denied compensation benefits there are two main issues here today the first one is whether the manifestation date of march twenty seventh two thousand and nine which was the last day the claimant worked so by the commission was appropriate and also whether the titian  is still the purposes of determining manifestation day spas the question is when the injury and its causal link to the employee's work becomes plainly apparent the reasonable person is that still the general rule yes your honor that's the general rule and i believe the supreme court  flexibility and in doing so i would argue that a medical diagnosis is not required and everybody has one of the several factors that can be considered and should be considered by the commission in determining whether or not it's compatible or when or when you set the absence specifically denying and failing to think about any handlers rather her entire treatment leading up to this so when she went out there was no way she should have been to make a connection to work at that time after she had been off work for a hundred work so on before developing symptoms would break the causal chain between her symptoms of w on andrew the ultimate conclusion that it signaled a periodic discomfort leading to doubt about the existence of a distinct injury here we have a petition who not only complained of pain but also felt it was bad enough to seek medical treatment she obtained a diagnosis that diagnosis was termed by the forty five days after the accident missionary has the burden of proof all elements of a claim not the employer prejudice the employers only require would notice was not or was given but deemed to be defective or accurate and the employee alleged tax invaded ultimately in march twenty seventh two thousand and nine she did not report it to the employer until july twenty eighth two thousand which was one hundred twenty four days later the next even that notice must be given after the accident not before since no notice was before going off work in november of two thousand and eight not only is the state before the accident but the medical records suggest otherwise it doesn't make any sense of the titian or would go to er doctor not report any hand or other pain on certain days  work becomes plainly apparent to a reasonable person and i would argue that a reasonable person in this petitioners circumstances would have concluded if it truly was were billeted because i don't want to make i don't want to be confusing here all the responding is not saying here it is not conceding that it i see with that with the commission so that the commission applied to oscar meyer without any explanation they simply reverse the arbitrator's decision and found that they said specifically i believe it was something all lines of it's well settled in illinois that the last day of additional works can be the manifestation and that's the length of their their description as to why the first year and again that's one of the reasons probably the primary reason why the respondent is here today because that's not enough applied their perspective and the law as they see it based on the evidence in the record found that there was actually causation inside there's no dispute that the job is repetitive the commission in its award talks about repetitive nature of  conversation which was off work from march through july again this is one of those not the clearest situation as far as manifestation is concerned but in the interests of justice the courts have modified and the the so there has to be flexibility can lead a suit in what the arbitrator or the commission should say what they decide and that is what they did they won't and i think you know very well the recent history they gave the basis and it was based on the of the rule in your economy is broad enough for us to accommodate unique scenarios presented in different cases and the commission should weigh many factors in deciding when to repetitive trauma injury manifest itself if you look at the plain letters contained in the commission