case i think those two issues are a bit more connected than they are in the typical case in a realist the for reaching implications of your position and charges you said you were the far reaching implications of your position in this case every expose her to her wrists and that risk is intimately associated with performance of her job traveling back and forth that they did that and we can show that with a preponderance of evidence that said her job involved one hundred percent travel but she actually flew about three hours a week that's correct but that's a total of one hundred percent travel it isn't like she's flying thirty hours a week right and secondly i'm searching the we have to get that there is no direct testimony on that that's that's that's quite clear and and i started out by saying this is a kind of a case where those two issues are connected one might you might say to me well mr casey is this really similar to like a repetitive trauma where you have told us you know i want to hear from you you better darn well have an expert testifying to that connection because out how do we know that the repetitive problems that was the cause  supports the work that that's exactly right to news reports in the work kinetic and in support of the war it may under the circumstances and facts of this case with the other evidence the case yet in the face of hear of but that only supports the notion that this type of activity could cause this injury that's competent but it is absolutely no evidence that it did if i can exclude all other risk factors which i can't in this case you can't their own risk factors here where it could have caused it so what you're sitting with is you sitting with a situation w one doctor says it may have done him and another doctor says there is no reasonable relationship that can be attached to a reasonable degree of medical certainty which means the case feels and proof it has to fail because all of the other medical evidence in this record demonstrates that she had no risk factors other doctor the first doctor who saw her in virginia says she got no respect as he knew she  death she has no other risk factors she has no other risk factors eight no other risk factors other than free could air travel be she was told by a doctor yes stephanie don't fly anymore she didn't fly family history could not be considered it was there where a family history was made they said she has she has no she has no she i'm quoting them the medical records were i can't speculate whether family history is no in most cases of getting hit by a forklift because of an accident that's why it's similar to similar to a carpal tunnel syndrome based repetitive trial but it isn't the same as a carpal tunnel syndrome the you say to me  why can't any doctor come here say well she's got a risk factor for this and then ask the commission to to their forward benefits because in this case i have more than that in this case a of medical testimony excluding all the other stuff in he's conceded that he doesn't have a causal connection to correct a worker bee is raising the specter that he doesn't needed to he's saying that the chain of events dr you're aware of the chain of events doctor correct is the possible equivalent of a stab wishing compensable it here he doesn't need a causation opinion what's your response to that i still think it's a factual question i still think that it belongs in the manifest way just because one court goes ahead and uses the causal chain of connection tunnel case and and the implication that you raise about can anybody come and say possibly might could have does that open up the door not in this case i think if you