A majority of the court think that the testimony of the ■doctors, if it is not to be interpreted as altogether in agreement as to the arthritic condition being the cause of the disability, at least introduces a conflict in that regard and even though it be admitted that witihout the doctors’ testimony and the X-rays showing the arthritiic condition, the only conclusion justifiable would have been that the applicant suffered an accidental injury which was compensable. In this case two questions arise: Was there a sprain? If so, did it cause the continued disability? Certain doctors testified that the arthritic condition did not preclude the existence of a sprain but there is medical testimony that even though there was a sprain the disability of applicant *444 is attributable only to the hypertrophic osteoarthritis.

The petition for a rehearing is denied.