asked i guess t v today people want to know about court case but the people that i was with on saturday night said oh tell me about this worker's compensation case you're going to argue and i said well this is a truck driver that has it's unique condition it's personal to him all the bell silva fact that when he starts to sneeze he blacks out simple this is a truck driver that came to work for our employer you've been there partially six months you've had this the medical evidence is consistent and under budget he had this personal condition that was personal nature issues there was no struction issues there were no potholes there was nothing about his load that he was carrying or a scab that caused him to develop dry eyes and he started to sneeze and he blacked out there's no high shoulder there's no evidence that anything about being in the semi caused him to drive off the roadway now doesn't have to and really isn't the crux of the issue is that it's probably something really was speeding which the court said for said irrelevant we don't have comparative fall in steam bridge the supreme court has told us that if there's perils of the highway then we're at the issue i'm not saying i agree with th that's totally different than what we have here what we have here is a person who passes out and drives off the roadway there's no greater risk to him than if he's in his own automobile there is no testimony accident kill them and it was ultimately overturned and it was stated that that was something that was personal nature to him he had a target heart attack and so once he is dead what happens behind the wheel particular case when it's like oh we don't have a witness here we have his own testimony and the schwarz case they said he slowed down the driver and veered off of the roadway he was later found to be dead but there's there's no we don't know maybe his eyes were dry in this particular case certainly the death doesn't distinguish it let's say the guy died in our case here when we be talking about the superficial scratches we had superficial scratches and schwartz when he was dead the fact that he's dead makes it not why are we doing the same analysis and schwarz why are we doing the analysis of the perils of the roadway well the reason we're not doing that is because something personal nature to him took him off the highway beauty one of the highways i would i would suggest to you that he sits and over the road truck driver very similar to this played out on its side and lay down on side he was trying to prevent himself from going to stop on traffic which probably would have killed him i mean where's the evidence from any expert i mean  and the thing that the commission got wrong in this case is and if you broke it their decision the one jet the one commissioner did not understand why i was bringing up the injuries and this goes directly to your point since pro got thrown into this mess because that the commissioner saying that i was bringing that up as you're pointing out any everyday activity away from where just because it has some eye doesn't matter that's not what i was arguing all the cases i feel like  that's where you get to the bill or square case if you if you if you read those cases if you know those cases and you do you see that the injury and the proper hotel case he died from the burns associated with his falling in in this particular case that's where i was going with the injuries because builders where says there's an exception there's an exception to the general rule that something personal in nature if it's personal nature like about sabah back like we have this if there stirs an being on the road that isn't a parallel to the highway there wasn't an auto case there wasn't a slow month and ice there was nothing about being a truck driver or being in a semi injury or fortune in the rest of the head anything to do with being in a truck and so i ability argument based on the risk increased risk of harm or be sucked in by the resolve of severely working through you seem to be saying that the risk of harm isn't isn't the end of it it's something whether or not he really gets injured or something i'm not saying that i'm saying you focus on the origin of the risk the risk is driving for a living in combination with this hazing that's what the commission found well the origin of the accident in this case was a person with something personal in nature injury it's the nature of the being here the fire and falling in the cars and that's correct that's correct but if the injury if the injury if you fall into the fire and the doctor said no different injury that if you followed by outside the fire what is the a safe it's the same analysis here it's two they're both should consider both to determine whether this has anything to do with action i'm saying the first aspect is this is not work related because the origin of the wrist was not working late but then i want to make sure i do with the exception that's outlined in builder swear it goes back to the rocker hotel and when you analyze it that context exception doesn't apply so the company can put anybody behind the wheel of the truck with any personal condition and it doesn't matter because according to the truck past with connected to work the connection to the work to be something associated with driving the truck and that is like he said you gotta stay at let's say for twenty four hours because you had to get power point to deliver a load or let's say he was hauling respect to the low back pain in the right leg pain in the case if you use the zinc do you have an opinion as to whether that low back pain like pain would have been caused from sneezing versus the actual crashing of the vehicle truth will my opinion medically would be that it would likely be related to the vehicle accident ok so this is not a situation where someone's eases although the doctor said it's possible that someone i suppose sneezed so hard to have a freak accident that they sprained their back or injured their back just from sneezing he said in this case i believe that this person injured his back more likely than not from  there's several points to me first of all is that i need i believe my burden of proof is to prove that his driving contributed to the accident that is the motor vehicle accident contributed to his accident i do not need to prove that it's impossible that he could have gotten this injury had he been in his personal automobile or that he could have gotten this church or that he could have gotten this from falling down i don't have to just prove i don't prove let me rephrase it i don't need to prove that it's impossible for this petitioner to get this injury any other way other than through crashing normal deal acts which also need to hone in and is this rescue i mean he didn't specifically put in these terms so all sort of make the argument for him if this is personally if this is purely a personal risk that the general public is exposed and a private vehicle how do you respond to that well great it's very dangerous even though it's common and i would specifically quote the language from the court in stonebridge if the work of the employee creates the necessity for travel he is in the course of his employment  person is using the highway are subjected to certain traffic risks and one of them is the danger of collision the perils of modern day travel upon the highways are well known the risk of accident is ever present ever present minus when basically if someone gets in a motor vehicle accident and that motor vehicle accident caused a stir injuries this one is that his behavior wasn't willful or wanton it's related to the the fact that he was in a motor vehicle accident and in everest who can point so i don't think i don't i think some bridges exactly on the analysis december's for uses i don't see we could apply that and say this case is somehow different the reason why whether it's because you were speeding whether it was because you were negligent or what have you with ever you are doing as long as it's not willful and this fellow died of a heart attack and i'm quoting the case to see you have been traveling approximately thirty miles per hour at night in moderate traffic with that layer of snow and slush covering the roadway there was no indication he tried to prevent his truck from leaving the from a heart attack not from a motor vehicle accident had he had a form and driven off the road and then it could be established if you would live through whatever coronary problem was but he actually was injured due to the motor vehicle accident the stem bridge analysis which has his injuries would have been done due to a motor vehicle accident but here minor abrasions didn't kill him that's what the industrial commission found and that's w five it was a motor vehicle accident not the sneezing and so that testimony i think is really the linchpin here there is no question that this is not due to something so the something personal the more proximate the doctor's willing testimony there's no dispute i tried to make this point michelle so there's no dispute that the cause impacted in the truck accident the issue is the legal cause of those injuries and i have to go back to listening to the schwartz versus the stammers it's about the death i don't understand that have stemmed schwarz lives so superficial abrasions in that case for profit by the motor vehicle accident and he was traveling they point out trigger it's pointed out traveling on a thin layer of snow and ice traveling at night there was traffic there's no distinction in these cases to cases except for the death part of it so to say that those injuries and in shorts were not caused by the accident is not accurate the court that in this opinion the the it says that the analysis was done there was some type of he didn't suffer a heart attack he experienced some type of cardiac event the question for the commission is whether some aspect of the seeds employment was a causative factor in the event and in this case a same question was there some aspect of the employment there was a to the quote that there's something different you want something reckless so save your employment which is stonebridge as opposed to something the difference considerably from a risk that is totally connected to the work in his personal nature that's what the risk was the valsalva of those two cases are totally distinguishable and the evidence in this particular case is that either the origin of the wrist or the injuries were connected to admit that there are cases but this is not one of them the risk was purely personal in nature i've addressed the only exception that could apply and that's the rockford hotel exception from builders where and that's why i got into the entries not says s