that employees accident arose out of and in the course of his employment is against a manifest weight of the evidence and second whether or not his condition of ill being it to his back is causing related to sad accident by way of background  employed by the lawyer as a community service officer his duties involve handling ordnance complaints that for ports accident reports and also parking ordinances but in order to bring you to fully understand what occurred on april fifth two thousand and seven i have to direct your attention to about three months prior on january thirteenth two thousand and seven employee was at vacation home in wisconsin when he injured his knee he slipped out of advice there that seven just working for the employer his surgery for the knee that was previously recommended i forgot to add a schedule from ace second two thousand and seven i want to make sure that he had his f in l a in order now he's back to work in april awaiting job that's not in dispute is that he was at work at the time he was walking down the flight of stairs the first application that the commission discussed deals with the in the course of the and they applied the personal comfort doctrine the main concern that the employer has with regard to this application is that if you look to the previous cases such as consolidated or the cases cited by of my whether that be says the employer takes the employee as they find him correct that's right so if he's got a preexisting injury that makes him more vulnerable to further injury or evasion and he's doing his job again what is the breakdown in the e mails tell us why it's not compensable even if he has a preexisting condition exactly as you describe it happened outside the work well as you know the arising out of prong requires that the origin must be in some risk connected personal to the a worker so in order to make that compensable though according to the elliott case if the employment significantly contributed to the injury that placed the employee in a position increasing the dangerous effects of the fall w more than the general public or what the commission specifically said here is this is a quote in this case petition was in gauged in employment in a place where he had a reasonable right to be and was exposed to a greater risk than the general public because he was continually forced to use the stairway to seek personal comfort during his workday he was also required to use the stairway to complete work related activities so they're saying on a quantitative basis he was required to use the stairs more than the general public and therefore compensable that's their finding of fact correct if you use it against them in this way if you look it's about six to eight times per his eight hour shift so if we divide that out it's a little less than an hour because he had to go up and down the stairs or at least his theory was and i think the commission's theory he fell down the stairs because he was forced to go up and down those stairs is a condition of his employment and he was forced to go up and down with sears the condition of his employment with the employer knives that the person or the worker was carrying contributed to the dangerous effects of that injury as and i believe that he fell either on the knives or something happen along those lines where there was a contusion of some sorts of the chest so again we're increasing the dangerous effects of the injury or fall by simply walking down the staircase and the need buckling and collapsing through to the preexisting condition i don't believe that the back injury when he felt pain in his back is going to increase the dangerous effects of the fall pursuant to his employment and again we're dealing with walking up and down a staircase it's the employer's contention that while he did walk up and down the staircase it wasn't an ongoing activity of his employment it wasn't crucial to his job duties i understand that he had to go down there to do some things for the employer but we're dealing with a community service officer were spent a lot of his time outside of this building well ok this always gets into this quantitative analysis who decides if you could put on he visit yeah i mean i understand in this case that there is no specific expert that has any of those opinions that were submitted here i think if we look at the elliott case one of the strong points that they make is the need to walk down the stairs in that case when we're dealing with a more of a security officer or a police officer was working in a jail his the need to walk down the stairs weren't unique to his employment and i think that's similar to the case at hand here where  employees need to go up and down the stairs were not unique to his employment record in l a it also made a strong point when they said that this injury could have happened while going up and down the stairs at his house or any sort of stairs there was nothing about that specific stairway on that wasn't actually any number of theirs that he had you know he was walking up and down some portion i can make the comparing and contrasting with that but that part of the argument because i'm sure at this point it's hard to know whether or not the only chord in gauged in this not as though he fell down the stairs in his back while he's going down the stairs he felt pain in his back and that subsequent you know back injury that is curtains you know again the commission noted and i think you would have to earlier your honor is and then including when dealing with idiopathic falls whether or not his employment as a community service officer significantly contributed to the dangerous effects of this fall the employer would would argue that i not he was simply walking up and down a normal flight of stairs that didn't have any defects at adequate lighting it wasn't hurrying he wasn't carrying anything and therefore it's a not arise out of his employment so for all of the above stated reasons  employer would request that the commission's decision be reversed with regard to finding an accident and then also reversed with regard to the wording and benefits for the subsequent back injury  that's clearly going to cure because in order to be in that area in the first place where the stairs are you have to be allowed to be buzzed through the reception area to get into the area where the stairs are should they indicated that because of the fact that there would be delivery people such as delivery of pop or soda or other products that would go downstairs that would be included in the general public again that's clearly an accurate because of the fact that you had to be buzzed in from an officer to get into that area in the first place well that isn't have least two to four times he would come in change his change in his uniform which meant he had it traversed down go back up and check his mail traverse up and go back down for a roll call i believe or  judge told to a very clearly identified in his opinion that all identified activities were not unreasonable they were certainly fitting within the personal comfort doctrine or they were there for the benefit of the employer which means obviously going down for roll call or being down there for other reasons that attribute directly to the tissues employment allows this person to be in that particular area and in light of the fact that he had a bad knee yes he traversed those stairs probably fifteen or so times each day fifteen to sixteen times per day i believe that given th circumstances his condition of ill being regarding the back is directly related to his employment also indicated to this court that there was nothing unique about him traversing those stairs well the fact of the matter is also incorrect because of the fact that there was roll call down there he had to attend rollcall there was no issue that he could not avoid going to roll call it was clear that at least on some circumstances is traversing up or down those stairs was unique to his employment in any event  just briefly your honor opposing counsel just noted that employee due to the fact that i had to go downstairs for the roll call therefore the act which a verse in the stairs is not unique to his employment i would request of the court look at the case in it when we're dealing with a security or police officer who is walking in between floors of a prison i clearly he's going in between the different floors of a prison traversing stairs to make sure that everything is fine and watching over the inmates  after reviewing those facts in the court in elliot's still noted that it's not housing related because it does not arise out of his employment so the fact that just because you're going in between stairs to perform some two duties doesn't make it any less or doesn't make it's usually unique to your employment again the employer would request that of the commission's decision with regard to cause a connection or finding the accident or us out of it in the course of and appear at another meeting is a fully participating member of this corps he has had the groups this is for the next phase of course he has the briefs and he will have the benefit of the entire