repetitive trauma cases lately have been denied value never gets compensation commission they have been denied mainly due to various political reasons however without getting into those complex political reasons i'm requesting today that this court reversed the decision of illinois over his compensation commission due to issues that are presented for this review in court today the first is sure that is presented in front of the screen here in court as hit of accident the employee was also working from wal mart twenty hours a week the employee title at the employer was that of a document that if she was a document capture technician the job duties of the intervention for both her breast however shortly after doctors are stricken mentation the employee was terminated and she had no means of paying for the treatment the petitioner or the employee and then saw dr houseman who referred  saw the petitioner get sufficient evidence regarding her work activities to form a reliable causation opinion that includes dr how that's every doctor who saw this woman and if there is absolutely no evidence going to the issue of causation what's wrong with the commission's decision does rather it be they are talking about a pariah bill or their information about the job going into my second argument your honor is the commission the session was against a math of the evidence as justices pointed out in this case that even if the commission is finding that they didn't have sufficient description that you provided me right now i think does support what she told me in the office and so my opinion would remain the same then it could i might have caused carpal tunnel syndrome besides our cigars are corroding again have the same understanding of petitioners job duties done to really also testified that i believe that that thirty three years of exposure to repair the positional changes required to manipulate a hospital turning system meets my level of causation other workers compensation commission cases the depositions the doctors are taken before we proceed hearing and i think what happened in this case is the fact that the experts testified before the hearing and you look at their direct testimony in fact examination of their opinions in themselves cross them up for example dr garst testified on direct examination that he felt there could be a work of a condition but he testified that was based off the history that she did data entry for the five hours a day that's before the trial started a cross thought she was a secretary at the job the wrong job title he admitted he admitted that i think that's very significant in the back to what he knows and doesn't know how much data entry she does and doesn't do now once again the second expert testifies before we go to trial mission for purposes of this part of his argument let's assume it's in evidence he says he does not believe it's work related condition he says you familiar with the work activities so then we go to trial ms hagman testifies and she doesn't provide the information it's in the job description to the arbitrator if you look at her testimony she says i was not doing data entry up to five hours a day she says that her job was winding down in march of year two thousand and fact the hospital's going paperless so it didn't match up then you have the outside conditions such as the hypothyroidism that was evidence in the case that she had that condition and all the doctors agree that could be a cause of this condition so is our position this case that she feel to meet her burden and establish her cross thing say the exact opposite upon questioning of the attorneys the problem is this when you have a worker's compensation case and the experts have already testified that should be a blueprint to the person who has a burden of proof of what they have to do time of trial they have the that i was the attorney and i've never been alleged of filing for trial you know twenty four years of practicing law i've taken a thousand depositions of these experts there is a stipulation on the record that document that the that the miss haven sign to see one that there was a physician patient relationship versus an agent we came back and mr strong and i sat there and discussed this on the record and there's a stipulation on the record that for the purposes of this case and we said this case only dr harder was an agent of my client and was not a transition and we proceeded on that deposition so i was surprised when we got the documents on appeal from the commission in the brief that they said oh wait a minute now there's a earth again going into the decision of the commission and finding that they did not find any reliable testimony regarding petitioners or employees job unities that is against the manifest weight of the evidence doris they had a understanding a general understanding of what she did on a daily basis they might not have known how many times she spent on each activity but they know throughout what kind of activities should it be are