this quarter as well where there's three types of risk an employee be exposed here i don't believe the employment risk applies because there's nothing about the war or wh than any member of the public and he does this trip back and forth more than the general public would never do it what do you make of the good color first of all i believe the commission specifically found that there was not sufficient evidence in the record to support that she was forced to work at such a pace that would increase the risk of falling for several other shoelace what the commission relied on in making that determination at least in part was  would obviously have been drawn with the commission rejected those differences and that's the commission's job and i think really the most important part of this is really the lack of evidence proper by petition or not one time did t the bullet when i did but she never said that's the reason if that was the reason why didn't she just say it and for that reason the commission and then a lower would be enough for them to reject the approach that was drawn by the circuit court was there any evidence in the no evidence that any way knew her shoe string was untied i know them well she was asked specifically in cross examination ok you explained to them what happened was that your shoestring your shoelaces were on tiding as you were walking you stepped on your shoe laces and that's what push you to trip and twist and jerk and injure your back and she said as i was hitting to leave yes if you look at what her testimony was she had just removed two of the projectiles that had been reversed torqued and it is and she testified that indeed it is her job it is one of the essential functions of her job as a and their decision was that there wasn't enough evidence that the employee was forced to work at a pace that would make her susceptible to stepping on her shoe lace or not so well or not the shoe lace was totally untied or whether it was just long or long because it hadn't been looped along long enough when she she laced him that morning with long long hair and there's really no dispute that that was the cause the mechanism of when you can see it go you have something more more the something more which i do not believe the commission looked at and i think wired to judge fire did note that was the fact that her main job was to look for defects and she testified that as she moved between the two base to do this reverse torquing procedure she had to be inspecting those projectiles fardy defects both before they were put in the machine and after they were tak didn't even make mention of the fact that holding projectiles at all what the commission said was there was simply not sufficient evidence that the claimant or he worked at a place that would make or particularly susceptible snapping  see that there was a defect on the steps because i was holding these they didn't say anything whatsoever but you know and so i don't think it's i don't think it's fatal in my client's case to say i didn't see my my tight shoe lace because i had to be by what you were doing and then you would fall in the disco but nobody asked you the question in the commission can draw inferences or they cannot draw inferences that's their business we don't trust you francis for them but i question that i hear for you is because no human spec you something that's coming off of an assembly line is that necessarily mean i'm not looking at my feet well i can tell you this if i'm walking down the street with her in a pair of tennis shoes or boots like sleazy and i'm not holding anything and i'm not walking at a very fast pace because i have to get some more quickly i'm sure as heck going to be able to see that that shoestring is dangerous and needs to be opposed to the inspector while she was walking when i was a more reasonable one or she was doing the inspection while she will walk because she testified of several times that she had to look at the projectiles both before which as she grabbed them out of the box initially to look at the facts then as she placed them into the machine goes back to the first day runs the loop holes the lever that the torques the projectiles she then takes to new projectiles looks at them while she is walking over to the bay it's the the torque projectiles out looks at them and testified specifically right after she took those recently torte projectiles out she turned to go remember the other workers name but all testified that the that the employer had a quota system and that was very fast paced and that this d v d which was the only other evidence and record about the the job filming was not a member of the crew the person was simulating th my client testified that at the time she turned to after she had taken the projectiles out it was at that time after she removed them and she was looking at them at the time she was determination as to whether that evidence is contrary to the manifest weight this this court and the city and the circuit court are not bound to to rubber stamp a commission's decision that is not supported by the accurate and that is that there was no downtime they don't they didn't sit and have to wait for the process of this torquing to to go through like a five or ten minute course it was just operate the lever and then go walking and perhaps walking and perhaps having untied shoe lace are risks that the general public hats and that anyone who's in a job where they have to walk to meet that means you look at the evidence on one side and you look at the evidence on the other side of your group small read why only employee in the instant case never testified that you know because she was looking at if those essential functions impact an injury then i think you are are making a case you are making a claim that the claimant faced a risk greater than than the general public