arbitrator's decision and sort of court affirmed it's petitioner's contention that the commission's decision is faulty and against the manifest way of the evidence for two reasons the first reason is the commission's decision to overturn the arbitrators finding is not based on any contrary evidence and to the commission is fixated on this unsupported proposition that medical records must contain a patients work history before they can be considered credible when looking at the commission's decision opinion on review the sole justification for the commission's decision is that the evidence was without support imputed contemporaneous medical history the commission's adoption of this phrase not supporting the contemporaneous medical history cannot be the sole basis for the commission overturning arbitrators finding as such the manifest weight of the evidence shows that the petitioner provided notice that was fission july fifteenth two thousand was a date which the petitioners injury manifested itself and three the medical records along with the medical testimony proves that the condition the petitioner's condition of ill being is causal related to his employment i first want to address what evidence was presented at the trial and why then i would dress why the commission's adoption of the phrase not supported in the contemporaneous medical history is not enough to overturn arbitrator's decision this court is well aware of the standards for the commission and that there must be submission factual evidence in the record to support the commission's decision that's the problem with the commission's decision in this case is that there is no factual evidence presented that allows the commission to give to overturn arbitrator's decision let's look at the evidence that was presented in the case first of all let's look at the petitioners job to activity the petitioner provided detailed undisputed testimony describing his job activities in the commission rec nice this and they can now it's what the what the petitioner stead and even and i quote the commission fish giving some mechanism of injury that can be acceptable and repetitive trauma cases the responded provided no contrary evidence of petition or job activities secondly let's look at the evidence regarding notice the purported into the nose and you indicated that and you know the superficial peel to it well the commission just shouldn't reject the testimony of the worst b because there's no legitimate basis to do so at least that's your argument however what about dr venders opinion isn't there clearly contrary evidence in the record vendors as famous condition bill being was caused by a cyst and degenerative arthritis correct dr venders opening in is very suspect in that first time in his deposition he testifies bad with the job if you knew of physical activities that the petitioner did his condition of ill being could be causally related to repetitive trauma injury and  deposition but further know the commission no where in their decision says that that's not the commission and the commission no we're relying on dr vendors opening it the commission merely state relevant in this case because he testifies under oath in his evidence deposition that with the physical with physical activities the petitioners the petitioner's repetitive trauma injury could have happened and he testifies in there because there was no nothing in the medical records he didn't and i he didn't know what his day to day basic activities were are you doing the same to me you're doing instead of taking the aware of but one would looking at the treating physician in the commissions the commission basically has about three paragraphs in which they focus on their analysis and reasoning and they were highly discredit work because his opinion so long after without contemporarily noted history suspect and would appear without would appear as speculation at that point and they go on further down that it's based on speculation that highly discounted but either they were made aware of or they forgot somewhere along the line but in doctored the worst piece of evidence deposition in which he testified under oath bed he was aware of the death of the petitioners who work in his basic activities that he did at work and then uses his his medical treatment of him and then c put weight to what they feel but there is in dr vendors deposition he states because there's nothing in the medical history he does you know if you given him repetitive trama  recognizes that this testimony is not rebutted by the respondent to one when looking at the evidence thus far we have the commission saying that petitioner testified that there's some mechanism of injury that can be acceptable and we have testimony that there was no what is in both of that is under a budget that's the only evidence that the commission has to look at those two things and then we get to the causal connection which we've already discussed a little  his evidence deposition opined that he was aware or of his employment in the basic activities that he even boyd and then during his treatment he opined on a reasonable degree of medical certain i quote from his deposition that the nature of the petitioners work contributed to the onset and progression of the rap with these as diagnosed during his care dr vendor in his evidence deposition opined that with repetitive motion the injury that the respondent suffered from could be caused is related i mean he could have suffered these injuries as a result of pet repetitiveness and he didn't have a history in the medical when he reviewed the record to see that so his opinion is is very suspect because he doesn't have all the facts like dr de worse he did we're supposed to be the he used he was a lineman troubleshooter for comment he would climb up poles and he would have to lift things up and he would use his hands as hammers throughout the day and he worked there for thirty for thirty years doing this were oh i'm sorry we're going to war to come from one of the thirty i'm not sure the day exactly but it was a long time before this accident twenty nine two thousand is when the note is written on i believe i don't know this for certain but i think he may have been involved in that case a while ago and i would imagine the petitioner maybe told him i i do not have any knowledge of exactly where that came from i just know that it is in the movember twenty ninth right the injury that dr analyst is referring to is an injury that was some time ago it's not close in relation to time to this accident oh i i don't know if it's fifteen years or twenty years he's talking about here is a circumstance other than the one for which he was treated were the i don't know i don't have the answer to that i think all i know is that what he referring to was an injury where he was shocked electrically and fell off a pole and i know if it's several years prior at least ten fifteen twenty i'm not sure i know it's nowhere close in relation  believe it was when he was beginning his job with comet and he had been with him for thirty years that that million dr analysts record is a great time before this was a while ago but the evidence in this case that the commission has is is under disputed that notice was given it's undisputed that there were some mechanism of this injury and the treating physician who was aware of the petitioner's work and the activities that he had commissions page for they really go into this and all three of them and the petitioner can't i can't find any support in which the workers compensation act or case law states that you need to have  contemporaneous medical history before any evidence can be credible and that's what the case does and we as we go through this you know the commission first states that the petitioner's testimony of his work is not rebut plea to supporters and that is completely false because there is medical evidence in the medical evidence is contained in the evidence deposition of d and which tied to dorsey the treating physician who doesn't have a you know he doesn't have a dog in this fight which he testified under oath he testified he was old where he was aware of where he worked in his basic or workers compensation commission's decision in this case of denying the claimant benefits circuit court really just address the issue of causal connection and certainly there are a number of facts in the and and by the way this claimant in one thousand seventy one had a workplace injury that that was not the subject of this case it involved this last left arm and dr dorothy and the records  indicated that the system the left arm was related to the surgery he did two thousand and six and it is deposition he did not even claim that the left arm surgery of zero six was related to this case he said he did not have an opinion on that and was choosing not to claim that that part of the treatment he rendered was related despite that every trader has had a word that the commission obviously disagreed with that finding but that's where thousand and one he gave a general opinion in the beginning of his testimony that he thought there was a causal connection then i'm cross he admitted that he didn't know what the claimant did specifically with his hands he didn't testified to the physical things he did on the job he also testified that to the nonphysical things he did and he himself described this to have his extremely varied in nature i don't think he even presented a picture of repetitive seventeen of his testimony in the transcript he says then i went to my g p and i says there's something wrong someplace because it came from a chap who is your g p my general practitioner dr dana couldn't put another in the bowl i kept dropping i couldn't hold the knot then i went to my g p and i says there's something wrong someplace because they can't perform a job i take after washers and nuts up in the bucket who is your g p my general practitioner dr dana how about july fifteenth so the commission obviously her testimony that he had given notice to him and they found then they go on to say that it's not rebutted by the respondent so notice really shouldn't even be an issue in this case commission found that it was given and it wasn't rebutted by the respondent but then they go on to say what is without support in this contemporaneous medical commission is fixated on this contemporaneous medical history which i do can't find any worthy act in the end the workers come back and i would suggest that it's not they are that you have to have in the history of medical history of work for the notice and with all the other reasonings that the commission you know tries to dispute because of the contemporaneous medical the petitioner doesn't have the advantage point of sitting there telling the doctor put down the list of my work activity in here the petitioner doesn't have that ability to sit there and tell the medical doctor send me your medical records so i can review moment make sure that the the work history  burned shouldn't be a burden that's placed on the petitioner that shouldn't be a burden of the petitioner just because it isn't in the medical and i want to look again and before it was time was up we were talking about doctor the worst who is the treating physician in this matter he's not somebody that's hired by the petitioner this is this is the surgeon that was there from day one and treated him throughout all these conditions and he gave an evidence deposition which he testified under oath that and this is directly from his deposition in which he was asked if you have an opinion to reasonable degree of medical and surgical certainty as to whether the condition for which you have treated him or causally related to his occupation mr given made an objection and then the doctor when i say answer i do believe that the nature of the plate patients work contributed to the onset in progression of the rockies as diagnosed during his car treatment what more do we want the doctor to do and to set just because he didn't in his in his medical records know down petitioner's work activities are here here and here he testified under oath that he knew what those were and that's just on the previous page he testified under oath  my comment about the possibility of opinion laded would be based on the assumption that it's a forceful job on a regular persistent basis but i did not necessarily pay out the facts of that he didn't have the and then he goes on to say if i was provided further information that verified a possible sumption of the forceful exertions so would so if i was provided more detailed information it may or may not have demonstrated the for