or we have jurisdiction so how you get around that argument well i would submit to you was fine on that there was a majority opinion but there's no question that this was decided under unique circumstances and the commission itself acknowledged that in their decision but at the end of their decision it says the commission therefore it here by quarters and they ordered the responded to pay t v and they ordered they responded to pay medical  there was the quote unquote majority decision you should put a single commissioner and then you got the dissents lindsey's as nothing it's nothing to do causation the third commission  majority must be the same two people i think were reading something into that i looked up the word majority the day before i left and it said greater than one half of the total and so that's what you happier you have to commissioners who agreed to accident in causing action and saying and i think you can infer that from this decision i mean i believe you can i believe the case law states that you can infer findings from the decision and molly mason special concerns and this sense she says in the majority's view well the only two people be in the conferred by the parties that can't be told no i and i completely agree with you about that i i just would respectfully submit that this is in fact a final and upheld the determination so with that in mind you want me to continue is basing her theory of recovery on a repetitive trauma claim repetitive trial that being her job duties are at it and there must be a causal nexus between the actual job duties and because of the condition in this case carpal tunnel syndrome of repetitive and they actually went on to say because these job duties we couldn't really rely on dr fernandez's opinion because he didn't have any sense of the job duties and therefore they wouldn't give her causation as it related to the fundamental cause of the carpal tunnel syndrome as related to her job duties they said it wasn't there but then inexplicably went on to say even though these job duties are repetitive that's not important as important in a theory aggregation of a preexisting be the initial cost of couple tunnel syndrome due to repetitive trauma or an aggravation of a preexisting condition you still have to meet meet the same burden of proof you don't lessen the burden to prove just because it's an aggravating factor then they went on to duties are not repetitive when you're advancing a repetitive from a theory further dr fernandez had a faulty understanding as to her job duties he did not know what her job duties was when they disposed him he said he i would submit to use causation opinion is not credible which is pretty much what in fact the commission found they said that we we don't really agree with dr fernandez but we just don't think that's important as important when it comes to an aggravating theory they are the commission also them in two thousand stated specifically that there was no causal relationship between her work duties and her develop a couple tunnels under any facts stated in two thousand i think there's something else going on with her that she has some sort of underlying disease process she should have it looked into there after she started treating and remember called by two thousand and four she was diagnosed with zero negative rheumatoid arthritis dr goldberg then caesar again in two thousand and eight has the benefit of all these records and says unequivocal  that there's no possible relationship between the claimants job duties and her development a couple tunnel center and it has to do with her underlying disease process well given the commission's finding that her job duties aren't repetitive honor my my argument to this panel which i made to the circuit court is there was not a majority opinion rendered by the commission for the reasons that this court is a list that during my counsel's argument we have majority opinion on the accident we have a majority opinion on a causal connection temporary told disability medical services but not in promising there's no way that we can argue that commissioner lindsay commissioner doll fein the commissioner mason saying we find in behalf of the claimant everything except potency commissioner lindsay says that she agrees with the ira trader who found that  suffered bilateral capa tunnel syndrome but not to the extent that it permanently disabled her under an odd lot there e she found that as arbitrator peterson that she suffered permanent partial disability to the extent that each of her hands commissioner mason on the other hand tooken a consideration the vocational report of mr von monte his opinions as well as reviewing the job that was allegedly made and offered in tender to miss aragon and said now there's circuit court and send it back to the commission to make a majority finding and what's the permanent nature and extent of my client's injuries i made the argument to the circuit court and i'm making it here as well  ith regard to the decision itself assuming that that does not occur i'd like to address a couple of the issues raised by counsel with regard to accident as we know the standard here is whether or not the commission's decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence is the opposite conclusion clearly apparent here the commission made a decision between competing opinions competing medical pinions we have dr fernand we have dr gonzalez on one hand saying that there is a causal relationship between my client's bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and her work activities and we have on the other hand the respondent section twelve examiners  to her only really only personal to her was it was the cause of the major cause of her bilateral condition and we have testing that was ordered by her family doctor dr hurst and who excluded the exact thought she had the carpal tunnel she doesn't have rheumatoid arthritis arthritis she doesn't have other systemic conditions that would cause this carpal tunnel the commission waive those opinions and they in the case thing all the trial until two thousand and eight be that as it may the petitioner did testify that she had to clean offices if you read her testimony she had to clean doctors offices in the first building that she worked in in the second building that she worked in for two years she was clean classrooms bathrooms public bathrooms private bathrooms but the first building she worked in she cleaned doctors offices which is why i gave to dr for an end this and we understand that the trauma is a result of the keep communal of effects of doing this type of work which he's done for ten years as a janitor there's no evidence suggesting that she had this condition prior to working for the university there's no obvious suggests that she had any other metabolic condition that would cause or contribute to carpal tunnel so i would submit that the opinion of dr friend is is reliable and is based on facts that are in the record with regard to the problem and see aspect of the case if you find that there was a majority opinion on p p d from a partial disability i point to the fact to reasonable agreeable cation will serve empty been missing ever again this would not be compatible with this position she didn't have the skill set she didn't have the education even the one year training as commissioner mason pointed out w be futile she would not be able to rise to the level necessary to perform the computer work the secretarial work and the data work that was required by this clerical assistant position th budget testimony that we have in the record to show that she would not be able to accept this position and take on that position even with the twelve month training program this is the only testimony we have i would you something else i would say i would request that if you are going to vacate it and send it back if you go back and everything is it as it stands now we have it to the wind and the net should still be reflected into the to the record that there was actually a dissent and i don't know what would happen and when it went back to the commission and how they might rule relative to the other the other issues i mean i guess we can give them very specific instructions that say you must fin needs to be very clear that if it's being vacated the only purpose that it would be in front of the commission then if we're only putting it back for permanency is that you can only reassess proceed based upon the record that you have in front of me and what the short of it is you're not really comfortable answering this