knowledge i think the shoot here and what i'd like to focus on is the decision by the commission reversing the arbitrator and then by the circuit court that opinion some nonsense about whether he had any tools with them and whether there was a mask and obviously i'm not an expert in welding but i think i know enough to know it was we need testimony about any of it was there were there he had a mask on and all that i mean  out of the employment i think that's really the question and that's that's what i would like to focus really doesn't go into whether he was as we've said many times in cases performing acts which he was instructed to perform by his employer really a question did this activity create a condition or agony ok so addressing the issue of whether whether there was a preexisting analysis to whether or not this was an injury caused by an increased risk that the neutral risk analysis that the commission engaged in because i frankly looking through the commission's decision i didn't see anything in think that again it just to finish my point my client a doing doctor or shelves deposition i specifically asked dr of the shell would you have been able to tell when you went in and perform surgery to the left knee would you be able to tell if there was a previous injury to that knee yes he answered yes i would have been able to tell you find any evidence when you perform surgery to the left  did say that the operating surgeon looking at the actual the fallen gene the actual need doing surgery used in a better position to render an opinion then just somebody looking at an any evidence that there was a preexisting condition no a lot of weight is given to what dr rochelle allegedly pine's in regard to anywhere could have occurred when he stepped out of a car it would have occurred in many other places but doesn't answer tonight with medical question because you can pose the semi pathetically question if a plumber working b could he be doing home homework repairs and benghazi is finger at home of course he could if somebody lifts a box at work can you injure yourself lifting your four year old at home of course of course those i pathetically question that the answers are obvious to everyone but if if that's the standard if this what you are going to fall then any injury a work of bending course whether the measuring stick is whether there's a risk of injury at work greater than to the general public that's really what do we  have to get to that if he's if that risk is distinctly associated with his employment i mean if his job requires him to turn in the care to weld why do we even compare it to the general public he's doing his job because i think that what the commission did and what the circuit court followed was to look at the positional risk injury they just basically said all he did was to turn on the chair that that's really what they're using i mean that they are just separating the two right an analysis is of course that he was welding and he was performing these stories within the scope of his employment he was doing what he was expected to do and his job well the unique risks to his job obviously it what we tried to point out you know our briefs is that number one the general public is not buying masks and carrying torch constraints and counsel is going to say well we introduce evidence that those time constraints that he was a terrible worker that he did not perform up to par it's irrelevant irrelevant if he was the best employee or the worst employee the question is did he have time constraints and the strains were there and the quotas were there and was required it seems like you know that if you're you're you're better argument is what justice stewart was talking about earlier it's the board of trustees case it's young which came out after the party reap this this case but it's where it's a risk that's the stink of the the employment it may be something that the general public does and young it was a matter of this fellow reaching into a box you're familiar with that case which is i'm sorry you're  out or putting a part in i think it was but in any event of a task or of a movement that the general public would engage in the reaching aspect but it was something that he did as a regular part of is job it was a risk distinct to his employment just as in board of trustees and that it wasn't an item the rest something that the public wouldn't have been exposed to i mean isn't that what you're arguing here of what your argument should be here well it is what i've been trying to communicate of course i have i've tried to address other issues that that i've been  arguing in the brief and that i thought were important but yes i mean obviously just the stewards and you have made my point in many different ways and  it's certainly my argument that you are correct in that that case that i'm not familiar with i apologize but i'm not familiar with that case well and then in follow up to that there then comes a it as with anything in the law that continue on that that rationale or that that notion that it may be a movement that the public commonly does but in this case it's something that is distinct from the fellows you know are we there at that point here with this fellow or not that i don't know i mean what we know than you know is that if he's good for me an act that he was instructed to perform by his briefs that there was our point obviously is that our client was working and it turned not just to do and you know just and not to do anything but return to well stupid in reaching whatever so in every case we say well that the general public reaches the general public turns does it matter if you're reaching or turning or whatever to do you're assigned to be doing the job you're assigned to do can involve many actions some of which are purely employment related and some of which are not it isn't that the employee shows up at work and suddenly becomes only subject to employment arrests he is their cover he is they're subject to a multitude of risks there are employment risks the risk of an explosion in the paint factory there are purely personal risks the risk of someone coming into that plant and shooting him because he has a super bowl bet dispute with his killer and then there are the so called neutral risks were an analysis must be performed if we can get to determine whether or not the employment took a neutral risk and increased that risk that is the analysis that must go on and the young case that you referred to talks about increasing the risk the young employer box the employee in university of illinois trustees was in the swivel chair and turned and achieved a and on natural position his employment forced him into a position that increased the risk well i don't know that young actually employed that that reasoning that it was an unnatural position think the young analysis was is employer required that he reached into that box and do what he did even though the general public might also reach into boxes in their everyday lives as well so it wasn't that but i doubt it is a difference in how he was doing it or the number respectfully disagree with the logic in young in that if they did not add here to the increased risk dr young got to the right result i'm just getting there by a different employee was required to do was on natural and not that exposed to the general public eye gets to the resulting yawn and the increased risk here i must ress for a moment on young young actually looks at the state of mind of the employed her doing a job that the employer oeuvre could foresee find it here i think the wording is expected to perform performing acts which he was instructed to perform by his employer x which he had a common law or statutory duty to perform or acts which the employee might reasonably be expected to perform instead it is assigned duties he's a welder he was welding he was not welding at the time of the accident he was positioning himself to begin wel designing an imposition or risk there is no doubt that this man was in the courses and proud of it i mean when we're talking expected to perform or perform as part of the job isn't that in the course of analysis i mean right this and that's why i'm saying arising out of looks to wrists and there are the commission found after looking at all the evidence that there was no increased risk in the simple motion i believe that if the clerk over there walked up to hand you a piece of paper and you turned four degrees in your chair and extended your arm and your shoulder went out that is not compensable if you had to stoop over suddenly because she dropped the file that she was bringing you and you bent over unnaturally back would be a compensable case on one side and it doesn't add on the other that dividing line is what we're talking about today the in the worker's compensation commission looked at the evidence and determined that the action but the employee would the risk of harm from that action was not increased by the employment just as an aside i did the commission make a determination that there was no causation based is connected with but an employee has to do in fulfilling his duties both quote didn't he have to turn in the chair to fulfill his duties yes so why is this not a risk incidental to the employment it is it doesn't reach incidental until it overcomes the neutral risks don't only course establish three categories of risk risk distinctly so they are associated with analysis if you find it's a neutral risk but if it's a risk incidental to the employment belongs to is connected with what an employee s to do in fulfilling his duties it's compensable that describes  the reason there is the neutral risk analysis is to avoid adopting the doctrine of positional risk everything i respect you disagree we are we are met today to discuss how the employment increases risks we know that the employment must have something to do with the injury that and the definition is did the employment either have an inherent risk or did they add to a neutral risk a time to get to standard of review we have a question of fact before us whether or not the employment increased the risk of  industrial the workers compensation commission viewed the evidence weigh the evidence and that is what was before you today you have a manifest weight standard of r here the employment provided nothing more than the location for the accident to occur and the ok sion for it or two to occur the employment according to the workers compensation commission in the exercise of this fact finding employment did not and anything to the risk of harm to which the employee was exposed thank you and i'm not sure if i'm going to add much to what is what has been said but i am listening to the counsel and and in my fears we move forward in your honor said that the law evolves and of course that is the absolutely true and the question is where it's evolving with these cases because if in fact we accept counsel's logic and you start separating these these actions that the bending over or the turning and you say that's an element of everyday life and the employer did not increase the risk of you bending over or lifting a hammer or whatever the situation may be then truly you're going to nit pick every single worker's compensation case and every single witness composition case there's going to be a good argument for you to say he was just bending over you he's increased by the function or the ok so you are i'm sorry i'm you said there's an increase well i do i do believe that my clients profession is a welder but there's an increased risk in this profession is a while this compared to terminations make that determination i'm sorry you're on a one now plans now it's now it's a fat what you know who's who's making that determination as whether there's an increase  you know did the commission in this case really relied on board of trustees and on and some of it in our opinion obviously interpreted the facts  like i say when it when they relied on board of trustees they are relying on the wrong case because the facts are distinct distinguishable from the facts in our case but my time is up ok