description of the incident was that he was sitting in the crane else chair and when he turned to the left and stepped down which was a distance of a foot or less he felt a sharp pain in his back his hand the arbitrator then found that this action presented no greater risk to petitioner than to which the general public is exposed and so did not constitute an accident rising out of in and in the course of petitioners weimann this is a neutral risk case and in the cab the cab itself is a confined space only three feet wide in length and has operators controls as well as a pedestal that's about where high and can a seat where he sits during the course of his stay he was at the end of of his day and was trying to extricate himself from this crane cab at the time that he injured his back it wasn't just merely an action of sitting there trying to the lap left and standing down as he described it in his testimony your honor he said he had to put himself forward hang on to the controls slide down a little bit put his right hand on the arm rest of the c suite on his body bag lowering his right leg down to the floor of the crane a distance of approximately one foot his left foot remained on the pedestal of pedestal platform that the seat was on while he was moving his right leg down while he was that the the employees work day where he was picking up these hundred thousand pounds loads of steel that three hundred loads of steel that he would do in one work day or one work overnight which was the case because he was on explaining quite quite frankly and quite consistently as how as he testified to try to trial that that he did also have the twisting motion but he also did let him know about the vibrations that he felt in my argument here to you and before the commission as well as for the judicial before the circuit court that was our contention is that the arbitrator wasn't looking at the present isolating and identifying the distinctive character considered when you look at whether the risk is greater than the risk to the general public this quote has recently looked at and arising out of case i think their opinion was it shouldn't every issue which is after all the priests were filed in this case the metropolitan water reclamation case is the one i'm referring to and in a case the court said that in neutral risk cases there compensable only where the employer was exposed to a risk to a greater degree than the general public but here is another thing that said that i think it's helpful in this case and should have been utilized by the arbitrator and when we made its findings the court said that this court said such an increase risk may be qualitative such as some aspect of employment which contributes to the risk or quantitative such as when the employee is exposed to a common risk we're frequently than the general public now and in the metropolitan piloting case it was a quantitative risk rather than a qualitative case which i believe it is in this case so if you look at the whether there is some aspect of the employment which contributes to the risk i think yes you do look at the fact that he don't i'm not exactly familiar with this but as i recall doctor he if he had any and if he had any preexisting back problems they were so far removed from the the proximity of this accident that they weren't related there wasn't there wasn't any showing that there wasn't any medical opinion that the reason that he was having back problems was a continuing circumstance so so this was this is not  to the credibility of the petitioner if you fails to recall that you did have some back thanks but if you look at that if you look at when the back of place from eight and if they are not some time in close proximity pedestal and then step down yes but this was this was not just stepping out of the vehicle or not just turning in his chair and stepping down and i think and that's our that's our position your honor that that just more than what we have in the caterpillar case where someone's just stepping down off of a curve we're going to just stepping out of a vehicle or pickup truck that somebody might have this is more than enough to substantiate that finding of the commission factual question was whether or not the activity in gauging by it constitute a  of the interior of the the sphere the evidence and assuming that that is correct and this fisher was slightly more every gentleman would have the same difficulties getting out of the theater seat a car seat or any other type seat and the critical point in my opinion is that there were no complaints no indication of injury when doing all this the indications of injury there's no indication of any defect in the platform or or any other part of the equipment the evidence is that the injury occurred that when he took that step down and that the injury did not occur if he had to contortions to get out of that seat which i would submit you were no different than getting out of any other seat for a gentleman of his size the the record also and the application that one step down wait for a moment that dissipated cleared he finished went home and he did not have problems that led to the doc he didn't go straight to the doctor from that incident you went home and w different than that the case before gap filler partly which i believe there are filler overturned although it's a little difficult to tell but those two cases in combination emphasize my point here  this is a factual question whether or not that this step down there was an accident and that the factual determination by the commission cannot be overturned low with regard to my client's stature should be noted that employers take their toys as they are and he was obese straight hundred pounds and it may have impacted on the difficulty that he cabin it was more than just turning to the left and stepping down it was it required a twisting motion of his stack which he did relate to dr corey and witch doctor which was a part of dr  resulted from the vibrations he was exposed to with dropping the loads of steel that may have also been a part of his back problem but the act of twisting which dr equates said of cause of his problem also problem was sufficiently set forth in the medical causation testimony and i would also note for the court that dr quinn did in addition to his physical exam where he noted that the plaintiff or the petition he he testified he could barely even get out of bed if you look at this just from a chain of events standpoint he was able to do his job as a crane operator climbing up those stairs and getting in and out of the thing without any restrictions he had no restrictions whatsoever at that job before this happened and was not regularly seeking treatment for his back before this happened so