think it does in the fact that our argument is focused on the idea that the employee has not been able to prove that anything happened actually at work one of the burden is on none because he never saw sex i want to clarify are positions a little confusing is i understand that you are not contesting the claimant's injuries were kurds in the course of the employment correct pressure was obviously working when this but there were instances where dumpsters are there's a car park next to dumpsters that individuals walk past and there's no evidence in the record of where the stump structurally is and how it separate from everyone else there is just testimony that's behind the theater i think i'm trying to bring the law back it isn't there were obvious physical impairment or an injury as we know it as a result of this thing the reality on is that you're on it is that we have no idea one in every single medical report changes his even he has no idea what actually caused the nose of the foot the sharp pain this late almost like a pulp by you remember scratching the area throughout the day and he had some pain even by the end of the evening understanding that there is no evidence of what actually took place that he was never never able to testify that he actually saw on those on that day feel that if you were walking in that area about that exposed for preterists what exactly is your position nothing ever happened to him or that even if it did it was not a greater risk for the public i think we have two positions your honor that if if you find that something actually happened he was hit by a good chance we might separating it from the general public he said there was a struggle the location of a theft to do with it if it's in if he's in games in an activity that exposes him to a greater risk than the public at a more regular if anything actually caused him to experience a stinging sensation there is no testimony so any books or insects or anything that could have caused this hundred data yes there's no testimony that this was an area that the general public was restricted from in any way shape or form there's no testimonial evidence if this was an area that's that no one else could have walked it the burden is on the petitioner already employed to prove that injury rose out of it in the course of his employment with the employer  consistent history of his injuries while working for park when college his original visit her being a covenant medical center on october sixth two thousand and eight the first page of their notes indicate bite or possible abscess to the left leg obviously the petitioner is not a doctor he's a layperson he's relying upon his medical professionals to diagnose him with you know the medical conditions he presents with and i believe that  white credible throughout this entire process the respondent has not presented any they did not call any witnesses they did not take any depositions and not present the evidence to refute or argue against the petitioners credibility in this matter nor exposed any greater risk than anybody walking around near a dumpster so what's your response to that or i'm so i would disagree with that i think mr like was placed at greater risk your honor basically for the following facts the dumpsters were in a special honour's have pointed out the public isn't in the area where this dumpster is mr bike as part of his employment which required to go out to this area he had to take the trash that was supposed to take a test that was part of his regular that responsibility i believe that it was partly that he had to take it out as part of his job his job occupations and additionally that the dumpsters were in a specific area there was an assigned area where there would be yet to take this trash obviously there was no there was no testimony either towards that or not towards that your honor i would assume that mr of like would not be that the public would not be depositing trash in a dumpster behind at the it or that was owned by parkland college oh i would assume that would be some kind of of services but in that same light mr like did also report that he was fit to his supervisor on the day after his accident mr like a supervisor even came to his house to review his bite that he reported to him mr bike chose to go to the e r a couple days later i think there's testimony to the effect that his wife was concerned about pain for the medical bill and that was why they didn't report to the e r immediately so i think with regard to the greater risk argument i think it's clear that mr likes job occupations put him in a greater risk than the general public  risk for both bites in this case but i think in general by placing him in the area around the dumpster you would put him in a greater risk for a variety of different injuries but the you know with regard to the bug bites more bugs none were and that further justifies my claim they don't believe that they can add in an argument at this point i think they would be barred from making that argument if this went down a little fourth so we don't we do something else here to figure out what made to the commission they were made to the circuit court in this matter all of those finders of fact found mr light credible found that he had an accident found that this risk was related to his employment i don't believe the respondent has presented any evidence in this