conical the more i read the clearance for case law the more convinced i am industrial commissioner i see that worker's compensation commission did the right thing in this case this is a case where we have a woman who was at work doing her job and she felt she's testified many many times on the record that she does not know why she fell and there are no eyewitnesses that  that when she was right before she fell she was busy and in a hurry on a very busy day she's a respiratory therapist working at the hospital she worked twenty six years she's working that day on she saw that day or was very busy it's eleven thirty she had given treatments to several people in the room and she wanted to get three more treatments done on that floor and then do another one somewhere third thing that they mentioned and they mention it only in one sentence they mentioned it after they talked about this school case and they said that this case is even stronger because the fit because the four was either it was either a defect or class that's all they said about that and saying it really does a standard formula on the condition of floor doesn't know it's not at all in the fact i think now just i think and i think that's what that's what the commission rule they didn't really talk about that with this fairly she was busy trying to get her work done before noon and they found re inferred that those three things that she was busy she was her second thing they reasonably inferred was that she was distracted she was looking at her cards that was her testimony and those cards were what she said with a think tank for her she did her job they had the name of the pediatric patients and what medicines pediatric patient had had the pain she just finished a treatment in one room and she setting down the hall to get medication floor she was looking at her cards that she was reading it's not at all reasonable inference to conclude that the cards were down at her side why would she be looking at them if they were down at her side she's looking at him because she needs to know what she has to give the next pediatric patient and that's the education it's those the two things that the commission really relied on in their decision and we think that their decision is supported by reasonable inferences and we think it's in line with your earlier cases that this court is sided it's very much like c's case c's case the woman was leading we're going facts she was in a hurry the facts that were there were she was carrying a fed ex packages and it was part of her job to get those mail by the end of the day it's also a lot like the knox county y m c a case we have a woman who w as doing it up stairs or down stairs items in her hand that were related to her job she missed the step commission found in the court affirmed that had she not had these things in her hands she could have grabbed the railing and broken her fall it's a lot like the  case the woman had to step up and down of the bumper many times during the day the increased number of times stepping up and then increased the risk that she was going to turn around the analysis that used in first carriage and later involvement is the same analysis that's used in cease the differences in first cash the lady had no presented no evidence to show th bathroom floor was thirty on the day that she fell in reading that decision i think if if you had some evidence before you that showed the condition that for that there was a problem on the day that she fell the commission probably would have been a should have but i think under the facts of the case the mission raised that in the we think that put forth and they their decision declares that they are making reasonable inferences about matters that the petitioners own test of testimony is that she directly contradicts what they conclude i mean we see that she repeatedly it is that she did not know why she fall it's not just her testimony that's in the emergency room records other trustworthy witness so if her testimony and i think you know she's answering the questions that are asked of her and her testimony contradicts what the commission is s back at all these possible options and said well well what's the evidence i mean the cave the first cache case i mean other cases i think they are consistent as my opponent said and here we have  say that if there's there's no direct evidence there's just circumstantial evidence it only support an inference that's reasonable and probable not merely possible and they further say if it's at least equally possible to infer that something was not interest why because the analysis that the commission is using comes from the first half space is and there's no evidence or witness testimony that a particular action contributed to or fox and as there was no evidence or witness testimony that any obstructions in the hallway contribute to a fall as there was no evidence or witness testimony that there was any wetness or slippery has on the asked she's describing like her routine she's being asked about you know watch what she do on that day you know she found her second time back and you know going back to treatment from the pediatric for pushing the so when i came back on the pediatric for about eleven when i was trying to get things done before twelve i do believe i have something else on another floor i tried to get the kids on first i was going to the other four and try to get that done before lunch she never sat as she never testifies i was in a hurry i don't even believe and let me be wrong but i don't believe she ever testified as to how many more treatments she had to do before that time you know enjoys highly is saying well she's the witness well you know i was busy and it was the busy time of day the busy time of year but she was saying you know we were busy doing particular patient care but joyce highly at the time the petitioner found she was in the standing area like doing computer charity the well i think the allegation that she was hurrying and carrying her cards something that came from another nurse saying oh i'll just do a treatment for you because i know testimony of them well they are they that's that's that's the issue is whether the inference is that they drew were reasonable and here we have them saying well it's not reasonable if there's no evidence or witness testimony that these factors contribute to or fall and whether it's the obstruction in the hallway or wetness on the floor or any defect in the floor by the bend but it's even more speculative for her to be by the claimant in that case she you know the testimony was that at times there were there was debris there were white spots in the area where she fell and that's where they said you know there's one maybe something maybe there was this my voice from a foot maybe that's why i felt it here there's kind of a laundry list and the commission says well you know  happened what happened when and when the accident happened said live thirty i came out of that room approximately eleven thirty at least to the best of my recollection are you going somewhere else you said about noon she said i want to get these treatments done on  h think i still had maybe one other treatment to someone else how many more treatments do you think you have to do on the half hour probably three i'd already been there i'd already done so there are some rooms across the hallway that in the first space talk but reasonable inferences reasonable inferences are those that are reasonable probable and more likely then the opposite