commission vacated the a work with regard to left play reduce the amount of the award for the right play that was the majority decision that the senate would have denied and award with regard to the right leg as well we feel that to jefferson county jefferson county affirm decision the main issue on appeal is based on the various strange facts that developed in this case at the hearing prior to the hearing we were all operating under a  he the problem with this case is that the commission awarded benefits on a repetitive problem and theory and the question of law that has been presented to the court today is basically does is it kind of petitioner take a years and you suddenly have a traumatic accident and then you go seek treatment or it may find a torn meniscus it kind of slants the evidence as to why he was getting treatment and if you look at the m r i s and from the from d it's clear that the treatment that the first scoped surgery that was performed is because of the torn medium in this case and that's the problem we get into it's it's like our if we're treating this for an injury to hi meniscus now it would appear that that injury occurred six months prior and he didn't report it and basically turned around and filed it as repetitive trauma which with the underlined generative arthritis was accepted by the commission and report it to your lawyer you file a claim timely and i don't see an exception to that based on these facts i mean he specifically stated he should have reported it he didn't report it i didn't go there and he said he wished he had done so i mean there have been plenty of cases where somebody fifty five noticed that the employer do basically have his claim bar because now that's not fair to them in all honesty because they blew that timeline but what's the difference between this and  shown the circumstance not if it's not the notice outside the forty five days based on why and in this case there there is no notice and he specifically stated there was no notice and the problem the problem with allowing this to happen is that you then end up with is that an accident they had a manifestation of this clearly he knew that he entered himself six months prior he testified that it's pushing the car it hurt it should have reported it so is trauma in this case he clearly had a traumatic accident didn't report it and then turned it into a repetitive trauma claim somewhere down the road and that's basically circumventing the entire reason we have saturates with notice and  all the rest of it and that's basically the question that we're putting to this court you know can you convert a traumatic accident into a repetitive trauma simply by not following the statutes that say what you're supposed to do when you have a traumatic and that is the question that we have posted this before and and it's our position that you cannot it's simply you know one or the other and for that reason we have asked that this court they take the award that was put in at the hearing indicated that thing with regard to repetitive bending he testified that he didn't lift tires and he said that he stood on a rubber mat not on the concrete so that's your opinion on station and clearly we think that's a little weak considering there was also videotape that was reviewed which there was no if you have the pushing and parts on any of that we ask that