morning members of the court who's the court and counsel richard zones on behalf of c m products you have a trader in this case awarded benefits i review the commission interest we were first finding no accident and no notice on further review the circuit court of lee county reversed the commission the other two years decision found a repetitive accident manifesting itself i forbore ninth of two thousand and one the plaintiff was employed as a forklift driver she testified in trial in great detail about the nature of her job what she did how long she'd been doing it and it while she had been moving from one room to another she felt pain in her neck that was on a friday the pain went away she finished the day and went home for the weekend over the weekend she testified at the pain subsequently worsened and progressed on monday morning she called into work and said she needed to take a vacation day because she was having problems with her neck she sucked medical treatment the medical records have no history of any accident they have no history of what her job is what she does absolutely nothing moreover she filed claims for medical benefits under her group policy stating in her report in her request that it was not work really she waiter then apply for disability benefits after she had had the surgery again stating they out there was no work related is to notice the petitioner testified that she didn't initially report the accident and she was afraid that she would in some way be bad too badly treated by the response but she came into work with what i think it means i'm a i don't know if i understand your question i mean yes the court reversed the commission but in doing so i think it substituted its judgment on a factual issue there was evidence on both sides of this equation evidence from the petitioner evidence from response witnesses notice i think the other thing that i have a real problem with in the circu the commission also noted the fact that through all this period of time there was no mention of medical records and that's something that a commission has always looked at when analyzing an exit an issue what kind of history is being given in the medical records the records are silent in addition to that we have the petitioners own statements and requests for group disability benefits and medical benefits saying it's not work related the commission further noted that while one of these things standing on might not be determinative in this case they found it to be determined that was a financial decision that the commission made a in order to turn it over turn  if a court reverses the commission if you have a previous decision is reinstated and that's why i ask for the relief i asked that the commission's decision be reinstated after the circuit court is reversed so i think this is just the other side of that just one listing the petition argue she was overburdened by this requirement you're giving notice talking about how it might be too difficult because she didn't realize this but i think the argument fails it's also a factual argument but even months and months after the alleged the accident she still isn't saying anything about work history the accident history or what are jockeys are in the medical records and on that basis most important issues the court must address when examining whether a repetitive trauma claim was compensable those two issues are the physicality of the job and the medical opinions before we get too arching the pergola i think that you need to address first is that it's a critical issue the claimants following the alleged injury went to the emergency room never mentioned that she had sustained a work related injury went to her own family physician never mentioned it so the surgeon initially never mentioned the what about the fact that you never told any of these people that this accident that you had a work related injury or condition isn't that significant well she did tell her family doctor on the tuesday following the accident that she was hurt three days before and she did call her supervisor of the morning the monday after the primary and she said i had  pain in my neck going from hacking to the warehouse that's what she said and that was her job driving the the forklift machine the second machine from the factory to the warehouse she did give notice it's not that unreasonable that she would not tell her doctors it's it's work related because she doesn't know really if it is going to be found compounce will or not it's not like an i mean well to answer your question you know what was it her mind to she want to stick her neck out i think that's what she was thinking about driving her stacker it's not an acute injury it's not that kind of an injury that is clearly in in a person who worked in a warehouse since age twenty for fifteen years she was thirty five years old when this happened so i think giving h for which the which the commission thought was very important was a subsequent accident where she was moving a pallet and she heard a lower back it was a very minor injury with a defect a commission noted that the claimants completion of a disability form in august two thousand and two indicated her condition of ill being was network related well better to set off or is that just some anomaly to be ignored well if you what she checked was is the injuries the result of on of her employment again i don't think that she understood that if the environment is a cause then she can make a while you are doing that good and some human nature level these you know really wish to document this could be excused let's assume you're saying he's a lay person she doesn't know that she needs to per minute for six hours a day for about seven years is a cause of her condition he said that because she was thirty five years old and young dr britton said he did not think that her condition was due to condition so there's no question here doctors agreed on causation the and the petitioners job was that she drove the stacker at a high rate of speed in reverse she was taught to drive in reverse because there's a road in the front and she cannot see she drove in a warehouse with twenty two aisles looking behind her constantly people in machines about she drove it pulls the bastard on a person could walk slower than a person could run she was cranking her head from side to side or something here's looking behind her she had the same injury in two thousand and seven when she had surgery she did not make a worker's compensation claim what about the issue of nose is of the matter to be determined by the commission has to be against the minute this weight of the evidence to be overturned she called her supervisor monday morning following the friday pain she said i hurt myself i thought here's what she said i felt pain going from hacking to the warehouse friday you know it got worse that against the minute this way well because this they didn't consider the statute just like the could the commission did not consider her job the commission did not consider the medical testimony the commission did not consider the statute in this case in the statute says any evidence that they were prejudiced whatsoever and again she came back to work two days three days later on wednesday not i want you to consider that she had driving the stacker in one nine hundred ninety seven she had that surgery and she was out of work and she came back on that job on light duty now she's having the same thing happen a second time exactly the same thing and the respondent wants us to believe that there was no notice that nobody knew that she was her and the record is clear she called her supervisor and she told her i got her going from packing to the where was the warehouse and that was her job driving back and accident or on notice the case that the commission cited was a night for accident on repetitive trauma was a nine hundred fifty five case and yes that person filled out a form right after the accident in the form said no causation that was the words in the foreman in that case there was all kinds of testimony that were that was in controversy in that case there was lots of other evidence you know for the court to hang its hat on in a case that was cited in the case that was cited the fact that the that the petitioner filled out a form with just one point there were witnesses who who testified that they never saw the accident in it and that the petitioner's testimony you know was completely different than their than their of recounting of the events so there was lots of problems with that case that was not case simply of filling out an accident form for talk a great deal about medical causation the real issues here are accident and notice the medical causation is an entirely different issue the fact remains that when the petitioner went into work the commission even noted that she the petitioner now she did not identify work a pivot is the cause of her neck pain i said because my neck is hurting really bad on friday it started it went away then this weekend it just seemed to get worse so i'm going to the hospital the commission cited the white case in which the court has held that a notice of her knowledge of some type of injury does not establish statutory notice and that's exactly what we have here we