it also could be and in it she doesn't specifically stated this but if you mean all the facts together it could be she was in a hurry to get the file on the wall because she wanted to stay out the full attorneys would be more depending on how many cases she would hear on a particular day so six days would be the minimum amount in terms of it being and just as often very respectfully it suggested there was some problems with her credibility because he did not believe that she was reaching for a final so is this sort of a red herring for us whether she's reaching for a file is there really relevant  his specific question and i'm going to answer it exactly the same way today which is no she doesn't have to be reaching for the file for this to be a compensable case and qualify  qualified for under the arising out of requirement either as an interim risk or if the court so chose to review it is a risk risk distinctly associated with her employment and it would be tight space between the desk and the wall or the bookcase in the wall and being an eight inch platform which i wasn't quite sure in answer to just softens question if you were claiming that was a defect in and of itself and then force is on the is i went through it you identified the necessity that she had to use the riser for access but they were limited by all talking about specs of the neutral risk analysis i didn't see anything you know why the open area but down south to test the test is not that there's a little bit of risk over some other state of affairs it's whether the public generally most people at most times faces a greater risk and that just can't be sent in this case public that she faced which was a risk of a step up and the offices might be relevant if there were some issue that she may have been surprised not expecting to find this in an office environment but that can be said this was her room she'd had it for a number of years she knew that is is you know the size less than size a good or better than the size of the average bedroom door or lots of other doorways that the public faces all the time and she she didn't you know she also she says she twisted when she was reaching for the final if you even if you credit that she says she pushed it a little bit it was right by her desk she reached a little bit there's just nothing in this case that takes into an extraordinary around this is you know about as close as you can get to something over your own feet yes there was a step there was an eight inch step the same height as the curb she doesn't suggest it was an extraordinary height for  of alarm or stress that that should have raised her a level over the life of the public generally faces and  it was not something that got in the way of her visibility it was not something that increased the danger if she fell so that sounds like we completely agree with her that it doesn't matter whether or not she was holding the file the result is still the same but there distinctly associated there are there are two things that are causing the problem in this analysis i believe and the first one is that she has mistaken the test for  and and neutral risks and the case law also talks about this there are situations in which a neutral risk is unrelated to the employment and that's like acts distinction between the course of and arising out of because the same test whether the actions were incidental to the employment will be serving from both rules and the second source of error is that the test for prepared to adopt the position that an injury could be compensable regardless of whether the conditions or nature of the employment increased or interim contributed to the risk which led to the injury and that idea makes sense we prin that we have in this situation the way her courtroom was that there were risks of the employment now i submit that we still wish that they were risk greater than the general public i mean we still have there are greater than the general opening contribute to the ball