any notice of any industrial injury to the employer thereby depriving the commission of jurisdiction to consider the merits of this point you can work also respectfully take some steps and then hypothetical and conclusory finding i'd like to clarify one thing before we began mr dude informed his manager that his hand injury prevented him from working however should anyone claim that mr do this that i did not put my hand to work that would be an ac mr due to said there was not a specific incident but there is no equivalent between i did not sustain a specific incident of injury and i did not put my hand at work sensually all repetitive trauma point when the word can no longer perform their job to reach that breaking point is not always a specific discrete traumatic event but it remains nonetheless a comp of his breaking point of repetitive trauma injury as a claim of a specific traumatic incident that was a mistake he then went on a hunt through the medical records looking for evidence that this specific traumatic incident that was the extent of his opinion but it's when he says the development of it of his condition he means that the gangly and since became symptomatic it might not necessarily cause it but that repetitive trauma of one fact cause it to become symptomatic alternative finding number one we don't have jurisdiction but if we do by the way you prove your case big because if we look at the reasons why do we reach these conclusions we find that there is no merit and out and wound up and running someone on this two separate issues petition testified about a specific incident event are allowed in two thousand and ten that's not right there is no specific incident there is no specific traumatic event number two similarly to petitioners testimony as to moving one hundred to three hundred thirty four hours not cr page through for the record i'm asking mr due to these questions i know you have a phone and that there are three people in the fruit answer yes question and you work alongside you the crew members right answer yes ok when you're laying bricks do you lay more than ten or is important is because he's not just a leader he's a workup and then you lay i asked this question you lay fifty a hundred a hundred fifty an hour he says between one hundred and three hundred pics sometimes so i'm the genius so i looked up with the word sometimes means that it means on incident which we've addressed he didn't say that he said that he this hand her doing his job he never did he never claimed that he had a traumatic incident the misapprehension of that testimony created a problem so that second basis for the finding is that that he moved one hundred to three hundred parts per hour oh we've already addressed that he never said that he said sometimes they were doing production work that they are doing removable that that we know because he was removing bricks with electric hammer that's a misunderstanding of the record and very importantly to the third basis the arbitrator also notes in the commission adopted this decision you know in toto the arbitrator also notes that while complaining of a right hand injury during his demonstration the trial petitioner was lifting and moving the bricks with his left hand why is that the most important part of the case because it demonstrates that the operator is not paying attention when he did you lift up the fannies never laid brick you lift a brick with your non dominant hand misinterpreted the other is that the gist of what you're saying correct and it's clear from the record they did if they think that the general lacks credibility because he used his right and uses non dominant hand to move credit that means if you don't understand what the testimony i if you go searching through the records and you conclude that i can i find that this gentleman is not credible because the record store indicate that there was this was a specific traumatic incident but he didn't say the specific trade dramatic incident he said that there was he reached the breaking point for repetitive the purpose of the notice requirement is to enable the board to investigate the employees alleged industrial accident this is what this is from the right for says only workers compensation commission which the average trader than the commission by adoption found to be and struck because apparently  mr field to get any notice so was there no notice let's take no notice except his contemporaneous report to the manager at work the next scheduled day that i cannot perform at work because my court we're not against man this way the evidence a lot it says to the credibility of fisher fisher gave record a statement in this case told the interviewer at the time initially that he had no idea how many pieces and parts he moved in a particular time and then a trial testified that he do one hundred to three hundred bricks probably what does that mean to you one hundred to three hundred where they are and that's and that's part of the description of the job that was made by his supervisor jacob schneider as discussed in the job description but the testimony as to one hundred  probably had to do with the installation and that's part of the argument and part of the credibility issue there's one thousand to three thousand brits i'm his job and for him to come into court and say that he's installing one hundred or three hundred an hour and shot that went for four months still wasn't done and was being worked on by three people it doesn't add up so he talks about blame for direct threats against an area that your opponent i'm sure you were listening called your attention to the specific points that he says the commission clearly misinterpreted the evidence can you respond to those points absolutely is for as far as the one hundred to three hundred bricks per hour the supervisor testified that it's not that it's not anywhere close to that was he was a worker he was and that was part of the job but the argument that oh pomerantz thinks he's a supervisor he's got the wrong job description that's not right he's a mason a working masonry crew leader electrical device to remove this he never said he didn't you know there's this idea that we engage in this trip to calculation of how many hundreds of bricks that these people can only really has it has no no relationship to the facts of this case the gentleman so that when he lays cruel look works alongside the other crew members and then it begins with this question by me to mr due to when you're laying bricks you laid more than ten an hour answer yes question fifty one hundred dollars one hundred fifty an hour answer between one hundred to three hundred bricks sometimes question so there's different you know different parts of your job answer yes question when you're removing bricks for using electrical tools and when you're replacing the bricks you're using both hands build the ba answer yes question you do this for ten hours a day answer yes the gentleman doesn't say if he thinks he's lame three hundred bricks an hour for ten hours a day with this jobs at this job site when they do that repetitive trauma number two the notion that he claimed that he can do one hundred to three hundred bricks and they take the number of bricks and divide it that's the second basis for concluding that he's got the better the third basis for concluding he has no credibility is that he's using his non dominant hand to move the bricks but they're explain to you that's the way that you do the job and so forth and then they concluded he had no notice and yet they took his leave you heard he took his recorded statement before he had a lawyer before forty five days