the only issue really needed resolution is the correct manifestation day of mr riley's bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome we are in the law that we've been talking about it for the last fifteen minutes yes  date and select thing in their life like in my client's international paper at the responsible party because the commission didn't know the facts that they cited in their decision dolt are even into the discussion when the couple tunnel syndrome what happened recently apparent to a reasonable to a plainly apparent to a reasonable person if you look at the commission decision which is which was adopted from the arbitrator roots decision she seems to focus on the fact that international paper was a long term employer and then she focuses on the medical opinions from doctors stuart and williams incidentally are that our creator ruth didn't get which examiner was for which party correct and her decision she actually puts in her decision petition was examined at the request of international paper williams on april twenty one international paper didn't hire an expert in this case and we certainly didn't hire dr white but by putting that in her decision and noting dr william supine there was a causal connection between petitioners doctors with international paper and have bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome the commission is for lying on this fact that international paper engaged dr williams which isn't the case at all dr williams was engaged by manpower to produce his opinions but even then when you consider that you don't even have to worry about the medical opinions in this case because it's not what a reasonable physician thinks it's what's plainly apparent to a reasonable person and when he was working for international paper for those thirty two years he never had anything more than a suspicion about his hands and their relation to his work there the commission found he never sought treatment during the entire thirty two years he worked at international paper for his hands he talked about it with his supervisor but he specifically testified i didn't know what they was at the time he worked at group leader of international paper that the sample bothering him session or even testified that he knew his hands were bothering him during his i'm on a national paper due to the work he was performing and this was the reason he informed his group leader of international i don't live that's correct your honor he may have mentioned the symptoms to a supervisor but he didn't know what the symptoms were he did don't the condition was so good petitioner testified that that was the reason he informed his group leader of the international but also told his sick her supervisor about her symptoms and thought maybe they were related to work but the supreme court indicated but that's just a suspicion that's not enough it wasn't likely apparent to her at that time so because the point is if when he stopped working in international paper on may twenty second two thousand and eight he didn't have anything more than a suspicion he had had treatment he didn't have a diagnosis he didn't know what his had some time before he which is similar to the dishwasher in duran it's not until he goes to work at manpower or performing students that he felt were far more hand intensive and involve far more fine manipulation that had his duties at international paper when his hands go so no he can't even feel the bolts and he's having trouble picking them up so now we have a severe increase in the severity of the symptoms after he's been performing the job severe enough that it costs him to go see a doctor which he had though before for his hand symptoms and as a result of going to see a doctor he gets about gnosis and his poll by the doctor you have carpal tunnel syndrome at this point i would submit to you that it's pointless apparent to a reasonable person that he has trouble tunnel syndrome because of the work he was doing at manpower and it finally apparent to him on the date that he's told by the was not plainly apparent to him on may twenty second two thousand and eight that his total tunnel syndrome was related to his work at international paper i don't know that you specifically need a medical diagnosis but at this point he's got work which is in preparing this reitman reading and grandkids i believe this is different than what happened in the dream it's if you look at miss miss duran's testimony and it appears three cross examination she was confronted with these questions about did you have complaints in the past and requesting your answer that was well yeah i did and in one sense of the of the justices in the appellate court there's a comment about  complaints that's not here that doesn't apply to be feared it's the difference between in your case is the difference between suspicion believe and there is a difference between tunnel so not only we have plenty of current to mr riley when this develop and develop those work with their national paper we also have the medical evidence that supports that was their natural papers so this is a case that's clearly not against them and this way the evidence and i unique scenarios and commission should weigh many factors when  brings it in and i can't help but when they're making the determination back that it it's it's it it's a part of the case that's there and whether you're making no to even jury member who in the commission said it was a severe bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome that it would not be readily apparent to be reasonable person that he had a condition which was work related if i drop a cinder block on my foot and i but you know and the only be really visited by them or across the street is another form ok that but back to your point we're really you are very similar to the facts of this case but essentially boiling it down if a couple if say eight mr reilly had had a need injury he knew he had any injury he had any symptoms get arthritis and it's a preexisting condition he goes any works for work manpower where he's standing all day and doing all kinds of stuff with his legs and he has an exacerbation or aggravation of that condition to the point you require medical treatment it's much more severe than it ever was when he was working at international paper and he gets a form diagnosis of an injury when babbitt compensable injury against manpower i  the facts in this case can be boiled down to bad and allow you to find that the commission erred in finding that may twenty second two thousand apes the manifestation date and that international paper is the responsible employer when he was working for man hours doing these that were much more hand intensive and involve much more fine manipulation by his own testimony then they were at international paper