commission in this case applied the wrong legal standard they did so when they required that the petitioner to meet its burden provide quantitative components to her job that is specifically prove  how many how often she was doing the type of work that she claims to would from well according to the darwin case that is increasing the burden of proof not just one if it is quantified to be repetitive means more he's frequently does it well in this case it's not it were not the theory of the case isn't that over the fourteen year she was working as a shelter that this symptomology in fact while it is a repetitive trauma case this is about as close as to a specific incident as you're going to get the this stacks in the library doubled up the folks were tighter this c narrative the no your honor and the medical records are frankly have very little history up until dr newman the section twelve exam or behalf of the petitioner also relates her job  of but but but what i'm what i'm stating here is that the burden was elevated by the commission by requiring certain aspects spike by saying these are the things that you have to prove in a repetitive trauma cases that  and therefore we're going to rely on the opinion of andersen which they have every right in the world to do and relying on the opinion of vendors and they say that your client failed to establish a causal relationship i don't understand where you claim t instance your honor understood the book shelving job to consist of overhead reaching and overhead lifting and dr newman a pine bed that are think the reason why darling was concerned about having a fund a tape of a component of quantitative for harming the elevating the is because there's no there's no spectrum here how much is enough how much testimony in the record that she did this on one occasion this was shows a bookshelf or she did this on a regular basis and into doesn't mean a lot of other things that happened today did it in in the record our theory was that in this the beginning of doing the shop fourteen years prior and there's an absence of symptomology fourteen years then when the books double up and that's in the books or act tightly this is when she starts who experience shoulder pain this is our this is like i would i would submit that if i laterally she had the same condition bilaterally that would make sense but in this instance she had been a swimmer before the dominant arm to arm with which she shall we say is the arm that became symptomatic at the same time better workload doubled as far as the shelving is concerned granted she had other job duties but the shelving is what's the breaching and that the lifting overhead and i'm in agreement that it's not required as a matter of law it's not that's not my position throughout the course of this case not my position here today but the darling case also says that particularly in cases where the motion complained of is kind of the general public that is here reaching been she's a shopper i can't dispute that but i would i would agree with you that nowhere in the record is there evidence of a repetitive job yes we look at dr newman's report and all he says is overhead reaching forward reaching that said based on the bound books is contained nowhere in the medical records the experts didn't consider it it was apparently presented for the first time in arbitration almost five years after the manifestation date while counsel relies on darling i think this case is far more like the williams case where in the court upheld the denial of compensation in that case the court noted the court actually surveyed the cases where compensation was warranted and said in each of those cases the claimant conclusively established a repetitive job yes we don't have that here we don't have that here we have very job activities no evidence of repetitive job tests and diversion of medical opinions in the commission and wait all of that evidence as they're supposed to do and their decision was not against the manifest weight of the evidence