tunnel syndrome and claimed that it was work related and repetitive trauma the arbitrator and missionary both found that her job was not repetitive and that her duties did not relate to her condition not mean any disrespect to judge milian i think that she's a good judge and has a very impressive career and and is a role model for young women practicing law like myself but i think that judge moore when applied the wrong standard of her feel in this case is against the manifest weight of the evidence if no rational trier of fact could have agreed with the commission's decision in this case all of the commissions and the arbitrators findings are supported by credible evidence what the circuit court is not supposed to do and refusing these types of cases is substitute their judgment for the commission's judgment of the circuit court not supposed to judge the credibility of witnesses especially medical witnesses the circuit court is not to discard permissible inferences that are made by the mission and place  as i said with the circuit court is supposed to do as look at the commission's findings and determine whether those findings are supported by credible evidence even if that judge disagreed the  and the commission all supported their findings by credible evidence they both agreed that her job was not prepared it was much evidence throughout the record to support this first she was  the physical tasks that she performed there were a myriad of tasks she had significant recovery time between these physical tasks for example yes she did unload a truck with a team of people but she did this only once a week she testified that many of her duties were managerial she admitted that she was responsible for the payroll she dealt with the customer complaint and that's just the name of it i think about how much time i personally spend beyond seeing my own checkbook and that certainly takes me more than an hour and i can imagine if you are running a register and during his deposition he found out more about her job duties and throughout her treatment he found out more and during his deposition he said the only thing that she did that could have contributed to her condition was unloading the truck and he also admitted that he didn't know how often she unloaded as he didn't know how many boxes she unloaded how much they weighed he didn't know anything except for jell o to the truck but regardless findings there were two doctors and the commission adopted the decision or the opinions of dr pierce and it is solely within the province of the commission to determine the credibility of witnesses and particularly that eighty five percent of her time was doing physical tasks and therefore her job was repetitive she substituted her judgment there because there was at ins in the records to support the commission's finding was spent doing managerial functions they had the job description which explains all the managerial duties that she was in charge of and they also had her job title all  took to unload the truck but she did say that she worked with the team and her job in unloading the truck as it came down a conveyor was to catch the boxes and scan them she said that there could be anywhere between three hundred and seven hundred boxes and i am so that she that were in the boxes really really vary anywhere from candy bars to what lone glass yeah chew sacks used to put around your house within the province of the commission and edition missed the general manager actually testified that sixty to seventy percent of her time at least sixty to seventy percent of her time was that's a different circumstances but if she had proved arbitration or at the commission level then yes it would have been small but that's not the case that we have here she's alleging a pattern trauma and the commission right and he testified as to all of his job duties and really in the job was very physical at i think it was much more physical than her job even if we presume that eighty five percent of her time was  spent on jobs he said he spent two to three hours a day using sledgehammers that ranged anywhere from eight to sixteen pounds he used various tools and and doing his repairs and some of them would range and he was six feet tall so his job was very physical but the commission found that he failed to prove that he did the same repetitive task on a daily basis and in that case like the case at hand here there is a coworker who came in and testified i think that he really exaggerated the physical aspect of his job just like very young schmidt did in this case and said really sixty seven sixty to seventy percent of the time is actually an amateur aerial and both cases the commission adopted you know or found that the coworkers their work was more credible in that regard and in all of the cases the overturned unless it's against the manifest weight of the evidence unless it is clearly apparent that the commission based their decision and i know competent evidence i think really supports that judge m significant difference between judge mol and commissioner mallory masing is that the commissioner was allowed to view that evidence as in the trial or back she was allowed to determine the credibility of evidence and the witnesses and she was supposed to judge bork was not supposed to substitute her judgment for that of the commission the sixteen cases cited by the employer examining physician was asked very directly what is the catch of usual between repetitive work type activities and carpal tunnel if anything and he identified three things forceful gripping more likely there is a contributing factor between those activities and the development of carpel tunnel the answer is stated medical principle and i suggest to you that that's addressing the specific question of what's the causal relationship what does he say he says a reference was made by the patient to working with unloading vehicle however boxes would come down the conveyor belt don't have to be carried lifted registered keyboard use is also described but not to be issued phone to show she's so sure that's it that's his that's what he described way as the petitioners i work isputed material fact i suggest to you is that even taking the respondents with us the regional manager she says forty to  she stacking shelves that's number one number two you have the employers all right and chad description which describes as a major and critical jodi's reaching polling his conclusion is against  jab description and essentially says all the more reason i conclude this is a work related or a partially work related carol our case because her her you have all the factors in your professional medical opinion what is the cause of injury he said if you don't care if you throw your hands up and say doctor you don't know what you're talking about how does that home how i'm separating the his opinion from the analysis not think that counsel brought up before you today is anything that's different that wasn't argued before the commission and that wasn't considered by the commission and their finding that her job was one not repetitive and different items of different weights and she didn't testify anywhere that she used a pinch type breath or even where where a wrist was when she was carrying these products but most importantly was the frequency similar situation occurred where in the circuit court overturns the commission's findings and the house or admonish the circuit court and substituting their judgment for the commission and