for the commission and reversed the commission's finding that the petitioner suffered a right hand carpal tunnel drinker's employment with independent mechanical the commission's decision should be affirmed as it is not against the manifest weight of the nagel's opinions and finds that those opinions are more persuasive than dr carroll's opinions the respondents examiner is so within the province of the commission to choose between two conflicting medical opinions that's what the commission did with this case and that decision is supported by the overwhelmingly overwhelming weight of the evidence of that decision is also supported included in that evidence i should say is dr carroll's initial opinion that there was a causal connection between mr henderson's job duties in general and his couple tunnel as well as by the testimony of mr henderson supervisor raymond campbell it seems to me the toughest thing doesn't i mean for thirty six years to claim to work as a construction plumber is duties at the airport where the check plumber right there wasn't doing any will have a well for thirty six years he worked as a construction plumber and was asymptomatic there's no evidence no record that he ever sought treatment ever had any problems really it all while working as a check while working as construction plumber he began working for independent mechanical in may of two thousand and five  roughly six months before that the data manifestation of those he worked as a as a quote check plumber that would also involve fixing various problems when they arise and i think with just a serious is raising didn't  drill that would have to be used to remove five inch hole mr anderson and mr campbell described those details i mean really that the test for need to dispute was kind of what the quantum of those activities were and how often they would go back to the commission look at what was you know did they determine this was a tasks that require repetitive heavy grasping or not the commission discussed indicated it's fifty perform different activities that would have far more detail on it and it's those specific activities that are mentioned in the activity sheet that both mr anderson and mr campbell testified to at the other tradition so can you tell us here today just sheets from may until august from august until when he ends up going to the e r in november of two thousand and five it appears as though at least almost every day he was performing some activity that during that day that cited in the briefs that would hines case had a similar situation where the b p testimony was that maybe only two to ten percent of the employee's day was spent performing the activities that issue and really the the question is  of that activity sheets that were submitted by respondent from august to november at least at some point during the day he would have to aga a clock edge or use some sort of machinery cutoff channel maybe answer was yes on cross examination he was asked so if the claimant during the period of november twenty or five was not performing work requiring every repetitive grasping without enough time to relax and recover then would you change your causation opinion answered yes how would you change i gave a difficult time establishing a causal relationship so now the question is  bait and they explicitly say so in their opinion they rely on the petitioners testimony as to his activities which relies on fisher's testimony as to his priorities as construction plumber his work piece as a check every work and there's no dispute that there was a period of time that you did that correct with your employer so there is some evidence in the record this fourth judge's decision do you need any more no i don't believe so affirm the decision of the circuit court to page county first issue which i believe has been clouded this claimant did not work as a construction plumber or independent mechanical at no time asked a question when asked the last fifteen minutes he never did he never worked he worked as a check from or occasionally he would have to perform some maintenance if you look at the d o t that was provided dr nickel by claimants council at our council it i completely disagree he was not if you look at his testimony what he did at soldier field he was constructing he was building soldier field during the renovation that is that is using cutters hand tools digging laying pipe he was not doing that he was not constructing anything at o'hare he was due performing some mates and i specifically asked dr nagle when down the duties of a check plumber would this contribute to ca tunnel no no no no you are referring to something activities more strenuous activities with us about there are sun they're not repetitive they're occasional all the court in the commission should have done this look through the daily activity she the claimant did you first did you prepare the sheets yes is it in your handwriting yes going through these so when it says check plumbing what did you do i pushed my car i walk into the bathroom i put my hands underneath the sink indicate the generic description i'm shocked plummer so that the commission could look at the daily activity sheets and even though dr nagle may have been operating under a misapprehension as to what the actual item was of find in the evidence that there really is no heavy we've had a good grasp it if the record is so clear as to what he did in his own writing hour by hour and it not like the majority of maybe ninety percent it's check from him check coming check coming i asked the claimant on cross examination did you prepare the sheets these sheets clearly show that there is no repetitive heavy grasping there is an occasional work using an auger that great campbell testified that the machine does the work for him he put the put the the snake in the machine does the work this is not a this is  that's that's what we're looking at we're working with the opinion of dr nagle dr nagel's opinion is based on first that history which is not correct first question from counsel as to cause a connection is a d o t about construction  but that is so really it we commission obviously did not review the evidence that is as clear as a bell these sheets there are thousands of pages written by the hand of the claimant it's all there che construction project this is a red herring out of the thinking about what is a red herring construction primer is a red herring in this case where he'd never did it he did a good some maintenance but never worked as a construction plumber as outlined by the springfield case both talk to the quantum of the activities involved and that so long as there it doesn't have to be so repetitive or make up so much of your day so long as those activities are competent to cause the problem would have to say though that he did well even mr campbell's own testimony that was alluded to before he was asked and it starts at two forty seven in the record talking about  encountering a clod requiring going he was pushed in it never tires of you from your hands or wrist for sure resting and the answer is no that's not what i said i said the majority of the time you can let machine do the work which is what it does question so some of the time they're saying can't always do all the work but some of the time you'd have to use force for grasping answer yeah you'd have to grab the cable direct so he would you be you contention if he was able to  the rider which is a historic god using channel x he described the riding in training slots things were difficult because they were hard to add access he described in some detail all of those activities specifically i think really the most important factor is when we haven't talked about much that history is clear that he lost his partner november first and do more work and that's when he noticed its symptoms i mean my the construction trades you see a situation where the last employer involved it but if that's the data manifestation is kind of responsible for all of the work that's been done up to that point and i think that's why dr nagle ar issue of wait for the commission to resolve that it doesn't somehow make that testimony incompetent or inadmissible or anything else so dr nagel's testimony it isn't clear that based on the history given to him he found a caus connection and i know he did indicate that his causation opinion assumed both of the work of a construction former throughout the day would require heavy repetitive grasping and the claimant getting gauge in that type of heavy repetitive grasp i mean those are two different questions i mean certainly as a construction plumber they would be competent but he testified so long as there was some heavy repetitive grasping i don't think it necessarily has to flow from construction plumbing that it c that you know again on this record the mere the mere undisputed evidence that he was asymptomatic before he began this working before his partner was transferred away and symptomatic once his partner was transferred away is sufficient to sust