arbitrator and decision of the commission's circuit court of firming those decisions was improper and i raised two elemental questions regarding that one as you noted the brief is questioning whether or not the statute of limitations may have expired in this case and secondly if the court should find that the statute of limitations had not expired in this case we would recommend to the court that we believe the facts in this case would suggest that it's a matter of law that the  to give timely notice as required by section six of the on the compensation issue of the statue of limitations is somewhat complex in this case because we're dealing with the obvious suit very loaded employee very nice the difficulty in the case regarding a statue of limitations rises on the fact that we believe that based upon this lady's intelligence level for obvious expertise or knowledge of her work duties and her knowledge  body functions we believe that a reasonable person given the same or similar circumstances would have believe that the condition of carpal tunnel she experienced within both of her hands was manifest itself to her to the point where the steps are a limitation ends would have expired in this case because she would have known or should have known the resort person that late is january two thousand and one that she had a condition of her own which might or could be related to her work activity i say this with full understanding of the testimony in the record that the petitioner did testify in direct examination and was somewhat consistent in cross condition and work until two thousand to be found her specifically mimics press framing few testified credibly if you know it's a friend or a function of the commission to weigh the credibility and believability and in the way to be given to the testimony  how do we disregard their findings without basically you're inviting us to sort of reevaluated substitute our judgment for the commission and the commission's disability go wrong in the findings i think point is well taken and i think that's the most difficult part of my argument is to persuade you that the commission could substitute what what she reasonably should have believed in one nine hundred ninety nine and two thousand two thousand and one and i do agree with your i still think the inconsistency in the traitor's cision and the following decisions baal's this lady subsequent to see her doctor was directed to a specialist and subsequent to seeing the specialist in the year two thousand and one continued to work on him in the same capacity and develop continuing symptoms in the year two thousand and two she went to the boss or supervisor and discussed the issue and recognize the issue that she that statement be pushing over rumors that from the insurance company who told her well you would die when you first noticed this problem so should put down nine hundred ninety nine now these may seem like very minute points but when the day she walked in and filled out paperwork well if you want to say that the accent was naples and give notice of is two thousand and two two actually two thousand and three and if you want to see the actual words in two thousand and two there's no app engine so you can have it both ways you can't say well we gave you we found an application on time for two thousand and three but we really gave you notice in two thousand and two condition is related to employment before the claimant does is that not passive or is it not possible i think it is possible that based upon the statement made in two thousand and two that the employer could have assumed that this lady had a and say well i gave you notice a year ago you just have to give it my year this is my opinion i believe that that notice had be given either simultaneously or subsequent to april of two thousand and three and i don't believe them when i don't argue technicalities  guess i am in a sense business section six of the act only state in the know should be given no later than forty five days after the accident absolutely is there any argument that there could be notice given prior to the alleged accident sews testified that in two thousand and two she knew it was work related right and she fired what less than two years later yes although it's not a scam to question at that point at that point as i said in my opening statement expressed no opinion regarding causation he said i really didn't know her job duties when he was propounded this hypothetical question which is extremely short he said well based on that it is possible he also said a number of other things that eighty to ninety percent of purple total cases were about were related but let's not get into that what he said in the hype in the hypothetical question it says that this lady started working in one thousand nine hundred four and when she started out she was actually working with hand tools the hypothetical question the only time this leave her with manic devices here impact wrench is that central can be found in her prior medical records where when she found out form the aster she had any prior employment that would and what type of work choices she used this is in prior put i'm not here and it says that she was a contractor and she worked with by regress insulation and the courts benefit that's in response exhibit four for identification and the transcript that's important as her road then puts facts into their case which are is why the hypothetical question is so important because in the hypothetical question he did not include in those facts those which were in the area nomics study that said they had it was  extremely low it would pick job and basically not only even meet the gentleman who performed the economic study but also the physician testified for the responded in this case said that based on everything he saw the history here if you choose to say the statute did not expire i respect i despair disagree with it but i respect your opinion but i strongly recommend on the issue notice and the issue of the very very faulty hypothetical question that this decision should be darkies i'm sorry mr regards testimony the doctor involved all those issues i'm not going to we're going to tell you is the commission's given deference to step credibility here they have done that they found that the claimant testif credible i'll start with a reasonable person standard here what counsel felt to mention is not even the treating doctor gave a relation gave the relationship between job duties and causation so for a reasonable person to establish that their job duties cause these problems prior to an orthopedic surgeon i think i think that's not reasonable to find here i think the claim  investigate claims to see if they're related to work activities for not clearly clearly they had an opportunity to do so here when you're seeing them was made aware that the respondents and house nurse i'd be investigate the claim with m with their doctor they certainly took a look at this and i will i heard your statement earlier your honor the employer can surely know about a possible relationship prior to the boy by force level to you your first when you consider the nature of repetitive trauma cases the day of accident is not clearly established by nicu x here notice was given to the nurse even if the even if the application mandate for accident but they found it was two thousand and two you have notice of the two thousand two x and orly alternative the commission got it right you got a two thousand three accident and no notice for the two past money v the claimant testified that she gave a date because she was told to do so by the adjuster they work with at the insurance company so i don't think that's an issue at all here as far as causation goes again we're talking about the credibility of the witness of the petition no one person to testify live as far as the job back to activities your honour's based on that if there are no furthe in that space and is the result look at that document it's really two different colored games and what happened was she made bold to the person said what do i put in that line and the person said put it down when you first  problem with your hands and that's why she inserted night united she was never told to put that in there and again this is your honor correctly pointed out you cannot give notice of the next year before it happens once the accident has been filed it is in company for most of that to exist the fact that in two thousand and two the lady went and has her testimony indicates and says i am powerful tunnel and i'm wondering how it comes to play with in my job and the lady who she interviewed with identified were certain factors and at that point in time was the determination that oh it's work related that was under budget testimony of hers in two thousand and two and the mission found that two thousand and two there was no investigation done until after the the application for just one point we did a