also my name is justin schoolie i am here i represent ford motor company in this matter and before we get into the risk analysis and risk categorisation i think it is also key to know that in the commission's decision they were than the precedent that was established in the young i think this case is different from the present young case and that in young we had a box that was thirty six inches deep and the employee consistently reported i overstretch i had to reach farther into the box distinguishable from this case here where in the petitioner if we assume that he was bending and that's he incident that he's relying upon the active bending is an act that every member of the general public is exposed to every he regularly picking up those bowl i need to change the fact that we're dealing with here regularly i think how many times is regulate which i think it's a factual question for the commission to determine which they did in this case and they determined the facts in this case don't present there that when everything man had been doing it would probably have come to the same or whether the employee contributed to it into one contributed to another words he died from the letter and that is not what they did but the commission did not abide that adverse presumption they they really try to have it both ways to try and avoid this source narrative that they still say th or the fact that he reported it to his supervisors immediately after have been would be strong evidence of an accident better evidence than whether he reported it to doctors weeks later and i think it is relevant to those issues unless there's on the issue of accident as it relates to the july twenty sixth two thousand and eleven injury date this concept of an adverse evidentiary presumption and then the argument by the plaintiff that there was an error in the commission rain man decision is that there are some statements in the original decision that may have been factually inaccurate i believe that they said there was no corroborating evidence whatsoever and in the decision on remand can slap them themselves on the wrist a little bit and say well there was some evidence of cooperation you know he did provide those to a couple of supervisors who didn't give the recorded statement to an h r representative now i did think that that name way could cure what they consider to be very fatal credibility issues with this climate but they did it now it's an issue and really man that hey you know maybe it was a poor choice of words to say that there was no evidence whatsoever but it was not in full in any way shape cheap because we have to address that issue as he's responding to argument about a lack of cooperation the medical records he's saying but yet he talks to human resources people who talk to people who work and he clearly said that he was injured in the opportunity to compel the production of any recorded statement or document and to compel me in the appearance of any witness including the two supervisors and its uncontroverted that they never made any attempts at justice  think it's very straightforward it's just an absolute case that commissions factual findings were accurate you know i have a trial transcript there's twelve exhibits that plaintiff entered at the time of hearing and there's not a single page in any of those twelve and again as you see it in summary i think it's the province of the workers compensation to assess the credibility of the witnesses that is the the primary ruling on the proper basis of their ruling on the issue of accident i am asking that it not be disturbed on review falls findings i don't think is really all that important to certainly raise the stakes are exceptions and then probably most importantly the fact that the circuit core remained did the matter initially and before the supreme court with the first opinion and you're right your honor but i didn't say two things number one i don't think the lawyer has contended that that original decision of was correct at least in the briefing and so i don't you like jurisdiction where it needs to be addressed even if not raised that think in this case the issues been conce