your justice in this case is really about a couple of things the notice issue like the last case came up in this case well that was critical of everything we've just was relates to their life and you can't make a finding that the first and should've known this was related to their appointment and that it was related their employment and they also made the same finding in the same theory that it wasn't actually related to their employment when the commission has to get all the experts in and witnesses in and things and then eventually never saw her first of all you were in a section twelve examiners an expert witness never saw her didn't know anything about her condition knew nothing about her all he had was some of her medical records and a video of somebody else doing what the employer said it was her job at a very slow a pace and a fairly low resolution and clearly didn't watch the whole thing either because if you look at it the employee in that video income corns with my clients testimony squeeze anything when if you look at the video a toxin like trying to talk to stationery and shoot you wouldn't realize that she was literally squeezing hundreds of thousands of power caps and she was doing it three and four times a week all said he said in his deposition that there was no gripping no squeezing and the repetitive yes the injury could easily be described by the fact that hundreds of thousands of the bollock every day at a much faster pace then it was shown on the if we could go back to the notice argument again  i don't think it's fair for the commission to found what they found because if you go back and see what she would have done to have to comply with what the commission says she should have done was that she would have had to basically become a doctor at some point before she saw her doctor in order to get some sort of  his doctors nurses told her that she should probably start wearing these points and she said and when she went back to work she told her employer about that and she gave her employer all the information from the doctor's office and considering the act from what he saw him on a force necessary to do the job to see understood it was not excessive in would not cause carpal tunnel syndrome during problem uses different squeezing than your client described she should she was told to do work and she was trained in but you're right dr coleman's opinion is based on the lack of repetitive squeak and the video shows squeezing and it's clearly repetitive if you believe anybody has testified in this case he didn't really have any the commission's opinion in this case is based entirely on the incorrect assumptions they bilateral carpal tunnel she was given races by the by her treating doctors nurse case manager counsel points out i believe in his grief that she she claims she didn't see the doctor until some time later although i would point the court to vet august twenty sixth note in page two of that note it's it says at the bottom it's got dr price slash the nurse case managers name so clearly she was being seen in the service note julie dockum asked her specifically whether or not her condition is related to regulated by her work duties she tells miss dokken that they are not stock and makes an actual note on that slip and between her condition and her work duties one can make your argument that just based on those facts right there there's question is whether or not there was an inhibition chip however she goes on to testify at arbitration when i asked her about whether or not she had told her employer that that her condition related she testified that she had told some of her coworkers she believed she had told some of her coworkers so clearly she was aware that it had some relationship through work the court found or the l makes it very clear that that the arbitrator in the commission has sufficient evidence to find that her case was not possibly connected to work you clearly dr coleman was much better informed persuasive than those of dr pryce that finding is clearly within her well that finding plus the findings of based on judy ockham's testimony julie document had done this job previously herself so she has firsthand knowledge of the job which lends in my opinion apparently union opinion the arbitrator although he didn't specifically say that but that lends more credence i believe her testimony or some things from her testimony as to the issues regarding the any information showing that she saw the position there is positive evidence to know that there's evidence in the testimony of dr pryce stating he first saw her on the twenty third of the twenty fourth of november which was several months after his nurse case managers are on august twenty sixth so there still was just because she went to the doctor's office doesn't mean she got any information from