as you walk down the stairs she got to the exit door and realize that she forgot her personal cell phone as she walked up she just about the sixth floor of the six step of the stair and slips over missing the testimony she testified that she walked up the stair she caught the seam it was smooth and then the grip tape started and she said that there was a ledge there and that was what slipped and her foot caught the sumant then  fell forward so while they didn't get in specific testimony my arguments always then is that there is no diminished role that i know of work workers compensation i know a civil you know there's gaps in sidewalks in everything and there is a diminished rule on this on matter only do we have a defective missing grip tape let's also just important to know that the group paid missing is the reason that she fell and i saw her testimony yes she that there was a ledge on the grip tape that she caught the top of the stair i think from the facts i could argue here today that there is a defect this clear on the defect but i would agree also that while it's unclear in the commission decision how they frame to the conclusion that there wasn't anything but we can come with a conclusion for the candle well i think in the bummer ido decision they found that this was a question of law in regards to arise out of in the course of and they ruled that was it is know it could be seen as  ok not a question of right all right and i think just to conclude with the in the course of is the i didn't i guess from the case law that i read in the facts in this case i did not see a case where somebody that was against the petition that was in the building and fell or had an issue where all of the cases in the not happen of course and i certainly agree that it that it's a little bit closer because i believe the in the course of finding them to rise not to find it i would say that the distinguishing factor i believe is ingress and egress cases is that they are actually going or coming from work in this case you'd already essentially left for work when she was coming back that's was for her own personal reasons to retreat treat that cell phone that she forgot and had left the building and then let's bunk for the day but i think if she had already left in this case she was at the door of the even the building and they decided that she had to go to the bathroom she left where the office that she had left that it was the door they get out in the when this case was trying to believe the primary testimony at the hearing was about to rise house up in the in the course of finding i think that maybe a little more surprised than i would have dissipated from the judge because  primarily concentrated on whether or not this stare in this tiny area of missing grip tape i was a defect or had caused increased risk so how do we get to the rising alluded to so why wasn't this accident in the writing out but i think just by looking at picture that was essentially the entire trial was about was that there's nothing wrong with the stairs she notes and the finding but they are in the commission's decision that you know i wasn't raised there buckled it what it was exactly the same height so right there i believe that there inferring there was nothing wrong step you know that was the entire trial of the arbitrator's sure went out o on the three sentences that she did include right i think that from those three sentences that justice was just referring to she did make a finding that there's nothing wrong with the steps she sent the strip was exactly the same as the stairs why why you know just as there was maybe an inch missing area of this paragraph to say that you could slip on a hinge when your foot is probably three inches wide i don't know how we could say that this she says her butt off they rip tape and over i think it's clear from the picture that there is a defect with that tape because it's not there is causes a rough surface in a suit surfaces she testified that missing grip take caused her to