therapy session which had not yet begun but he was sitting on an examination table therapist asked him to move his left leg for the purpose of making  comparative measure he was there for an injury to his right leg but they wanted to take a comparative measurement on the left on the way before and i emphasize before leg in making an ordinary motion of life his left need became symptomatic from his underlying condition of rheumatoid arthritis ok so nobody disputes step but my question is how does this case turn on a question of the law it is it is the application of the law to that effect the commission found the case to be the record is undeniable the answer to that question would be no there is no permissible basis for the commission to find the answer to that question to be yes you're right but with respect the commission or the courts of attention to page four sixty two of the transcript where the petitioner says nothing had begun i was getting ready to be examined so i wasn't at home he was there at the therapist's office this was part of the assessment of the patient to determine his range of motion right yes ok there's no doubt he was in the course of his he any was doing on the direction of the physical therapist the physical therapist asked him to do something and preparation urged minister in physical therapy first he asked yes she asked him to make an ordinary motion of life of ok this ordinary motion of wife has to sit on a table and then once need to determine the extent to which it could be bent is that right yes but it doesn't change the fact that the motion that created the condition of ill be was in ordinary condition of life regardless of how or why the petitioner made that mark as i crossed adam's street to come here today i paused and looked both ways just like my mother taught and look both ways ordinary motion of life if my neck condition would have manifested itself during that activity well did you take that the turn your head to the extent that it could be far absolutely i had to look for the maximum range in each one and if i had a condition of ill being that was that became symptomatic during that motion that would not be related to my created by the first injury but for the first century the second event would not have happened right all but how do you square your theory with that law well going going back to my own street example i move my head left to right not c as i'm standing here today i mean gauging the justices and moving my head in the same fashion if my neck condition became symptomatic while i'm talking to you today moving my from left to right that's simply not a comp case what happens if you are told move your head left the right i think he was told bend if left knee as part of a well it's that doesn't change the fact that it's still an ordinary motion of li what you're what you're doing is you're saying that the employment has added something to an ordinary emotional life who does what required it it's what necessitated the movement of the need it is there any evidence in your record i mean or something in an order this is an injury that sustained during the course of treatment for what is undeniably a work related injury undeniably so even now he injures his left knee because the fall under international norms well it is understood that when someone is at a medical treatment facility for a work related injury that work that medical facility in effect i refer back to the last case that was argued were the question came up from justice hofmann what was the something more and something more something that neutral risk is a neutral risk regardless of how it is under change and so i was heard there with their national harvester well i think i just did the neutral risk employment must offer some hands like in the fairy land case with the fella on crutches after an act he's on a shopping trip with his wife while he's off of work and he and the tip of the correction exist then we are driven into positional risk then the location of an accident counts more than the analysis of looking to where the risk was that caused an injury the location of the circumstances under which of the purse circumstances it looks to causation not merely location in this case the employment provided only two things it provided the location no different than if you were to meet me on the corner of adams and capital and say hello mr burkey and i turned my head and became symptomatic the source i will what was your  to move your left mean different than merely moving your left knee we all respond to stimuli it could have been his wife the morning before saying step over there could have been ok so the point is that the origin that stimulated the ordinary movement of life is immaterial it's still ordinary motion for which the risk remains in the petition now but for the test of course there are plenty of situations where we have to look at the buffalo but for the fermi petitioner on crutches but for those crutches he wouldn't have  the case of the man who is being examined on an x ray machine the execution is over ten or over energy causing burn but for his original injury he wouldn't have been on that table he wouldn't have been subjected to the over energized exercise but for a man who has a broken leg and is being treated for her and injured leg being treated for it and in the manipulation the medical manipulation is sometimes  event of ordinary life moving your leg is right up and i think i understand  but just doing an event of ordinary life for a nephew can honestly i'm not i don't think that that analysis should be introduced in the clouds each question in illinois and employers liable for all injuries traceable took a pencil accident so i believe that the analysis of where that the risk is based very ok with a employee faces a neutral risk that's greater than the general public should be confined to the accident because someone is walking down the street on the way to the physical therapy often sooner injured because we just walk this movie compensable are you i agree with that because there would be an intervening cause that's wholly independent from knee told him to bend his knees so that she could measure how far he could bend his knee from that testimony the commission could infer that he bent his knee beyond what he normally would do in daily life i don't lie on my back and bend my knee out as far as i can unless there is some reason for me to do it i don't do that in daily life so this is unusual because what you would say what about of the ploy or something you go across the room and take that book off the shelf under certain arguments as well you can say well he wouldn't have done that this is under the direction of the employer so therefore there trumps the act of walking so it's hard to draw a line here isn't  where the therapy sessions have begun there in the therapy room and she directs the firemen to stand up straight and bend down touch his toes or do something without physically putting hands on but actually directing blame and to do something during the course of an actual physical therapy session and it would seem that this would bring it more closely with than the international harvest father kinetic energy factor it takes it out of that but i think of distinguishing the example of walking down the street you're now walking down the street at the direction of a physical therapist when you go to the building  someone goes to therapy the first thing they do is they are asked to write an exercise bike for five minutes to get their cardiovascular system working if they are injured on the exercise bike i don't think you'd be here arguing the same points i think that would be part of this not on our back in order to measure the range the flexibility of your leg there's one point i do want to raise for a leave here that i don't think was made clearly in the br the proposition is that a therapist giving orders to someone to prepare for an evaluation is something more in the in the drawer is our position is that until the exertion the kinetic energy or for that matter ordering someone to bend over and push their jobs it doesn't have to be so if a person came in with a back injury and the therapist said without touching bend over and touch your toes and he went into an extreme motion and was injured without being touched by that person  he was doing i was what she was asking him to do which was to tell us the range of motion and range of motion and yes i mean we all know what range of motion she asked him to get ready for a test get ready or to please get in position i'm reading from your statement of preexisting condition so how does it affect someone maybe just the act of flexing it caused a problem because of the predisposition in this person's internal system so why isn't that compensable only doing it at the direction of illinois bell phone case of years ago where the petitioner had a preexisting condition but was so severe that any exertion was overexertion and counsel that's just a taste for sixty three