like to address the issue of the standard of review the same time as i addressed the merits of the commission's findings and i think necessarily so i think clearly this is a do no review because they are undisputed i think that clearly on the basis of the record the facts are undisputed i don't think that you can simply say have th commission or any tribunal say where the facts are disputed was the record supports that there are no disputed facts here if you look at the record page fourteen through nineteen and no less than four separate occasions as mr schneider was being walked through the arts of man's he consistently says the same thing about how he was holding the phone talking to tanya for over at the time th at no time does he say anything different than that there was nothing on cross examination to suggest anything different there were no what the witnesses to the testimony there was nothing in there is nothing in this record to support the commission's statement in their order that the petitioner didn't establish after he approached the stove or if you was cradling the phone in his neck or continue to hold it with this right hand i am mystified him out of if it does it which means that eastley it has to have some origin in a risk connected or incidental to the employment so the question that i have is is cooking connected with the employment or is it expected he's allowed to do the laundry a lot of the whatever is on the clock being paid because he's waiting for the fall when he takes the phone call and is talking with the use of this bomb which he has to do with one hand what he recognizes and that was one refuted as being somewhat of an urgent situation we've got to get out there and get these barricades back in place because the managers in town don't want him to see that we're using a parking lot that was close for use there was nothing about his work that required him to move the pan of oil while he was still talking on the phone right he moved the pan of the oil because he was going to go outside immediately i mean he had seen the finish the is a personal you know convenience or is it somehow connected to his work well if it is a perk if it's if it's person on the we have the personal comfort factor and the question becomes did his work activity increase the risk of what he was doing at the time and i think the answer to that is obviously guess he had done this many many times before with two hands and once this catches fire once he makes this motion to get it off the stove it catches fire it sets into who is required to live there oh well i mean he is on baseball he is on call that's correct so reasonably he could instead of fixing dinner he could go down to steak n shake ok and while he's  supposed to be down in the parking lot had just been repaid and that was your concern and it was my client's concern is what to do his job as he was expected to do so he obviously is is doing everything he can to get out there done with the phone call or when it which gets into this negligence issue when then i think that's where the commission is wrong the idea of what he could have done something else is not the best that's the case and most work injuries that you the question is how is it related is employment i mean just because it was a business phone call i was requiring me answer and require him to take immediate action which resulted in losing jury permissible inferences from the evidence and questions of fact are only within the province of the administrative body counselor herself is making arguments regarding the proximate cause of the actual injury as a factual argument of what of the employees injury arose out of his employment more specifically whether he was exposed to a risk greater than that to which the general public is exposed this is simply a determination of the fact you know the funny part isn't the was exposed point the reality is that he hurt himself picking up a frying pan with two hands that's when he actually hurt himself wasn't any other point was when he's picking up a fine hand with two hands there's no testimony that this was a raging fire that to move it over the phone in his hand at that time he was doing something that he testified that he did on a regular basis and i think all of us would agree that people throughout america do that are people throughout the state of illinois do that on a regular basis that's how he hurt himself  there's a fire because there's a fire around and the second point on the same issue that he received this phone call there's no testimony or i cannot understand a reason why he needed to move the hand at that point when you feel receives phone call yes i agree that he was hurried that he understood that he needed to do this quickly but you see the phone call from his employer he had to go do something quickly that doesn't mean that at the same time he needed to be using one hand to move a pan that he agreed was three and a half months could have turned off he could have done up any number of different things and regardless of all that the point that he was actually heard he was doing something that we all do on a regular basis on a frequent door to go do what he had been asked in order to do well how can you how can you say that moving the piano is not part of his job so to speak because he has to get from point a to point b can't go to point b