do her job as well as the facts of the actual of the actual case that's presented to miss murray in april of two thousand and three i was at her family physician and explained to her doctor that she had the occasion feelings of having pins and needles in his her doctor just of if he felt like it was probably a carpal tunnel syndrome situation but wanted to make sure that that day ordered an e m t study which was going to be eight days by the doctor's recommendation she was she was taking off work until this the study could be skeptical of the study w purple tunnel syndrome and after that diagnosis was related to the petitioner the the treatment or the acquisition of information on that claimant is aware of the fact that there's an injury and that's possibly connected to the work the answer is there's a diagnosis of a condition and it's a big it's actually very the reason i'm here is is to clarification of a fairly reasonable question which is is the diagnosis of a condition it injury the petition or have some complaints that she didn't understand what they were but the same time not disabling she gets that treatment no splits her time off work i mean there truly is no treatment after the diagnosis i am working in full capacity for a period of three three years doing again very intensive work is the diagnosis of a condition an injury i understand what you're asking and i agree with you the manifestation of the diagnosis was at that time i agree there you wanting the law he's say get this figured out because they wanted to know what it was from that hate her family physician says like to have you go see an orthopedic just to get in the m g to find out if my if i think is going on is correct during that time it was his that injury doesn't occur so there isn't disablement in that condition that which is i am that's really what i'm going some sort of some sort of disablement some sort of some sort of repercussions to their job performance some sort of you know i'll say that or are just doesn't anyone know what about the employee who was actually injured in work and continues on working under your theory would be entitled workers compensation benefits because he long in the same capacity and five years later i suppose i come forward and say i can no longer take they probably do my job you know you're going to say i can't do my job you say i want to recover under workers compensation because i th again i've i'm just in my argument what i'm saying is the injury happening occurred five years really it's occurred when that i cannot for my job that's the injury there's a difference to me between a condition of the women you mean to me and i can't be forty five days of the manifestation of injury i suppose the question that i present them or which i don't which i have a hard time understanding is in this exact situation if the case is filed this say was filed a couple properly under the commission's decision and the facts states that we have they are and this person works for two three four years with no with no problems with no you know treatment with no need for treatment by their own test so there is there is no case there is no i don't that's the part that this confusing to me if the case is off and then at some point whether it becomes a case that's been around for two or three years you know without any treatment or without any complaints effect case was taken to trial at that point under the conditions that we have now the the arbitrator would rightfully say there is no injury there is no permanency there was no treatment it would be it would be a case that would be denied and that's and that's where i get confused on how could you answer is you can't have them both places which you agree that there has to be a date of the accident that's in some point yes history on your steering what's the date of the against the manifest weight of the other if you might my argument would be that i don't believe that having a condition that's diagnosed as an injury i would use i would use the example it's hard for me to do but i would compare it to you know use this it once yesterday with one of my coworkers as we all know from being in the workers compensation system we probably all have degenerative disc disease in our back something that's very well founded that as you get older you have arthritis well if i have any kind of a back pain and the situation i've already got to do it is just as ease if i get by it if it's something that's not you know i feel like what you're saying is with anything that's repetitive in nature whether it's joint issues whether it's purple title whether it's there can be a diagnosis of a condition without the inability to have it affect your work performance and i think the goal of work is to do is to protect the employee against those situations where they have a work related injury that affects their their physical health and their ability to do their job and i understand also that the employer has rights i understand that but i think the goal of the law is to protect that right first and i feel like those people with the repetitive injury with the feeling that they are not injured which is what this lady saying she's with respect to the artwork slip it's referred to on of april fourteenth two thousand and three it's pacifically notes that is due to the work related injury and it was by a doctor for me so she is off work to injury also when she gets the results of is demonstrating slowing of the nerves that is an injury and it's that it's diagnosed by the doctor and it's also diagnosed on the test so the only issue becomes what is the nature and extent he said that would not be a case that could be which he would play would be entitled to in the first of the commission findings that i think they should they have another alternative here which is already they've already filed for this same carpal tunnel syndrome you know using them using the later  lucky in this situation to have a false life you know really but i don't think that's the issue on this case before the court because that's not the case and so in the end the real question was it would look i would love to have a definition