fair statement of what he actually testified to he testified vishy didn't gaijin physical activity visa really didn't exercise he didn't participate in sports he never performed any heavy work but h the court good afternoon your honor is my name is jennifer kelly and i'm here today on behalf of david fluster the defendant happily in this matter as you've heard i am and as many justice hudson and justice hoffman pointed out there is evidence in the record to support the fact that mr fletcher sustained a repetitive strain injury to his abdominal region resulting in the umbilical hernia  these keep in mind is not the most sophisticated individual and we don't expect petitioners to be the most sophisticated individuals when we look at manifestation day for instance in a repetitive trauma case that's why  you reasonable physician that would determine what a reasonable person would because it's not always things aren't always going to be apparent or as clear to an injured worker as they may  in his testimony was able to explain his story and explain what occurred which was that if you look at the medical records first of all there is a november two thousand and ten date of incidental to the dean of treatment where relation to the honey up there was no specific treatment recommended a relation to the hernia at that time he continued to perform these heavy lifting activities at work and as his testimony stated over the next few months leading up to only fifty pound containers as is outlined in the council's bre actually once the water was filled in with the dough at the they weighed up to eighty pounds and this was a repetitive they're to believe that he did have that he needed to curtail that heavy lifting activity for fear of making the condition even worse and that had to be fair he it became reasonably apparent to him that there was a connection between his fabulous activity at work and his hernia condition now and you know only looking at the manifest way to be out of the standard then the test is whether there is sufficient factual evidence in the record to support the commission's decision and in this case there it is there is b p you know dr co which clearly provides an opinion of that there is a causal relationship between other money and the repetitive activity at work there is the testimony of the petitioner himself which explains further explain how the symptoms developed and what his activities were at work and that they did include heavy lifting on a regular basis and even doctor the law she's testimony during her deposition in conceded certain points one of which is that it was an individual had a party out with a slight voltage that if that person engaged in ongoing heavy lifting activity it would worsen it would worsen over time and it would lead to the need for treatment she also acknowledge that if even if it was her own nation that had a hernia like mr flats nurse she would have had biased him to refrain from lifting over twenty five pounds now mr flasks case he continued to live to fifty eight pounds on a regular basis to the where his hernia condition worsened he became aware of that connection on june first two thousand and eleven which led him to curtail the heavy lifting he was doing at work and eventually saw additional medical tr confirmed that in fact a hernia worsened and was at the point where it required surgical repair but now counseling has indicated that he's extremely critical of the commission decision and he obviously disagrees with the commission decision which is his right all there is made it look at the evidence and find a different opinion as well and again that is a possibility but that is not what we're looking at we're looking at as you know whether the commission's decision has been supported by the manifest weight of the evidence whether and as we know there is great deference given to the commission to make these determinations to weigh even medical and factual evidence and in this case nothing properly placed the weight on dr coast testimony i would just point out a couple other points your honor to respond in this case also focus on the lack of a specific injury which you obviously know that but i just want to point that out again that this is a repetitive trauma claim so we hat never we have never made the argument that there was a specific traumatic event on june first two thousand and eleven that is the manifestation date w