out do you agree with your husband's assessment on january twenty third two thousand and one and she said in her opinion you can agree no longer receive any significant improvement that's when you reach down the line and that's what she did she continued working doing the same jobs for other employers that the commission found initially the repetitive trauma caused her initial injury they said you know they found that that wasn't a new injury and there were no injuries no new trauma album that she just maximize that she was going to get much better so it was more like the injections were just she was going to keep having pain especially doing her pre x ing job for other companies this was going to cause continued pain there but isn't that within the province of the commission to weigh the w understand which was to soften the same but you can still get medical care after being that i met my i just think the commission their conclusion was up it was just the opposite conclusion here because the doctor said that and they were medical treatment complaints symptomatic findings treatment and comments from the treating physicians over a long period of time commencing october commission there's nothing in this record to suggest otherwise let me spell for some i love you but here maximum medical improvement three little words without those three words we wouldn't be here i can assure you your honor there is more abuse committed under those three little words in worker's comp in this particular case is as an aside news was was does able from working by her doctor statement thereafter in other words she never reached the point where her condition had stabilised that's the main factor that counsel mentions she never really had stabilized so that she needed more treatment again this isn't some kind of fade to black where we go from one thousand nine hundred four to two thousand and one in one nine hundred ninety nine or ninety eight unfortunately i would feel a test on the facts of all the medical treatment she had but in the summer years before january two thousand and one dr glasgow said she's going to need another surgery eventually for this so this is on a continuum of what we have her in the real issue we get called stuck on call you know for these repetitive injuries well here's a case where miss woods claimed injuries that were in ninety four she never claimed any other injuries her condition never really changed a whole lot she get relief from injections she'd come back this starts in ninety five and goes all the way to two thousand and three and beyond two thousand and three effective  injured while working and then had a couple incidents after that but the court in the commission has stated a very effectively the law on that subject and i will quote from the original commission decision which is really interested later in the in the in the more recent decision that every natural consequence that flows from an injury that arose out of in the course of a coin some point is compensable unless caused by an independent interleaving accident the breaks the chain of causation between a work related basis if a hypothetical did not is not the case here but but if someone you can gauge isn't in a jury of practice then one can say one has brought about one's own demise that's now not the case here otherwise when y as i would like to this is the dilemma in repetitive trauma here we would have needed to have fifty three employers in the case if the three and of course the consequence of the ruling for the respond in this case is of my client gets any injury or insult when they went in there the second time in two thousand and four they just found degeneration as counsel and that the condition had degenerated when she have been better off never having worked after let's say got much worse maybe she wouldn't need another surgery in two thousand for difficult to say but she would have had to have change she would have had to have changed employment then for sure so the result really isn't any different so while i agree that the you know from  conceptual standpoint we have some difficulty here we need we need to change the active give the respondent the kind of relief in all the spawn that's the kind of relief you would want to know the words the last employer is responsible but here it's kind of difficult because the last employers in all these different repetitive traumas in other words that would be i think that could create as many problems as it might solve because in some in some cases i think after two thousand and one the alleged in a magnate she worked for twenty one employer she may never have worked for for any particular player long enough to qualify under the old the act because you have to have a certain amount of tenure of employment so i don't know if that's the answer but i think that that's what the respondent is asking you all to do to budget judicial fiat impose some kind of the act on this for the last you know that last employer has to pick it up it's very difficult in a case like that to do that because there are so many employers so we're back to where we were at the start of the start of the review was impossible for anybody to work look into another line of work this is what doctors do with their patients but her condition was such that after all you zero bills the wash dishes go to the grocery store etc there is no there is no way that we can speculate on what the condition of her arm would have been after one thousand nine hundred seventy and she's not gone back to that work so again this is the the limb of the commission had to sort out i think they sorted it out overwhelmingly the evidence shows a causal connection between motors of the supreme court know that one when the physician was working for the second employer there was no aggravating condition going on at that time so all the liability is on the first employer in our case obviously the opposite can be said here with surgery wasn't even the appropriate surgery they did a laminectomy and they said a vision should be done so i think those are the differences between our case and those cases  authority from the florida court and that's all i have is persuasive that there they have nothing binding to tell you one way or the other on this assuming you agree that january of two thousand and one is the end of my date for this instance and based