Whether the lost time and treatment were, in fact, related to the claimant’s employment could be debated, but the claimant took the position at trial that it was related.  The claimant also sought to prove that, although the condition had allegedly resolved, and then resurfaced months later during a game of basketball with friends, his injury was in the nature of an occupational disease, thus smoothing over the various breaks in temporal causation, and curing a potentially fatal notice defect as the claimant did not notify the Town of his work related injury until at least seven months after the accident occurred, when he filed his C-3 with the Workers’ Compensation Board.  This litigation strategy was certainly thoughtful, but it was equally transparent where the claimant’s own physician could not clearly ascribe causation to a disease process, or even repetitive stress when under intense cross-examination.