know i think cell phone the question of where the court is whether mr harding should receive the award against his subsequent employer her condition which had already been decided by the commission was caused by an earlier employer freeman united coal mining company that case he had litigated in said my bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome was caused by my work of thirteen years as a roof alter and he explained that great detail all that's in this record also and the arbitrator and the commission said yes your carpal tunnel syndrome is caused by that work for freeman united when he was seeking was medical treatment he wanted surgery is dr dr boyle way he had recommended bilateral carpal tunnel surgery mr harding wanted bilateral carpal turner tunnel surgery while working for freeman united back case one up to the commission the notice during the forty five days he had the condition it was caused by by freeman united it was possibly related to his accident to his work there but he couldn't recover against freeman united because of notice of freeman united goes out of business the mine is sold to another company other company mines to call that center crown he works for them for a much shorter period of time and he then files a claim against them for the exact same condition carp there how can you tell us at the same areas are involved in nine cases of pain just under the five believe it's the freed case it doesn't have to be the same respondent as long as it's the same party with a doctor in spain used against that is becomes is he actually suffering from the same condition that he had when he had the original case that you're talking about  upon robin hood his interpretation of of and a test run by someone else he thought that the numbers were different that the the treating physician looking at i mean he literally and the deposition had them side by side  nothing objective leigh wrong there's no atrophy i mean nothing now i'm not saying nothing object there are no objective worsening his physical findings were exactly the same as they had been when he was working for freeman united when he litigated that first cases doctor who are with set tells me that subjectively he's worse but the test results are exactly the same and his physical examination is exactly the same as soon as also in your hundred percent correct in the commission believe i mean you know i believe the clinical it was meant to me objective i mean because if you do a physical examination and there's no objective change where's the clinical change you would move you do if you do the examination by moving  say you have to have to repent of a truly repetitive job this man testified he did many different types of activities two days on a life he doesn't do one action over and over and over again and dr ryan testified in his opinion  already been in front of you and you've already turned him down he had his eye on a technicality he didn't get this paid for by his higher employer he's now looking for a second bite at the apple for the same condition against another  had prior to that in two thousand and five he was seeking to obtain elective surgery he was able to continue working he was not having the symptoms that he had in two thousand and nine in two thousand and nine and returned to  facts are not present in this case as were present in the prior case given with different employers you're dealing with a different condition which has become much the more severe and which has actually affected his ability to do his job almost a complete breakdown of his of his carpal tunnel his hands for that reason he saw additional treatment and he could no longer wait for any other authorization to use his health insurance to get it done he says i think the evidence shows that the commission was correct that his work activities were more hand intensive they were extremely repetitive even though he may perform different activities and operate on different machinery going to day to day basis his hands don't know the difference between a roof bolter and a minor when he's using a screwdriver some sort of hand tool that he's forcefully gripping the commission obviously felt that his testimony about the length of time that he did his work during the course of the day was more credible than the owner of the company's testimony that he did last time and i think that is true here as well because no owners want to let people see around doing two hours of work when they're hired to do a full day's w accelerate the symptoms and cause them to worsen i believe the commission resolved all the conflicts in the evidence it correctly and in favor of cesure here and i think that the award as appropriate there's any questions