employee had failed to prove accident employee you worked for us as a part time bus driver the condition alleged was carpal tunnel and cubital tunnel thanks mission made it clear in their decision that they did review the matter from a legal and medical perspective they considered all the testimony exhibits pleading this was a consolidated arbitration with zero copper flow and they found based on the fact that employee had offered scant details of the repetitive nature of his job as a bus driver board the forceful if it had been remanded back to the commission at least against act doesn't it the first commission decision would still have to be reviewed and ultimately the commission decision which  here no that is that is a concern and i don't disagree with you i just think that the result with the commission's decision at least against x is ultimately going to be this the same and but but  yes but really we just with the commission decision we don't believe it's against the manifest weight we believe this or here was wrong we believe there's enough the commission's decision was supported by sufficient actual evidence absent to enter please the court counsel my name is molly wilson i represent the appellate cyril copper in this case we are here today following the circuit court's affirmation of the decision of the commission as to the issues of manifestation date and notice with respect to are the issues presented for your consideration here today or whether the commission's it's a spontaneous terminations of the manifestation date to be january seventh two thousand and eight was against the manifest weight of the evidence and whether the demonstrate that the claimant did not have any hand complaints on that day six days later however the claimant presented again to dr eckard follow for a follow up of lab results and on that date he complained of a very specific back hand surgeon though he didn't actually see dr gallagher back for more than six months after seeing dr akhter at the climate retained an attorney and signed an application for just a claim on october eighteenth two thousand seven and that application the claimant alleges a worker's compensation claim against zero arising from repetitive work duties with the manifestation date of august third two thousand and seven the application was placed in the us postal occurred in two thousand and thirteen after the filing of the original application with the commission made claimant presented to dr van ryan as an independent medical examination upon request of his own counsel or testified himself that on the date that he initially sock treatment for these very specific in compliance the doctor accurate notified him he had carpal tunnel syndrome he had a diagnosis on that day he underwent testing on that date and he underwent treatment for very narrow history from petitioner as to the onset of his complaints in the treatment he received there after dr e stated i'm going to quote because he was certain that he had acquired carpal tunnel at work he went ahead and obtained a lawyer had noticed both of the fact of an injury and the relatedness of the injury to his work well prior to october eighteenth two thousand and seven and looking for a date a manifestation date prior to october eighteenth two thousand and seven at arbitration that he did not notify syrup flow of his accident while he was employed there up until the time that he was laid off on august eleventh the proof of service of the application demonstrates that the application was placed in the mail to sierra on november ninth two thousand and seven consistent with the application joe granted the manufacturing support manager for sea arrow testified in arbitration sarah received notice of the accident he testified that sierra received notice by virtue of the application for adjustment of claim which she stated would at the earliest have been nov ninth two thousand and seven when the application was placed in the and nov fourteenth two thousand and seven so in the event that this court were to find the appropriate manifestation date was august twenty ninth of two thousand and seven with sierra flow having notice at the earliest of november nin thousand and seven that falls file with outside of the forty five days to be given time unfortunately the commission got it wrong in this case however the august twenty ninth two thousand and seven date was not only proffered on the amended application for just minutes it was also the date upon which claimant placed on the request for hearing as the date of the accident it is also the day that the parties were operating as the date of the accident during the entirety of trial its heroes position that the claimant should not now be able to noted that the that the claimant cannot argue one date before the commission and then obtain a reversal on appeal by asserting it would be different in this case essentially the claimant requests for the claimant is alleging that the employer could be aware of a work related injury prior to the employee and that that proposition is simply nonsensical in our position ultimately your honour's we take the position that the record demonstrate ninth two thousand and seven is the proper date of accident in this case and on that basis we ask you to reverse the decision  used the august twenty ninth two thousand and seven date your filing notice of a possible injury and i don't think you can know with any certainty or it can be plainly apparent that he has an injury and if that injury is related to well how about august twenty ninth twenty seven the  an aberrant form of carpal tunnel and specifically said he was not going to comment on whether that are all tied to his point so up to that point we may have had a diagnosis it was a murky diagnosis at best and up to that point no doctor and agree it's somewhat difficult to wrap your head around but i would the way i would couch it in terms of with especially with repetitive comma claims is since they're so complicated and it's unclear on what exactly is specifically with regard to the conditions  first day that a doctor had had officially opined that whatever the condition mr manders had was actually related to his and that's what the commission's used correct and that's how i see it so i think with first i want to just briefly go through the city case with regard to the commission's decision that there was no accident rising out of any horses climate and i believe that the evidence showed that that was proven i believe it was proven  shortly before starting some point with a c t that the results of that nerve conduction study were mild neuropathies at the i believe it just the wrist and in two thousand and thirteen four years after driving with a c t one underwent another nerve t again when it comes to whether he suffered x and arising out of it in the course of his employment the z t of the employee also testified that when he was driving he had increased symptoms and symptoms that he never had to be up to this point he had to shake out his hands because they were manifestation date someone already and i would like to also emphasize that up to the january seventh two thousand eight eight which the commission found was a data backs that it wasn't even clear what condition so i think it's hard to p him down a date for that because there were differing opinions on what condition he actually had and there had been no discussion of whether it was related to his employment which and both are required i think for the manifestation date especially when the case saw emphasizes that fairness and flexibility is an aspect that examined when determining the proper manifestation day so i think the commission got that right i think that aspect of the question decision should be affirmed i'm however i would say that the p p d aspect of the commission's decision is problematic especially when you look at it terms of what they decided with e c t case so initially the arbitrator in this case awarded six point five percent p p d of the left hand and a half percent p p d for the right hand and that was based on what you are but yours it was an operating carpal tunnel so the commission came in and and awarded in addition to that it was on the sarah properties so specifically so when the commission came in what they did was after crandall said that those surgeries were related to employment with cirque opera so now we have a sarah copper case where there's an operated carpal tunnel p p d which was never increased because the surgery was an award as far as wanted to point out we're talking with dr crandall's opinions with regard to his comparison of those nerve conduction studies and dr crandell actually said that those two thousand nine nerve conduction studies that was right prior to act showed mild to moderate and that the two thousand and thirteen showed moderate carpal tunnel and that they are they are still difficult to compare just because they were done at different labs i believe dan had said that they were mild and then it moderate so it looked like his work did act actually increased the symptoms or be the objective carpel tunnel but with respect to the claimants can tension that he could not have been aware of the condition when the various positions gave different diagnoses i think to do so would nors the line of cases that speak of a definitive diagnosis not being required i also think that a it ignores the fact that when there's claimant side doctor acard on august twenty nine that dr eckard as claimant acknowledged at two points in time in the record he was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome claim it also contends that because there are different diagnoses it is also disingenuous because the january seventh two thousand and eight date that they are now a proponent for  that date dr van ryan diagnosed him with scaffolding and stability that's not the condition that he filed his amended application for or sought benefits for or is asking people to pay for he is asking the respondents in this case to pay for carpal tunnel syndrome and the treatment related to that so why place a manifestation date on a date in which the condition was not actually the condition for which we are here for here assuming we take the position prior to that two people that's a very good point but i think dr who reads as history and big sense of history that he took from blame in this case shows that petitioner was kind of events prior to october eighteen that he had not only carpal tunnel syndrome seven in which to find the appropriate manifestation day one that is both well founded in the facts and consistent with the precedent of manifestation date because we know that like i said that he had formed that date before that we must look to a date before that and in doing so we believe that the only conclusion is august twenty ninth of two thousand and seven because it is in line with the precedent in which courts have consistently found the date of treatment to be an appropriate manifestation date not only did he undergo treatment as i indicated earlier he underwent testing and dr bennett and his family physician informed him that he had purple tunnel syndrome the history from dr ruiz is instructive in that itch paints a picture of what the