case comes to you from saline county it involves my client brant stanley it occurred on the day that harrisburg remembers well cause there was a tragic tornado that day in tears perth as part of his duties mr stanley took his assigned squad car with two thousand grounded and twins to the police station and when he got there the normal place where he parks was occupied and so  part of the parking lot was on a severe incline and what he was left with was the designated area where it was on a severe incline he opened the door with his left arm pushed it out held it open with his left foot because the door was going to come back and hit him if he did he had paperwork in the passenger seat which he reached over to retrieve and in one motion tried to get out of the car without the door hitting him in the door hit him in the left sho r so why isn't this a neutral risk well because he's in an assigned vehicle a two thousand crown vic his door wouldn't stay open on an incline and he's got to be in an assigned area a sign parking lot and he's reaching for paperwork which is part of his duties to get all of that out that's when the injury happened so the phone they say is an account number of the public and an inquiring would be subject to the same  no because this you know there's no evidence of what inclined this was measured against the general public there if they didn't introduce evidence from the respondent that this was exactly the same as the general public that's kind of just derived from i guess the experience of the commission but there aren't any pictures in evidence there's no contours no evidence contrary to what brant stanley said half in terms of why he was on the incline the fact that he was retrieving paperwork back that he had to hold a door open the fact that this was a two thousand crown vic whose door wouldn't open there's no evidence that every crown vic two thousand crown vics door won't stay o found that it wasn't from the right well that's what the commission found but there's no evidence to support it or the reason i think i have biases against neutral risk but the  issue in this case is was the things that happened to him were they unique to him and they are unique to him he's a police officer with an assigned car this isn't his normal car he's on an incline and assigned a lot so not every incline is the same he has to reach for paperwork that that is a work related so he can't use his arms to to keep the door open while he gets out he explains all of those things so that's not a neutral risk those are risks uniquely associated with his purpose and so so what you have is you have undisputed evidence about what happened to  and there isn't evidence introduced of that this is a comment of this there's just a declaration that it's common but there has to be some evidence supporting that notion not everybody when you got out of your cars today you weren't in a two thousand crown vic you weren't on an incline you weren't necessarily picking up police material from the passenger seat all those things are you need to stop and if there you need to his job you don't do a second analysis of greater you simply recognize that what he was doing was in fact a risk  the second issue in this case is equally troubling in that there is evidence medical evidence establishing causation from the doctor who wrote a letter and said that these issues with his left arm which because he had preexisting conditions his problems with his left arm were in consequence to previous system conditions there's no medical testimony stablish in his preexisting problems to his current the case of brown versus baker which was kind of a watershed case when it came out stop defendants and respondents from just throwing preexisting conditions up on the wall and saying well he's got  preexisting condition so therefore there is not causation brown versus baker says that if the petitioner or the plaintiff has the burden of proving causation by medical testimony so does the respondent if the argument is that the previous system condition is the cause of the problem so what the commission does is it and it notices he's got a preexisting condition conditions and then makes the nexus will that must be what's wrong with him and we're going to ignore the widespread degenerative changes in the shoulder however there is no evidence that petitioner sustain any significant injury well significant suggest some injury but it's not a big huge if there's any injuries associated with this that's compensable and if it's not persuasive why isn't it persuasive i mean there wasn't a no one cross examined to the letter no one looked at dr layman and said well gee was he he's got shifty eyes this was a document admitted into evidence without objection establishing a causal connection there is no contrary medical evidence period so how does the document itself not  i put forth evidence the doctor's report the load the primary care doctors reports which said this is a work related injury i put in evidence where's the contrary if it's just preponder i've carried and we're talking about a document a document that goes in without without any objection and we're going to say that documents are not credible when they establish the causation that that's the whole basis of manifest weight of the evidence there has to be contrary evidence to support the commission's decision there is no contrary method so i mean this is an evidence issue and you know when there are undisputed facts to say to an issue which is true here it is undisputed that there is one causal pinney one no contrary nothing to battle the battle back against credibility completely that there is no credibility then then yeah they can do it but if there's an inkling of credibility i've carried me how do you judge credibility when there's no contrary credible and that the medical medical records are consistent and it goes to the commission where we live with the legal fiction the people of the commission actually make credibility now i have to deal with that but this is a remedial stash and it's not supposed to be this hard so if you would if you put forward evidence that supports the petitioner and there is no contrary for the commission to then say there's a credibility issue i mean that's a fiction and someone like mr stanley shouldn't be deprived of benefits under the contract based on a legal fiction which here there's evidence supporting causation there is no evidence contrary causation i mean the words itself it's not  significantly injured but what does that mean a little bit injured i when so i just think that you know i would encourage you know you have but read the commission's decision see that makes sense to it really does it really does it when they use words like sufficiently related to his duties significantly injured but what in the heck does that mean it means there is some relationship it means there's some injury it just wasn't enough or well it really comes down to which type is it was it a personal risk there's really no as it doesn't even come into play there's nothing internal there's nothing we can exclude that the killing employment or as well for the employment risk it sounds like if my life goes to the mall and it's clear that he wasn't in his normal place so to say that he sent in a signed spot you know it's not accurate he's in a different place than usual because the rest of the wind is filled with members of the general public he's parking back where members of the general public usually know that's no different than you know somebody reaching for a purpose or somebody's reaching for anything else there's nothing about the papers that made him get injured you know the car is artifact in the car there's no evidence that the car's defective so the red herrings they don't expose him to a greater risk you know the car i don't there's nothing police like about the door so no if it's out there already herons it's no different than any of us parking on an evidence in there that he had a loose fight is in degenerative changes and although going back several years and you know is that a reasonable inference that he suffered from the same condition now as he was then sure sure that's a reasonable inference the and i don't think there's really anything more to it it's just that simple words there's no translation and there's no exit thank you very much  with regard to the question about the fact he said the door wouldn't stay open everybody knows that you know the doors have this kind of look to two little notches that when you hold all we open there's not one that's supposed to stay open he said that it wouldn't stay open he had to hold it with his foot now did i go did i hire an engineer and and do that i did should you have to when you know there's evidence that he's got to get paperwork and he's holding week well there's an inference from the fact that he had to hold it open with the sou s the same idea and there is no contrary with regard to the medical i would just encourage the court to to consider brown versus baker and what the prove the burdens of proof are if the respondent wanted to make the point that cases after that that say a man's and so there is no contrary medical evidence the notion that he reported it thirty days later that that somehow makes it not causally related again why not what medical opinion testimony is there that says the thirty day delay means there is no causation again it's the presence of evidence versus the absence of evidence it's not the commission didn't weigh evidence because there isn't any contrary evidence which is why i think we won in the first place i think the judge in judge gallagher understood so when you have evidence compared to the absence of evidence there's causation and i take your point justice and says you know it is the province of the commission to deal with credibility but let's not deprive someone like grandstand only of benefits when