individual knew of the connection between the injury and the employment duties and in this particular instance unlike some of the cases where there is a struggle with when did this occur we don't have to worry about that because we know from the petitioners own testimony his testimony was that his symptoms began in may of two thousand and eight and they progressed to the point that in august of two thousand and eight specifically august thirteenth of two thousand and eight  says you don't have to have a formal diagnosis for the manifestation day to occur and in this particular instance the claimant's testimony was i knew that my problems were related to my job i didn't do it he testified he didn't do anything outside his job that involves a vigorous or repetitive hand motion he testified that his symptoms were worse at the end of each day than they were at the end of each shift and they were beginning of the show now fight if i try to argue to you that the manifestation date was august or i persons notes reflect that he thought that he this was causing the carpal tunnel syndrome open factors telling him that why is he going to think that it's necessarily related to one but i think you have to go back to what the claimant testified to i mean his of his own his own testimony we don't have equivocal testimony from the petitioner about you know i didn't think this is worth the wait i didn't know it was work related that's sort of the same thing that came out of the ranch case but in this particular case we had clear point along the line here did you conclude that your before you saw dr shepherdson did you conclude that your particular condition was work related and he said yes and then i asked him as a follow up question after that did you ever waver from your belief that it was work related and he said no  my my view is that once he once he began this course of medical treatment and again the cases recognize that the manifestation day can be the date the individual begins treatment interesting point out the cases don't the cases don't say that don't define treatment to be either the day that somebody has a lecture or diagnostic testing or the date that they undergo surgery and in the pretty appropriate case those could certainly be the manifestation date but in this particular case they're not we know in this case and began treatment for the exact same condition it was ultimately that's what underwent surgery for on august the thirteenth of two thousand and eight and what differentiates this case from grant and from oscar meyer is that in those cases you had individuals who had isolated when the petitioner told the employer that her condition was working late and when she began getting medical treatment this case is a different animal because in this case you get medical treatment initially for the condition august thirteenth the petitioner returns to was tight he was told to come back in six weeks he came back in october third was seen again was scheduled for nerve conduction testing and it went through a code on the twenty second of october he returned to the doctor on the thirtieth of october and at that point surgery was scheduled for  the tenth of november this is a case where if you go from the first day that you receive medical treatment at the time to his release to full duty after having undergone two surgeries you're talking about five a half months roughly as opposed to the petitioners and in duran an oscar meyer where there was a two year gap and because of that that's why that's why those two cases don't dictate how this one has to come out because in those cases there was concern about if i if we have an individual who has some problems and they basically try to live with it and continue working we're not going to penalize them for for doing that and that makes a lot of sense but in a situation where you have a an issue of medical treatment and a continued stream of medical treatment and there's there are these one or two year caps and there's not this periodic treatment because i think an oscar meyer the petitioner was getting the twelve and some painkillers and stuff on a periodic basis but there's no indication that was an ongoing regular type of treatment like we have here that the commission simply missed the target on when the when the manifestation date was so you characterize the claimant as being one hundred percent certain a that he was not he didn't say with one hundred percent certainty i think that was the first thing you asked me but i don't know the best i don't know that that that's absolutely necessary the person be one hundred percent certain i mean the question is you know when do you when you when you make the connection between the work in the work conditions and the problems that he was having and i think is testimony is pretty going to political about when he went to see shepherdson it was clear in his mind that his problem was work related that think i don't think that those that those two things are are at odds on the second part of the argument of course is that if they accept they the manifestation they truly was armed to the thirteenth of two thousand and eight then the other notice provided to the to the respond within forty five days and again we don't have we'll have to speculate about the notice because we know that the petitioner testified that he didn't tell anybody at all about his upper extremity problems or that he needed surgery or they'd been undergoing treatment until october thirtieth of two thousand and eight based on this we would that asked the court to reverse the commission's finding with regard to of the accident manifestation day and also the fine if there was no notice provided  on august thirteenth two thousand and eight dr shepherdson diagnosed the condition which was treated surgically thirteen weeks later he put in his brief electro diagnostic testing performed on october twenty second two thousand  diagnostic testing yet it was right corporal tunnel well the condition for which he ultimately ended with surgery was bilateral carpal tunnel and bilateral determination of what the correct date was for a repetitive trauma case and in freeman they stated the court that in that case it was determined the injured employees injury manifested itself on the date of the treating doctor testing and diagnosis in the case of us provider the court stated and i think it's perfectly appropriate for the states requiring notice of only a potential disability is a useless act since it is not until the employee actually becomes disabled that the employer is adversely affected in the absence of notice of accident respond in this case argues that when medical treatment with shepherdson on august thirteenth two thousand and eight he should have gone to respond it's public apartment within forty five days and reported an injury responded would have this clue believe that petitioner in this case should have gone to respond its medical department and said hey my right hand and my left elbow have been bothering me for about three months i believe that it's related to my appointment i've been seen by a doctor i my complaints continue i'm going to need further testing so i'm informing you that i might have it work related injury which may require future medical treatment that would be unfair of you in treating poorly and that is bi lateral x rays council argues that the burden that i that i'm so that i want to place on the petitioner is in this case unfair i'm not sure where the unfairness lives because this is not a situation where somebody has worked for a number of years with problems and then sought out some medical treatment but simply this is a case where somebody has got a problem they recognize it's work related they get medical treatment they've been told by the doctor to come back in six weeks and at that point as the cases indicate the treatment they seek medical treatment can be an appropriate manifestation day and in this case it is the appropriate manifestation date the commission seems to think that it's because it's got to be the day that the doctor tells the petitioner what his