perhaps more important the respondent did not dispute that mahogany both just have an accident that arose out of and in the course of her employment so the issue really turns on those of night as to whether or not category and and and the this reasoning siding too much that's for larson the reasoning behind that why they are different cases is because when a convoy suffers from a delusion or some similar the reasoning goes on it applies actually i think with more power to a situation where you're actually dealing with patients says in similar condition which couple at the cohen ploy he has a condition which  it was a six foot nine psychopath who with a diagnosis the record reflects mental retardation bipolar disorder with psychotic features and he experiences your ability stuck up behind him in the head i think in this situation our case is more compelling because if you consider the record and the attitude which these folks were if they're supposed to work it was a tinderbox as mr ross vance the person isn't there something was in the entering the analysis at all well i think that certainly could enter into the analysis that's not the situation here i think that that the that the supreme court and it's pretty just throw the board back but the the situation is that it's a special case and if you demonstrate that there was an assault as here and keep in mind if instead they stipulate that the fifty respondent did not dispute to who is the oppressed and there was no foreign that mahogany was the aggressor or for that matter anything on the on the whole point of the aggressor recall that the commission overturned the arbitrator's decision in terms of the hearsay all the and they did not make a finding that she was aggressive in any way on the contrary they were silent up there there is nothing in there finding the say that she in some way was aggressive because he could not have a cigarette in the car partly because of medical partly for safety partly for other reasons but once he was told he couldn't have a cigarette he tried to keep the windows out of the far and this was on a sort of a field trip with mahogany and with mika in the said that he became so irrational that they tried to call a supervisor but they couldn't get a hold the supervisor so then they drove to a police station and policemen came out and said now why game this way with these with all these people you're scared of and there is still fighting that she's an aggressive if you if of on the contrary harvey what actually happened was a similar situation with regard to the cigarette she was cooking ch she picked up the telephone and then he started to beat her with the telephone and and to shepherd against the wall or your position is obviously you're alleging that the claimant was not aggressive in any manner first of all to work to pic bob and even in that your honor even in that with this delicate statement this downtime the supervisor said she had no indication that there was any what webster what kind of an argument there those points and so all they did was give a conclusion and if that was what then the conclusion that they gave was simply she failed to prove she sustained accidental injuries which rose out of her employment all right now that's al how to properly behaved and not behave around these individuals and yes there were times that i witnessed or observed or overheard miss bolden saying and doing things that were inappropriate towards these individuals were both relative to the  if i recall correctly miss miss watson did indicate in her testimony that she had overheard mr gibson at times calling this building a bitch and then miss fulton would respond well how would you feel if i told you that ms watson confirmed that that would not be an appropriate response or an appropriate way to respond to the i think you have to look at it in the scope of who we're dealing with you or i necessarily take that to be a question maybe not but you're talking about an individual who has the least what i got from reading their decision they just picked out a couple of examples but again it goes back to the live testimony from her own rebuttal witness that refutes her testimony saying that no we never  that she threatened him on the state what they say is that we find that her testimony as to the altercation and that that's leading to it lacks credibility now this is after the commission went through with struck a lot of the evidence and testimony that was submitted at arbitration so you know this evidence that he wants to say the commission was using and relying on their decision they did it so there's obviously more evidence that what he's trying to claim that the commission found was substantiated favorite and why did she spend all this time with them and i mean she went on and on for pages and pages of testimony about how she felt like she was mr gibson's favorite caretaker they got along very well she never had any problems with them in the past but yet there's all this wish i would have hit her and she said mahogany did not provoke gibson once a week gibson was doing something i don't believe she would do anything to provoke and she said everyone told him to get it together or be sent back to them as a threat you know and i should say that i think on the on the numbers with the pages i think i'm correct i think that there are there are some she might have been looking at the transcript page number s