issued by the arbitrator the workers compensation commission as well as the circuit court in tesco county are always there i believe that the decisions they have made or is again are against the manifest weight of the evidence i believe that the facts are surrounding the stones accident are not really in dispute in this case i think the main issue that we need to discuss is more of an a situation concerning an accident i believe that the previous find leg of accident i believe that the arising out of the leg of accident is found by the fact that mr own was clearly exposed to a greater risk than the general public when she was entering an exit in this vehicle this was not a vehicle that the general public was getting into i don't believe that an argument can be made that this system or this situation was set up for the general public to be buying nice clothes or this quoting from scrubs on wheels i think this is clearly i feel that the employer in this case benefited a great deal from the fact that they had their employees have a dress code in that dress code if it was not met the employees would face consequences for l employer aqueous to this trailer being put on its property they allowed the trailer to be put on the property they only allowed this specific company to bring their trailer on to the property and they specifically excluded every other  business and other solicitors who wish to come on their property it isn't going to her duties to go into this trip i mean you know if there is a convenience if they have meals on wheels there during you know somebody goes and takes a coffee break and falls down i mean you're saying your analysis the employer invited this person there it's like some kind of an attractive nuisance or something attractive shopping opportunity and therefore that's makes it within the sc well i believe it she was clocked in your honor i believe that at the time she was performing there was on the clock so was being potentially paid her employer as a supervisor or her supervisor gave her permission shows that basically it's a in that case of all that happened twenty five minutes for the titian or actually started their day was found compensable in this case there was only there was significantly less time than twenty five minutes dispute there in that i believe that these are the facts show that she was given permission to go out there i believe the record indicates that she was told she had to be bad to start her shift nonetheless she was in fact on the  that as i mentioned previously she was in fact on the clock so i feel that that is significant when determining whether this haste does arise out of and is in the scope of her employment or not you may make that argument in you know again to get some logical basis to it however would you at least concede though going to the trailer to purchase is not a perk of for a jap and the work site she supposed to go is that what she does she's supposed to build purchase and pick up scrubs but i do feel that she was compelled by her employer to do that if she did not wear the required uniform she would not be able to perform her duties which was required by the shrub no she was not here on i wear required uniforms and the subsequent me or scrubs on wheels situation came about does further the employer's business interest i think that it allowed for the employees to ease up more easily meet the dress code that the employer had put down it shows it shows that employees are in the business as well ron that the the employees are well kept i think it also the record shows that this allowed for  and and ease of affordability for the employees to meet the employer's dress code in that it allowed them to take deductions and from their pay as opposed to having to pay upfront these are people generally my understanding is that these are people generally who don't make very much money and if it was a will it allow the employees to meet the dress code much more easily secondly i think that it's important to take into account that i think that the personal comfort doctrine does come into play here to some extent i think that  my clients behavior with regard to her actions on that day were reasonable i don't i don't believe that this was any type of frolic by my client with regard to heading over to the scrubs on wheels i think that she took a reasonable action and for someone in her position that day opportunity was presented to where she could potentially buy the required uniform stuff and it was right there in the parking lot i think a reasonable person would go up there and peruse those things  i don't think that it's him counsel's argument in the datsun and had failed cases are appropriate i think that this is not a case where my client took a short cut or anything similar to that i don't think that those cases are on point at all additionally i don't feel that the wal mart first past cases first cash cases are relevant either in that this is not a she's not following it she's not following a public parking lot this is  a and an additional risk that's been placed in the parking lot it's not just a parking lot like in the wal mart in the first pass cases i think this is merely a situation where the bender's vehicle was allowed on the premises  evidence and issue an order in accordance with that thank you very much mr bone your honor may please the court on so my name is john kamman on behalf of the employment in this particular case she went to the trail of check prices to see if you can buy scripts cheaper there than in the bush now reach where she usually potter shrub's judge you're right that she could go to a department  store and there's no evidence that this was the exclusive place where she could buy scrubs and there was not really no evidence that this was the exclusive vendor was the only vendor that would offer this service but this is a service that was offered as a convenience to employees vehicle to retrieve something so they could perform their work duties and in both those cases the first there's a slip and fall on the ice in the parking lot the employees are required park and in the second case there's a trip and fall on a crack in the sidewalk that in the employer's premises and in both those cases this court said the employer has created this risk of injury and they were in the course of employment doing things that were necessary to complete their assigned job duties we have cited to the court datsun hatfill those are cases where detours were made but this the the premise of those decisions one was slipping on a grassy slope again on the employer's imus's one was john being over a puddle and injuring themselves again on the employers bonuses and both of those mom in those cases i cited dr i'm referencing a personal convenience and if something is for personal convenience in their activities that would render it not compensable personal comfort cases are found compensable but this is not a personal comfort doctrine that a dress is whether somebody steps out of the course of their employment when they're already in performing their regular job duties and they need to do something for their own personal comfort that is completely anticipated by the employer as some need to do which is typical water the water fountain a go get a refresher meant to use the facilities i think there may be case other take a smoke break those are the things that a personal company better done during the course of the work they did that this court and the commissioner said you have to expect that your employees will do any contrary evidence other than the fact that she had written up for going on the clock but i don't think there is any direct evidence and i think is a reasonable inference for the commission to draw that the supervisor was not aware that the person i clocked in at this time  in the you know arising out and in determining whether or not it's arising out of just because it has to be something that since adults are the employee the rising out of tests at the supreme court caterpillar down are where you instructed to do it but only not you were well if she becomes if she goes off and misses and becomes a traveling employee no but if it's a neutral risk and there's no problem with this there and it's determined the story didn't cause injury then yes it is still relevant because in this case the court this quarter frankly can simply rely on the testimony and history that she initially wrote that she just missed the step getting on the trailer and if she simply missed a step getting out of the trailer there are the court clearly can determine that that did not arise there was sufficient evidence for the commission of to conclude that this is not a rise out of the employment that this is simply a misstep but i think this is a personal convenience case i look back and it's a little bit different to some a case where the employee close to some bare hand on a card or the b exposed or jumping a car in the parking lot this is something that was provided by the employer as a convenience to the employee they were compelled river directed or otherwise filling their job duties and going out and visiting the scrubs on wheels and on that another injury involved there really wasn't briefed by the other party there so i think the sufficient evidence with regard to this december event that doctors concluded my exam a physician if any condition was related back to this may have and since the commission has found that not to be comp i'm just a couple things real quickly your honour's i believe that i don't necessarily agree with mr cameron's characterization of this step as a neutral risk as i previously indicated i think that this is a situation where my client was exposed to a greater risk than the general public and that would allow her to meet arising out of test given that the general public is not as a previously mentioned going to be using this scrubs on wheels van but that being said i would ask that you please take into account my previous request that i feel that the previous rulings by the find