on the day the accident she was helping a patient with a shower she had one hand on the patient her right hand she turned with it and with her left hand reach for a bar of soap in that process she felt a pop in her neck  then was diagnosed way razor herniation which led to surgery so our position that this is a case where the activities of the petitioner was performing at the time of her accident the reaching was an activity which does not present a guess this is what what we're asking the court to do is on that continuum between i'm not worth the phone in my job and i'm performing a specific act where do we draw the line and say we're looking at the activity and not the fact that the person is a work performing a task i understand what your point is your honor system thing that the commission said well she's in the shower she's helping the patient she's concerned for the safety and destroy but i don't think that's what the law should be we should be looking at  whether or not the activity perhaps that discussion would be appropriate and is appropriate for in the course of clearly she's in the course of but is this act the act of breaching an act which is risk performing that she performs at home that all of us perform today will you could you could say to the person working in a factory in a big huge you know turning back and forth will everybody turns i mean and at what point do we see this person's get there if they're at work doing their job performing then ag because it is part of their job why do we go into a neutral risk analysis but i think we have to because it if we look at the cases that we cited universal only greater purity mass of a chair ok here it was this woman's job to reaching at the birth through of sewed up the person in their shadow or put another way how would you respond to this comment the cases you cited in those cases the claimants employment board no relationship to the injury for when compensation was something or somebody turning in a chair that had nothing to do with the jet here or the employee was doing the job when the injury occurred picking up on he says if you're in your argument  why do we even get there if it is a risk cookoo to their employment it's something that they are doing is part of their job i do we even go to the risk analysis i don't think that she sallis that this was a risk of reaching for a bar so reaching to so basically you're basically every job we have to do the neutral risk analysis i think he did now and once you have something like your inbox of the knights down the stairs of some of the things that the court scene over the years but we don't have it here she's asked specifically by the arbitrator when did the pop in the neck happen what we doing when they reach for the cell and that's consistent seven seventy six seven seventy seven seven seventy eight i'm reaching for the soap i'm reaching for something i'm reaching forward as she's doing this reaching for something is the same activity she performs over and over that's why when somebody wants to own a stairs and they have an accident we take a further analysis and we ask yourself well were they doing with the quantitative in that situation as well what we're asking the court to do is not just say hey they're at work they're doing something that might be related that's enough we want to take a look at what the activity was and say hasn't been qualitative and quantitative demonstration that this is a risk p so how does that help you i think in this case i think it's i think it's obvious i think it's extremely clear i think it pushes it the other end of the spectrum and we have a very simple act being performed we have no testimony as to the frequency or how that becomes peculiar to the employment i doubt if we continue to back up from the act and say well she was concerned for the safety the so had might have been producing some bubble she was worried she was going to sort of eventually get to a point where yeah we've got to say it's a but i think when you look at this case from what was she doing with this testimony and i keep focusing on the testimony because the medical records go everywhere and that's one of the things that the commission seemed to do they relied on some of the medical records they talked about bending they talked about lifting but that she gave at arbitration that that qualifies as anything out of the ordinary i didn't sense it of a person being placed placed in a stress position that would warrant additional factors favoring that transfer schedule and as they bend over that they had suffered an injury that case was deemed compensable and the supreme court reversed that a manifest weight of the evidence this happens in certain cases that are just on the outside of the of the french and that's what consideration to that case if that section for rehearing is denied in that case becomes published and i would ask also that if you do that but you give counsel best counsel an opportunity to respond in writing to a bad decision and argue whether we think it's a ball and obviously show think it's not but i think the back seats could be very important and i would hate to see a slide through a window where we had this case decided and that comes out later and when i can't make a petition for a rehearing or reconsideration so i would ask on first of all it all boils down to a lady in the shower who is assisting somebody who needs assistance who can't do it themselves it's somebody who has to hold on or keep the hand on the residents or she doesn't fall and it's somebody who's while keeping a hold of the president is reaching out to move so not to get it to help washer or helping hand it to her but to remove it from an earring out on the gravel of the center because the water was hitting it causing some bubbles to accumulate on the bottom which was a further slick risk to the president but testimony is not disputed and fact in this case the petitioner is the only one who testified no questions were asked  exactly what this lady was doing at the time but would you would you agree that the action she was taking was no more than just holding her hand out not even providing support but actually touching the the resident and at the same time reaching for the bar of soap as you know mr l were would argue here you're talking more of an idiot paraphrase rather than something that is peculiar to this and i reach for the soap and in another place she's saying no my hands run on occasion i just turn it's not like that the histories are all consistent some are more details and some are less detail so i think if you look through the records of d levy and look at the office visit from march sixteenth day after the injury you'll see that he notes that she was assisting a patient in a shower and he references the word lifting such as lifting her arm you're asking is this out peculiar to the employment how she did this or was she simply reaching out and my answer to that is yes it was peculiar to the facts of this case into the implant she was holding a patient and she had to both reaching and turn at the same time to get the cell she may not have had to both reach and turn if she wasn't having to keep a hand on the resident at the time she was showing her so the specific facts of this case are very different than the didn't you can drop it in the great amounts peoria case you can drown a piece of paper on the floor at any time here at work in your home outside and you're going to reach over and grab at the same way  to a very good question and i would argue that it would be because if his job required him to reach over the period late throughout his workday to pick things up off of the floor and she sustained an injury while doing that then yes it would make it compatible it's just like the guy who is working on an assembly line who has to reach for parts while we reach for a cup of coffee we reach for something up our counter we reach for parts but you don't do it yet sixty times in a be entirely if the claimant was a maintenance man whose job it was to pick up stuff i don't disagree with you and it was a while stated point if that job it requires that activity whether it's once a day and you're doing it on the first time not necessarily i don't want to make it sound like this is you know is no matter what she's doing in there it would be compensable for example if she does something i want to she's assisting the patient bathing compensable because that is part of her job that is required of her in the performance of her activit in this record that you can point to to support the commission's decision it's not going to manifest way to the evidence here counsel and his reply brief just very briefly that it indicated to the court that they should disregard both the opinions of the i if you remove those opinions from the record you still can rely on a chain of events theory you still can rely on dr lee's medical record march sixteenth the day after the injury to that gives a history of what occurred and you can still find that there is evidence in this record to support the commission decision so i ask that you please affirm the commission's decision in all respects and unless there's any other questions i'll have a seat thank you h use if you're doing something you were expected to do while working it's compensable if you're doing something that is not going to come into with what you're working the guy did bends over to something up off the floor whose job it isn't to pick up she's hired to do i guess i guess what i keep coming back to is we had a lady here who the medical evidence shows she had a preexisting degenerative condition she had a longstanding that combat problems