that the industrial commission found not compensable they've made their finding a few weeks prior to this court's decision in city of springfield versus industrial commission which as i point out in my brief indicated that although it claimants work activities may be very they can still be sufficiently repetitive to constitute a compensable claim in this particular case the commission found that the claimant failed to prove her work activities were sufficiently repetitive or strenuous to have increased the risk of aggravation of the gender different progress of the condition of her needs they further stated that while the job didn't fall some squatting in dealing or work activities were very and because they were varied it was not a the arbitrator had originally found that the claimant had never complained of or experienced any pain while working that was an issue that was changed by the commission so the the facts before this court for thirty two years and prior to the sensitive and she worked for twenty years as the receiving clerk as a receiving clerk bundles of industrial size faber could come into her in well dr terry did him dr terry testified that the claimant showed him the five photographs and petitioners exhibits one through five a sort of work station of the of the work station that she had to push along of the it seems like you've got a doctor there that seemed to give you some very supportive medical opinions yes ok but yet the arbitrator says oh well that's not really a four complete the arbitrator missed that i believe that the arbitrator missed that i'm certainly not beyond the possibility of of not having fully done everything i could have done but at the same time in this particular case i think the commission and the arbitrator made a mistake testified that he reviewed that information with her in great detail that they discussed her job duties and what she had to do he even went further and again we pointed out that she was a mechanical engineer prior to being a lawyer that he had some special knowledge that would have aided him in the ideas of the force and the impact of her body and her weight pushing down on these medals that would have aided not only for mechanical engineering perspective but also from a medical that and find it all go to work activities were very there repetitive i'm a daily basis you get to this issue now the way to overcome that is there has to be some medical information upon which the commission relied in order it got better when they had dr levin but you have to look at his opinion dr levin also had these pictures to look at but on cross exam they're never referenced in his report and then on cross examination for the first time he says she did bring those pictures he had absolutely no independent recollection of having discussed those photographs with her and what her job and activities were instead his report is couched with very careful language i do not know what activities could have contributed to this from work well you've got an opinion from him saying that her normal daily activities are the cause of her progressive neat condition resulting in the mood for surgery if that's the case what are her normal daily activities there has to be a basis somewhere in the record of what those normal daily activities are in order for his opinion to have any credibility  pictures and so forth but he didn't know how many times a day she had to squat how far she had to walk how many times she had to push the workstation how much it weighed those were the things he testified he didn't know that that's true about why they disco testimony very well i don't know that they specifically said that but in addressing that argument in my brief i cite the freeman case which indicates that that is not a requirement that he has to know the exact breakdown of the number of times she did specific things he had an idea that over the course of twenty years she performed these same activities day in and day out and that those were sufficient now if you if you compare her daily activities at work to her for find unknown daily activities you find out just looking at the work she did on this press alone where she pushed down with the right food every day she did that six hundred to six hundred sixty times per week that's over thirty one thousand to thirty four thousand times a year over the course of her twenty years there that's over six hundred twenty four thousand to six hundred eighty six thousand times over this period of time we know she did that the doctors know she did that what do we know about her daily activities what what what activities to to perform at home that toward these activities that she did at work there's no indication she i could see if the commission could say she was a runner she was a member of her local communities running club and she ran marathons and that could have contributed or she was a member of the clean jerk club of the weightlifting team that are gym those might be activities that might be helpful in saying yes or normal daily activities contributed in some way but we don't know what your normal daily activities were there's no evidence of dr robertson yes robinson out of that commission just no probative value what's the basis for your honor i wish i could tell you i haven't seen a decision like this where the treating physicians have  so this is readily discounted and dismissed based on the opinion of a man dr levin who every time he was cornered to a point for example where he admitted that the types of activities that she did at work the bending the squatting the stooping if somebody who had arthritis in her knee perform those activities it could aggravate the condition of arthritis in her knees but when specifically pressed well how about her when she did those activities at how can you say that not that absolutely no activity whatsoever from her job contributed to her condition he would not enter that question despite the fact it does report said absolutely no it will impact her job activities on the condition of her knees i think i'm not going to stand here and say this happens very often i think the commission just got this one in particular wrong larger arguments condition was a give it an accelerated i didn't think that that's where the commission had the problem i thought the commission's problem with the commission decided was that because the work activities were very very for this cannot be a repetitive claim because that's what their decision said and as i said the city of springfield came out shortly at after the commission's decision i was hoping that that might have been addressed but in the circuit court as you know from looking at the order it was a one paragraph order confirming the commission's decision so we didn't get clarification there but i think that the the facts of this case need to be applied in light of this court's holding in city of springfield says she does i realize i'm not a half a lot of i am any accidents or anything to cause me problems with my knees i won't engage in anything really physical to cause me problems caused me injuries it must  do not mention revealing photographs in his report dr perry doesn't mention looking at photographs in his report this is what she told him i'm constantly pushing him case and why would they have a doctor under oath about that part of the case could the commission have been furloughed or the data that could have said there's no cause a connection between that and these two to one when this because i think that's a legitimate they have the burden of proof is because they really want to control the information i get you're right i don't know what she does a home i don't know if she's away left i don't know that's why they have to carry the burden of proof i don't have to prove that's related to with the evidence so this show is there not she testified d'tre knees hurt while performing her activities at work there is no evidence that she had any problems with her knees doing any of her household chores or any of her normal daily activities that's an important fact for the commission to consider and for this court to consider we didn't meet our burden of proof by showing by or at before the commission of the ponder to the credible evidence my niece heard at work as i bend down  as i push down on the pedal as i do the various activities that i do every single rule fan brick processed by the eleanor a hard chef who remarks company went through her she was the only person to perform this job she testified to perform it bast she's busy all day long it isn't a job or she's sitting around all day it's a job that cares for doing several different activities throughout the course of the day but from day to day there's no variation in those activities except potentially for the number of times the one day she testified there's a lot of variation i mean she may have wanted to nest trainers one day she may have the fabric machine that may be a small part of the day sometimes it might be a big part of the day is that they generally tends to be at least an hour and a half to three hours of the day it has to be done before noon so there's also a time limitation on the time she has to be testing the question i think it's the cumulative effect there are there it's certainly the work that she does on this press machine they are very impressive numbers for a woman who's five to to have to get the pork in order to push down on this but beyond the other activities that she does throughout the course of the day pushing the work station from nest painter to nest painter of the period a distance of some forty to fifty feet and then back again hitting the grooves on the floor and debris and stopping it took a lot of effort to push it it starts with the pain from that from the pressing machine but then the other activities all the varied also put a lot of pressure on the knees and wear and tear on the knees and  activities the very throughout the day are the same activities she performs every monday tuesday wednesday thursday and friday that she works with respect to this revelation that she had concerning her work activities i don't think that was a fair term it was not her revelation she had an insurance form that she took to dr mirren zada to fill out and that's when dr mirren zada setter down and said whoa let's figure out what it is that caused this condition and they sat down and discussed it that discussion is in the record it's also reflected in his medical records it wasn't a revelation it was something she sat down with the doctor and the doctor developed with her and at that point it became clear to her that i don't do outside activities i don't do athletic activities i don't do other things it must be the work