addresses the standard of review the pitney bowes argues needs to be applied to this particular case there was no accident finding by the arbitrator a no accident finding by the commission in a split decision an legal requirement i think that this court has made clear that when a case follows a procedural history like that this court first looks to the propriety of the original commission decision it looks to the propriety of the original commission decision specifically if there was a reversal on manifest weight grounds asking the questions any time those kinds of situations arise as to whether or not any reasonable trial or effect would have found differently i specifically that particular legal rule that we argue was violated by the circuit court as the court recognized and in girls we think that the circuit court likewise as in simply substitute its judgment for that of the commission the real reasonable the real question is whether a reasonable trier of fact could have found any facts similar to support the original decision of the commission and we think that there are many of those facts now in the girls to marry case it was a repetitive trauma case it wasn't a repetitive trauma back a source of repetitive trauma nikkei's but in that instance we likewise had procedurally the same situation in which there use the she failed to prove accident or furious is that there was clearly no distinct injury alleged and proven that essentially has been conceded by the employer or excuse me the employee the claimant but our argument here on appeal is that it was not against the manifest weight of the evidence for the arbitrary and the commissioner to find that she simply had failed to prove an accident within the meaning of the work compact that the repetitive trauma injury simply wasn't proven the finding of the commission that a reasonable trier of fact in this situation would have concluded that both the vagueness with which the testimony was given by the claimant herself as to the definite time place and circumstance of the accident combined with medical causation those two clearly we commission provinces to decide was properly decided the first time notwithstanding a dissent of dissent that was relatively lengthy i would point out on the dissent that if we're going to character count if you will like kids do with twitter there's a pretty fact rich finding by the commission as well the commission assuming to have adopted that fact find effect rich finding by the arbitrator himself is recently i was recently even at the time of testimony of the claimant herself it hearing on cross examination she's not clear when this accident happened that's really one of the most important factors that this court looks to in repetitive trauma cases in which the fact finding and evidence weighing province of the commission plays itself out i would further point out that the circuit core applying the manifest weight standard actually recognized this and in fact says in the opinion of the supreme court and here i'm referring to the original decision that the did there's no question about that it's also absolutely the case that the arbitrator adopted by the commission to the one pointed out that he was not persuaded by the opinion of doctors under the reason that i feel one must go further to the fact finding fact weighing that the commission did properly rationally in this case is that the armor trader in the commission didn't even feel it necessary apparently to get to the opinions of two section twelve examiners for respondent and find one favored over the other the arbitrator in the commission simply said that he was they were unpersuaded by the opinion of the section twelve examiner for the so sure arguments distinctly in support of the commission's original decision would be what is that they properly weighed as is their province disputed issues of fact found in favor of the employer profession thinks is the most definitive diagnosis of profit tunnel syndrome in one thousand nine hundred one indicated that there was probably carpal tunnel syndrome the gentleman continued to tough it out and work there then again was another one in one thousand nine hundred two same thing getting worse hundred eighty three yet another year and she followed very soon thereafter by can't tough it out much longer need to have the surgery and an alleged date of accident at the end of it that's really what the oscar meyer case was about there was really the recitation by this court that there would not be announced and totally inflexible rule as to when a petitioner is permitted to allege a repetitive trauma accident that's quite a bit different than normal rule at all there's always been the rule that there's the requirement to prove definite time place and circumstance although within inflexible circumstances given the nature of repetitive trauma we're very other questions i'll reserve time for them you have  her counsels argument and briefly the procedure of history in this case obviously we think the decision on remain and is correct for some strange coincidence is the same commission who initially was against the petition r i believe that we think that hillstrom mary leave office this court the opportunity to not initially jump on to the original decision issued by the commission really i say that because when a commission decision involves a legal issue and i would suggest that repetitive trauma there's he's law under a wind that's well to develop it goes up to the supreme court when the commission doesn't utilize that body of water and in correctly as a digger the first decision is looking for a single traumatic event and not looking at it as a repetitive trauma case when it gets to the circuit court their court can yes it did do a did noble review and then when it goes back down to the commission on remey and what it did that same three commissioners  review i think with the court when the court takes the body of war and applies it to the facts and i believe that's what justice brennan did in this case she calls in a manifest way to the evidence and i think it's more of a utilizes this is just one of many traumatic events that the into the petitioner and they do not look at suggesting benefit a repetitive trauma while what is a manifestation big and if i can separate that nation because i believe the area down on two grounds first the date that we put down the march ninth two thousand and seven to the date of the exit that is going to be the last state that this petitioner is going to work for employer in a job which is unrebutted a very heavy lifting job on respond that is never challenge that has never challenged what her job duties are in any way shape or form and she leaves more bad today as reasonable person not a physician and is not going to return to her job for pitney bowes at any time so i think we did not look at her her job duties they did not look what she was doing they did not look that then she's going to start seeing doctors and never come back with respect and immediately with causation this petitioner has the unfortunate situation where she's going to go to many many different doctors we're not going to r duty disability then says work which work it's not duty disability we're cutting you off there and comp on the other hand says we're not picking it up you have nothing but complicates this woman's medical she loses they change plans she ok this woman has definitely preexisting back we've never disputed that but he links it up that the lifting is is a cost in the commission in the original decision doesn't go into anything like that they don't even really w doctors under good light and petitioner statements as to her job however he has no clear idea of the frequency you reported to him or the frequency of the various stresses that she would encounter goes o did not get sufficient knowledge of the petitioners dr v's repetitive activity or stress is when the experience to give a meaningful and sufficient opinion to establish repetitive traum in addition dr lana off refers to the present state of generally accepted medical studies which show that lifting work there's no correlation with frequency of back injury dr where also pointed petitioner does not really have any physical  he heard from the petitioner and first job description she was required to freeplay list boxes that took away in excess of fifty pounds he goes on and i think the commission just for whatever reason did not go and read doctors in dri of the original commission decision must be looked at by this court the next argument i would make in reply only is that in fact the commission in that's original decision acknowledged that this was a repetitive problem case they said that a distinct discrete injury was not alleged and therefore began to apply repetitive trauma analysis  i think that she's me my argument is that there is no deference at the commission there ought not be here by this court to section twelve examiners one over the other as opposed to the clearly recognized standard that there often is that deference at the commission to treating physicians over as damning physicians the only causal connection opinion here in support of the repetitive trauma theory is doctors