awkwardness in the physically demanding nature of his job so he wasn't doing it enough what i think the commission overlooks was the time to station you've been doing this since one thousand seventy two he testified which was not that's true but i don't think you have to have facts that assume we wirework to be able to establish that of trouble for chain of events stresses on the body and we have all of these activities a videotape of seventeen minutes l he never missed any time off of work as a result of that in fact the only time that he missed work was for an unrelated surgery that had nothing to do with this particular cause of the very was the problem at the very least aggravated a big just in conditions which i just want to be sure clear that it's your testimony that these work activities was aggravated symptoms he says yes they can cause an aggravated symptoms the basic purpose for which an individual such as mr tyson were anyone for that matter seeks medical care c s surgery for which he had done goes to a doctor is because of symptoms it is well settled and i'm sure all of you have come across situations where you've been presented with with evidence or testimony that establishes a person has a preexisting condition but can never have a symptom associated they could have underlying degenerative disc disease they have underlying problems with their ip that might show up on an m r i it might show up an x ray but never have a symptom it's the symptom that's being treated in this particular case and the answer just isn't obvious question dr miller in my opinion provides the causation the reason why i believe the commission and their decision is against a manifest way of evidence and the fact that there can be an opposite conclusion drawn is the fact that the commission decision is for a day of miller's testimony never talks about  never says oh by the way we find they're not supportable based upon the hypothetical statement however they never say there was also another doctor employers section twelve doctor that says i don't mention it i don't know if they really went with miller over there or vice versa they don't save dr miller's name or if i review is it they don't mention what you testified to so i think if you have these two doctors  you know we have a situation here we have a preexisting condition there's no doubt about it i will admit that the petitioner did not do a great job of going into his doctor and saying this is what i do for a living this is where my problem came from and because of bad i think that's where the commission comes the inclusion and says well we just can't reach that far but i think if you look at all  down thinking this was going to be discussed this morning after a deer was given a hypothetical regarding continuous i mean up and down letters he was given a hypothetical person continuous in and around structures he was given a hypothetical regarding stepping up did for this employer he climbs up and down where's he gets in and around structures there was no dispute when he testified that he's got to crawl into a space the size of that yes you do his job as a maintenance worker he's got to step and he uses those terms i think very similarly to miller with respect to the fact that you look at what he's doing at work it's these micro traumas of these activities that's aggravating the problem i don't think you're you're go i understand your rather well i think dr revere addresses that issue if you look at the testimony and also dr miller addresses this issue as well with respect to if we take two individuals if we take mr tyson and we clone him and we put him in two different positions two different jobs one is his job as pressman maintenance man for the station all register another one as a clerical worker who sits all day and does nothing back to repair testifies but the second person may never have any problems he's going to have the same underlying these are problems but because of the nature of his work or lack thereof he may never have any problems well that's where you get where into another precise  why if you use the old but for argument but for the work that the person is doing that increases the symptoms which occurs in the workplace and you get into the whole discussion you go back to with justice holdridge he may never have a pencil workmen's comp case and we have an individual that goes back year after year day after day of doing this work where symptoms continue to be symptoms or pain is there a if i think you would probably depend upon that that nature of that underlying condition whether you're talking about spying versus you know i'm certainly not a doctor i have to rely upon these individuals to help me you know understand these things but  it's it's his work that causes this problem it's the work that causes his for medical care it's the w related risk versus just the normal aging process and the testimony and the evidence in this case i think overwhelmingly shows it is part of the leaking process the normal aging process or the normal degenerative that you'd have to say causes yes ok yes so that in effect we'll have pain whether it's just that against the wall  distinguish job duties between when the prussians are winning and when you're not ok where he did for thirty plus years was comin midnight or eleven o'clock in the evening and run the press and his testimony was you know we had about an hour a half work to get everything lined up once press started running and worked for twenty minutes maybe go sampling and after six and a half hours my shift was done and went home now and two thousand and five he spends most if not all of his time working day they are doing more maintenance work during the day but they are still the press rests they're running the press or they're performing the maintenance on the press and you're always doing one of those but when you're running the press things are pretty easy and when you're positions using a variety of tools and that is simply not the definition of a repetitive job task for four days which is what the when dr adair deposition was taken on cross examination he was asked about the degree of osteoarthritis and he said this petitioner in his if they had stage osteoarthritis  probably due to his genes is a genetic makeup he's just got a ton of arthritis in his hips and knees and everything he does is causing him pain which is precisely what he told his family doctor years before this were the issue ever arose he told this doctor lands on you for years before he ever sees doctor and they're any kind of move of stairs causes a lot and he says the same thing in two thousand and six and in the thing the symptoms continue when he sees dr adair two thousand and commission correctly from one no proof repetitive job activity into a doctor and they're called connection opinion is not reliable because of the hypothetical is simply not proof either i mean yeah offered i've had a chance to think about your question proposal was a we have to look beyond the symptoms and we have to look at what the doctor says in relation to that symptom which is in any particular case whether you've regards to the medical care issue the symptom is what is treated we've all agreed the underlying degenerative problem of this individual yes although not caused by work as mr probably a situation gene it's his symptoms that each of these factors say work can cause the symptoms was the pain if the gentleman never works again then maybe his symptoms go away he continues to work with the symptoms become really bad two thousand and seven two thousand and five two thousand and seven and it's those symptoms for which the recommendation for surgery is made i can't think of any doctor orthopedic or not that would recommend searching for a patient who was a symptomatic so i think the answer to the question is that yes if the symptoms are riveted by work if it dr says however it might be because that's something stems from work and the work that he's doing he's entitled to compensation but mueller testifies that his need for medical treatment for his knees and hips was d