would have believed him but you've got that back to the records don't mention the specific date right with a very the i understand that but i've seen injury theory now we go to the repetitive trauma theory and the only thing that you can point to is a single incident you cannot point to a series of events that leads to this condition didn't really manifest itself v and that's really the problem here with well i would submit that the repetitive they're going again this is what dr if the car somewhat addresses that what was this gentleman doing on may twenty eighth he was forcibly removing twenty twenty seventy five pound bundles of shingles or so we with this but with his arms and injured his of trauma repetitive trauma is i do this every day every day every day every day every day for one month two months three months four months and all of a sudden i get purple tom and why do i have carpal tunnel not because i credible but i would guess i would get into smith's admit that that finding it up it solves against the manifest weight i mean it's incredible to me that you have three witnesses who testify that they never had a conversation with them never had any idea that this injury occurred but yet they all get on cross examination that they sent in the short term disability form right away their own vocational consultant that they hired who met with him at his house through their case there's every single short term form in this case is wrong bones horny it is not from production his boss saying yes they have a call insisting to testify to what the message on the system the production of the foreman says we have a system but i don't know who the production warming is it gets that that main guy testifies that we don't even have to call it system but again with respect to whether or not this accident occurred no one denied that it did or didn't happen they all testified that they knew as of june the month they think the exact same what they after that he was off of work due to an injury of his to is  with you are these records inconsistent yes but they're not incomplete we had their incomplete is what they really are is what i've been a kid in the breach his very first exam on june sixth when he sees us back or says he was at work what the the heavy object next day had work three to four weeks ago with open arms so that's really what the commission to me is a and i understand your honour's position on this with manifest way and i agree it's a substantial burden overcome but again i've seen cases decided and i'm not aware of few months after that this bill is going to josephine but what that's who sent them the four who first testified she didn't know that anything was work related for two years after the alleged may twenty eighth date but yet she sends them off  testified that he never received treatment and never had injuries to his elbows prior to may twenty eighth of zero five just fine it did not work but that testimony at all we're going to see we're going to be no the notion this close to them there on basically a man for the memorial day holiday last day he worked so my my my position in this case is that the records you know he gets of this issue of are they inconsistent are they really incomplete because he gives in i agree with the court he gives an after the accident next week even describe some point of throwing the shingles out of the jammed machine at work he tells them that he tells everybody that he got hurt it work discussed with counsel there's no specific witnesses it's just what he's testifying to so if you go to the first record that first record from dr levy on june sixth ok kind of he merely states that he lifted a heavy object or w share understandably i presume he's not so he's not fully versed in the office as all of you and hopefully all of us are but relative to it that's when he starts claiming that he did that something happened two months ago and it will now is it is it a repetitive issue from two months ago is a specific incident from two months ago that's obviously not clear so kind of like it was saying he's going from a specific incident to now or at the trama it's only been the case of who was a specific  so then you just mean so then he goes to and then he starts claiming repetitive heavy use of the arms so now we're not even know we're not even to a specific i was lifting up so i was looking something heavy it depending on which doctor he sees next minute essentially when counsel says that the records are incomplete that they're they're inconsistent by their very nature so the fact that he's saying that they're inconsistent is certainly be the commissioner relies on the fact that the medical records are incomplete and no specifically the june sixth two thousand and five record from dr levy the june sixteenth two thousand and five record from dr seymour trami injury so essentially that's what the commission relies upon and certainly from the manifest way standard there's enough there's sufficient evidence in the record for the commission to find that infer that there is a dispute relative to this specific mechanism of injury and you can simply look at the fact that he filed two applications for just one claim one on the on the basis of a of a specific advance and one on the basis of their had a trauma injury  how do you i mean how do you kind of break those two apart essentially what i said a kind of what i indicated initially he's trying to take two bites at the apple and based upon what the commission rule he did was unable to prove either one by preponderance of the evidence and based result of his employment that specifically what it states on the form and with response to the recent inquiries regarding the commission's decision in this case the commission's decision specifically states in the appendix of page forty six the is that they are saying that his his testimony no what i still understand how responded argues that he didn't testify to answer that he did testified what happened on may twenty eighth that's the time there's rebuttal evidence that he wasn't performing work activities the same in injury to his elbows and this whole thing falls upon this accident day but again with the resigned the commission even said this was and this happened at work or i'm saying the commission said that the records don't say definite right that's why they denied it because there's not a specific date it's in date and he put it because it says happened it work that's the first one june sixth he was at work but the heavy object next day had pain because it doesn't say may twenty eighth he's not didn't introduce sufficient he didn't introduce non contradictory it non magnetic together that is the number one it was the result of an acute injury number one because there is doctor seymour's records to be opened two months before you saw on june sixteenth and he didn't introduce evidence of a repetitive trauma because the only thing anyone testified to see happen there one day and so what would be got there's no question he filed both ways and your