benefits the good news is in spite of the large size of this file we're really limiting it down to one question when you really think about it and the question is whether traveling employee was exposed to a deadly bacteria as far as giving notice they never really get this first providing notice the supervisor has testified that he actually went to the hospital and was aware of this as far as a notice about whether this was or was not bacteria related to the wor dress the notice issue your brief my question is is not the issue forfeit and if it's forfeited we never get to the causal connection finding he's gone and failed to give notice so i mean my question is a reason to find it's not forfeited your honor once again i would ask for leave my apologies i simply missed that as being the primary issue here today because the notice discussion had always focused on the fact though that is the but as it relates to the as it relates to the traveling employee situation that's the discussion that i want to talk about today because in our world what but my argument is this because of the fact that he was in a troubling day that john had testified to was credible or not credible and what we're saying is as a traveling employee we don't have to go to that extent as it presently employee and he can take a look at it differently because as the supreme court and workplace environment it can be expanded out to include other the other risks associated with traveling employee because as the courts have said they take a look at reasonable what might be reasonable and normally anticipated reasonable and perceivable so as far as being able to point specifically when or where he got it but i would say no i don't think that's required but first in cases of things like that many times they can't specifically say i have seen the mercer on this particular day this particular time we just know that it happened during the course of their exposure similarly with the traveling employee instead of just going to get to the hours after work the meaning get to the time period when he was there from seven in the morning to five at night and requiring that we have to prove it during one of those train periods as a traveling employee the workplace is essentially expanded out to include hotel restaurant and things like that and it's just as stuart pointed out during that time period we do know that it was while he was a probably employee end point while he was there we know it had to have been one of those places where he was use the t v on the mountain the person who has to took a trip on a mountain wasn't familiar with the mountain they said there are limits to what they're going to allow and certain things that they're going to limit the the extent of the coverage for a traveling these that's what your argument is correct because as he testified i was in des moines the whole time i was for my employer full i was for the employer that sent me to to perform these work activities that some of the other side issues eating sleeping those is a rare one and so it's not one that everyone is going to be associated with it's not hitting a common goal or something like that there's only a thousand or fifteen hundred of these reported for years because of the damage in effect in the detrimental effect so in essence employer not knowing not intending to they sent him to a place where this where bacteria was and it's that travelling point from chris from the gulf oil down to this place  resistant to this is one that by the time you got to the third day and he's back at home when he got to the emergency room there and between his legs which also gets to the events that occurred at work which is where he spilled a liquid onto his leg remember touching for the emergency room the next thing you know it's three months later in the st john's so he said i don't i didn't get hit by a five point don't know where that came from but that's where the commission had based their denial on its history is incorrect  you know he never sent me about it i think the commission made me terminations that that was that was not credible that history of this bill is not credible and you know i think if the manifest weight already commission made these determinations i noticed that on the issue of the credibility of the witnesses and the medical experts they wait they're desperate they wait the testimony and they said he was not credible how many said there is there is no liquid on the feral even the credibility of john becomes less important when we look at this is a troubling employee case john's history even if deemed credible doesn't remove the fact that examination of their doctor that was my questions to them all right you don't believe it happened because of the specific event didn't happen while he was as a prevailing employee working into point exposed to all of the things that are troubling to play to be exposed to so i think that what i'm asking you to do is reverse it to the commission and let's see under the traveling employees standard does it pass muster you don't believe in well in this situation of the commission doesn't believe a man who's had his his body ravaged by this bacteria and he's not credible i mean i'm not trying to make excuses for him but that if you would have seen him of course you could barely keep his head up because of how weak you was but this is something that unfortunately he did not good history he thought he had hit from a play ball as he told the emergency room doctor he thought it was a spell if you don't believe him ok that's half the battle the other battle is if it happened we're while he's in decline as a traveling elite can we look at