or what have you in this case there were seven doctors six for history who said that there was a connection to her appointment now the doctor's differed as to how her condition was connected but whether it was a allergic reaction others reaction to mold or bacteria whether it was a reaction to an urgent whether it was a real reaction as are some type of flare up of her as in fact the importer section clone that they tested for which is what dr olsen is such a toast enery he said his report and the only doctor that really even mentions is mold the bacteria this dr morris and he'll pine through in the ceiling tiles simply stirred he's basing that opinion on and it's clear from his reports that he believes that you must identify the exact cause of the sentence or the exact error to if you can't pinpoint it then you can't say not necessarily because people sneeze or of time i mean it's i fairly really have had symptoms of chest tightness and difficulty breathing to the point re need to seek medical treatment and have all my tests done showing that there is some airway restriction in my chest so in this instance i think first sentence are much more severe than simply sneeze but there's something aggravating her underlying condition and even even the think basically no well no and fact there are several doctors who give opinions knowledge of the problem with this record obviously this the doctors differ some doctors say it's not or others say it's an that there is something going on with her physically but as far as what the exact trigger of that is you know that's a disagreement write and he said that because you cannot pinpoint it therefore they can't say it's perfectly and that's the same flaw of their e as what the commission the basis of their chain of events this is the same argument making in response to our review to the commission and at the supreme court can events doesn't apply in this case and the two cases that he sided with her service serve and consolidated kohl i think demonstrate exactly why that is i'll get into the facts of the second bit but i think what we need to draw from both of those cases simply this answer to serve and consolidated cole you had a application of the discussion of the chain of events coupled with evidence definitively prove that the other doctor said yes when you're exposed to bird droppings it can cause the ocular to so in that case if a comparison now our case is different than that because we don't have anything that they can demonstrate an can point to work which would indicate an increased risk or a specific exposure now the the consolidation coal case is exactly the same in that case you have the coroner who has diagnosed with a condition experiencing a spiking of symptoms they don't experience and they said they didn't experience it prior to that there's some testimony that well maybe i did france outside work maybe i didn't and both of those cases became the claims were denied by this is a very complex case this is not a simple back injury repetitive trauma type case where you've got a preexisting degenerative condition and a good question about whether or not it active active work that might repetitive causes a back problem we've got a very complex  exposure case here where we really don't know what it is and we don't know what caused it and here without knowing what it is we can't even look to see what might have been the trigger as of course pointed out there were in the commission relied on three different tests that were performed on the premises and then they don't show any airport here it's uncertain he put anything in the air that could have caused a problem those are reviewed by dr olson his testimony was adopted by the commission majority and we think  in the materials used in the remodelling project and what i thought was even more important to the claimant did not establish any type of risk in her work environment greater than that which general public faced and that's what we have here they have not identified what the risk was they've got to come in and say she was exposed to some type of yours and not just inherited her she was at work and this happened they've got to say what it was that's exactly what happened weekly this exactly what happened bernie and those are unanimous decisions of the of this court for the commission and if we were to go against in this case we'd have to address why we're really and consistently with those two decisions and and i'm not sure that we can logically do that they've got to demonstrate in a company of such as this what it was it worked because that's what triggered this and they didn't do it now also makes some comments oh well the temporal arrangement of this of this fact pattern might suggest that there was something at work but they still got to come in and say what it was it worked we don't know when the court made a great comment we don't know if it was something at work that was the same thing she faced in her car in her home we don't know what that is in the commission has looked at this be valuated this with the arguments of the the chain of events they've evaluated the medical which is some substantial in this case they've looked at dr col they focused on his opinions and they focused on dr olsen's and they focus on the tests and they drew their conclusions and they said you didn't meet your burden of proof you didn't show risk you didn't indicate that what happened at the employment presented a greater risk than people who general public because of exposure and the accident that's why the commission found no permanent seat in that case but they did specifically find accent award because it's to petition and weekly it was in some respects the same because there was a contrary opinion explaining her some things which are some other form disorder and this case there's no contrary opinion saying what an alternative explanation is the only it opinion that's native  things you just cannot measure at the time of the explosion maybe it's gone but doesn't necessarily negate that there was exposure to something and the situation this is a clear showing that she was