trauma under the reporters compensation act of repetitive trauma under the worker's compensation act or an exposure or disablement under the occupational diseases act and also who has the power to decide which remedy under which the petitioner can recover i will show that the commissioner's decision as relates to accident is an error as a matter of law because it fails to delineate what type of accident occurred and under what act the petitioner should recover the basis petitioner is able to choose their own remedy this statute does not afford any power to the commission to choose under which act specifically the petitioner can recover under certainly the commission does have the power to sentence is extraordinarily confusing and i'd like to read it for you at this time as a result of petitioners exposure to a variety of toxic fumes six especially to mit came over a period of years while working in the labs of respondent she suffered eight compensable accident which manifested itself nine twelve ninety two when she was exposed to an excessive amount of taxes i see three different snows  work i believe that part of it does sound like the occupation on diseases act of course the arbitrator in the case that she had an exposure to toxic fumes over a variety of years for the arbitrator also indicates that it might suffered a compensable accident which manifested itself manifest itself to me brings up a repetitive trauma type of injury manifesting on a particular day something that had occurred over a period of time and on september twelfth   which to me sounds like a repetitive trauma type of type of the theory it's extremely important in this case too because the date of exposure or not the last if exposure the date  chemicals that she was exposed to on that day she was ever exposed to again in fact the record shows that the human talent you lab had significantly increased number of samples on that day and that's possibly what caused the event i'm becoming disabled the from the burning bush wages and the work in which the employer was and gave them last expose of the hazards of the occupational disease by the employer for whom she claims compensation or equal wages and other suitable employment therefore  she was earning for wages i'll get in a different lab following that things and therefore she was still working for the respondent and her last state that she was able to earn wages and when she was taken completely off of work buyers like i have stressed was the defense was that sudan the defense calls connection the when the stipulation she was request for hearing was presented to the arbitrator absolutely certain of the legals significance of these conclusions we just know that following the occurrence of september twelfth one thousand nine hundred one or condition at work you know that was you know be a question this do based upon the memos mccauley had on the carpet it's stupid whether she was actually performing her work during the period after hammer hit the nail on they did not diagnose it until sometime in one thousand nine four but that doesn't mean that she didn't suffer from things as getting the evidence the position of doctor or a lot of which we took at his home that was a process of motion practice in the sense that motions may not appear in the since we're caught back is not the discovering the request to produce they wanted all of her income tax returns for many many years we gave them all they investigated scrutinized this case from further regarding the temporary or permanent functional impairment that you spoke to the first part of section one of the i faced all diseases act i would indicate that even if that portion was relied upon in finding a date of disablement or data back