conclusions made that people can't which makes it even worse because we can't wait out stuff and it's was never mentioned in the commission's decision they only discussed what they thought was particularly and they simply referred to the young case which was another public case and sidewall your claim it was not reaching into a deep narrow box therefore it's not particular they didn't even discuss the fact of course it's particularly opposed court's decision st felt that the commission's decision was to or is connected with the fulfill the duties so really the crux of the case and the issue as we frame it is whether looking inside of a walk in cooler for a food product misplaced  because i do think what's happening here i think a lot of words are looking to the ago important to give them the response of what is the proper analysis and the appellate court for quite some time was out and we had a killer tracker and everything's going well for thirty years employers passed that rationally more often than not you are going to find that arises out of it should be that way unless these employees are detouring from their point or there are obviously  certainly connected with and distinctly associated with the job so the next question is did he have to meet because i work or risk which he employs exposed to a greater degree of the general public by reason of his employer this practice has been reiterated time and time again by this court analyzing the something that i do something that other jobs do this is an act that's very common to other positions of employment and very power to the general public he testified himself that this act was no different than him looking for a shoe underneath his own  employee blinks out a contact lens kneels down to pick it up and hurts his knee when he stands back it's neutral neutral sound like a gunshot rings out and all the employees drop to their knees it turns stands because i think that would depend on what the job duties of that employee are i think that a question of fact in this situation the commission determined that the job duties were not peculiar to that of some show and i would actually point out that need to be satisfied so the mere fact that you're in the course of does not automatically mean it is a rise up and in this situation it's a factual question as to whether the duty that he was performing at the time tricked or if an employee is exposed to a risk coming to the general public to a greater degree than other persons the accidental injury is also said to arise out of his employment  the problem with the three x analysis whether you have a common law duty to perform a statue or to perform or something reasonable is believe that you would do that's a reasonable foreseeable standard that's not what the acce says that it has to be in the course of an arising out of not in the course of an foreseeable to your job these two prong analysis was so important that in two thousand and eleven when the amendments were rise out of and something which is not a laudable i mean not to go back for a history lesson but in one thousand and eleven the act was st draft there were two sides it was a grand bargain all sides gave up rights and come up with this act to say you give causal connection between the employment and the accidental injury it's not just performing it happens it's the risk the intensity acts to protect people for risks not from the act safe before we all perform acts every day but does not mean that there's a risk it's different to the common general public or other professions if what i see when i look at the majority decision despite factors in my favor but i see that analysis there's an know the traveling point case and i not read the employee housekeeper was sitting on the floor polishing the chrome on a door after she stood up she noticed that she missed a spot on the kickplate and bent down to polish it she injured her back when she straightened back up like the claimant in our case she was injured from a single instance of a routine by li movement of the employer group that she was not exposed to any risk greater than what the general public was exposed to it would s cases like memorial medical and soused rule we said that when workers physical structures disease do not get wary under the stress of their usual to house law abuse it was an accident arising hoto in the course of employment and his condition so deteriorated that any activity could of caused him to have that injury and this court said well that doesn't matter if you've already established arising out in the course of most you do is have to determine whether your medical condition was accelerated or aggravated it was not going to go back and restart the in the course of that arising out but we haven't got to that point yet in this case we stopped at the arising out because based upon the facts under either analysis the commission which we have to give deference to one factual issue see if there's evidence to support and i believe there is that he was not a greater risk to the general public and the one time act and going from a dealing to a standing position when he was doing it on  against your client and then it i argued with the concurrence as to what the proper standard is but you agree the majority got it right in terms of the standard is that right i paralegal can you please kneel down and grab my mcalister file from my bottom drawer i really need to start looking at it and she does and now she's standing she passerby i'm instructed her to do that ask for a supervisor her job as a paralegal isn't unusual we know that but what is the overall purpose of what she's doing is to assist the attorney in preparation for whatever that may be taking it one step further in our case had the head chef bruce walk out of his office and having mcallister saw him and said shut up i think there might be some carrots under that walk in cooler can you one struck me we used to go back down and kneel down and go for them because if you don't instruct me then this isn't going the illinois workers compensation commission not be a public park illinois workers compensation commission did not ask if this was an act peculiar nor did they ask if it was distinctly associated correct they define incidental to as necessary to the fulfillment of his specific duties and that is not the definition of incidental to this court to find incidental to its belonging with or connected with and twice they talk about risks being particular particularly is the definition of neutral risk or neutral risk is one that has no particularly employment characteristics by using the phrase  any other area of his life again not the standard we don't care if he was performing this task at home the day before it's not relevant to this discussion the commission is inventing legal standards that's why this is a