denied this case i submit to you that that decision was correct that it was within the manifest with the evidence and that it should not have been reversed by the circuit court and the petitioner in this case works at a hospital there is no smoking allowed in the hospital she wanted to have a cigarette she walked outside and her cigarette and when she returned the hospital she fell down i submit i was at my house and i want to have a cigarette i would not be allowed smoking so i would have to walk outside i would have to walk on the floor wood and metal carpet there's carpet on this floor i walked up here i would have to walk outside to have a cigarette and if i wanted to return home i would have to walk on the same materials the same earth the same material that supported my wait to get back inside but this would be classified of the kids but as a ne honor that's where you're testing right exactly exactly neutral risks generally do not arise out of employment the exception is where the employment creates a risk to which the general public is not exposed now  was a hazard was not based on any evidence in the wrecker commission made the specific factual finding the general public uses the entrance where the petitioner found commission made the specific factual finding there was no evidence presented that the bug was defective wax or had a foreign substance it was unknown by the road slit or the petitioner slipped on the rug or she tripped on the rug fisher did not testify that she was hurrying or responding to any problem or emergency other concern in the workplace titian did not testify she was carrying anything which might have caused the fall tisha was not talking to anyone who might have distracted her when she found the commission hell petitioner did not present any evidence of the cause or of her fault or that she was exposed to a greater risk than that of the general public circuit court simply going to order finding that the r  absolutely not your honor i believe it was petitioners counsel who handgrip you order that day i have a copy and then we actually got a separate order answered a week or so later it was an agreed order between counsel myself this is the order that's as different in princes were drawn from the evidence in the record the commission's decision is not to be overturned unless it's against the manifest weight yet it's my position that that is not the case here your honor and it's only reversible on appeal if it's move forward in color some of the arguments and petitioners brief she mentions the litchfield case in that case the petitioner trip i mean even sidewalk the claim in that case testified that she tripped on an area of the sidewalk where the slabs of concrete were not level it was an exhibit identified by the petitioner next case which showed one slab of concrete higher than your joining slab and there was testimony that the difference was over an inch so there were specific backs and that  work pointed to creating a hazard creating that increased risk when that case respond compensable in her brief the petitioner here over and over argues that the rug created a hazard now the commission made th arbitrators conclusion that the rug was a hazard there was no evidence to support that reasonably still any evidence of exactly right exactly now the three additional cases cited by petitioner in each of those cases the commission awarded benefits and that's not what happened here the chicago tribune case this court said in the case of unexplained falls it is in the province of the commission to draw inferences from the facts the commission could have drawn the inference that there might have been say sure if i tripped on my own two feet and i caused a small area rug to slip out from under me because i tripped on the thing why would there be a causal connection between they had my employment in the day let me read this quote to you if you agree with this because it comes out of metropolitan water reclamation case very well recognized case of injuries resulting from a neutral risk and you can see that this is a new tool with us generally do not a rise out of appointment and are not compensable on the air in our compensable only where the employee was exposed to the risk to a degree greater than the general public so what was the risk that she was exposed to quicker than any other member of the public because she was as an employee and in order to take a break she couldn't smoke in the hospital she had a traverse the area she was entitled to several breaks throughout the day and they had six specifically when the algorithms that entrance to excuse in the public come in there is another version in the record and that is contained in the medical history not that the rug slipped but that she tripped on the rug isn't it true that she told dr pain when she saw a doctor you know that where the seventeenth of two thousand and eleven key tripped over a rug work that's something that's different than a rug slipping out from underneath right well that may be the only instance where it says that in the emergency room records when they took her from by stretcher from the lobby into the emergency room she told the doctors if she slipped on the rug i mean that the records also say she slipped on the rug just one does not with that with that exception but i think overall i mean you have  situation where she testifies she slipped and fell on a rug there's no other witnesses to be by protests to moan and there's no other testimony in the air and i think the the arbitrator was correct i mean she was it was personal comfort she went out to put them in the course of and i agree but then she has to go but then she bumped one step further and said again that the right should just slipped out from underneath he rugs don't do that if you slip on a rug and it slips out from underneath you i think there's a presumption that there's something wrong with the rug if you lose her home from the whole world well if you look at the commission's decision what they said was th position is correct or incorrect she doesn't have to show specifically why they were slipped through right that's your position has to be well i think my position is it's the rug itself created the hazard by being on the floor and she slipped on it and the rug slid down the  slipped it slipped out from under her she didn't say there was nothing wrong with the rug she just stepped on the rug and it didn't move she st she sucked down the rug the rug slipped out from underneath her that's the testimony it's different than petitioner testified houris i walked in the building i slipped on the rug on the ropes lips from under me history and the medical records stated she slipped on the rug that she tripped on the rug and that the rug slipped they put everything she said in there because they're talking but then they said it's i don't know if she slipped down the rug no they said in your four petitioner failed to prove a connection between your employment and her injury commission finds that the arbitrators conclusion well i disagree with what you're saying i just i think there's there's another case logic supports a finding that this case should have been compensable and i think that the arbitrator's decision was crap when she made