logistics the standard of review is did know the facts are straight forward and i'll briefly go through them but it will be brief petition this case works for flux and gate as a primarily as a short haul truck driver he was injured turning paperwork as he went up the stairs to turn paperwork in for is original for the st run of the day he was going to travel to from danville to peter b and i was was bananas are you sure about your standard of you i it's not about this in i think that the designation the question as to how far the traveling employee doctrine extends and the legal designation of a traveling employee seems to be one of watch the underlying facts of the case are not spirit and for that reason i suggested familiar with the background facts here you are essentially contesting that the injured worker was a traveling employer is a correct that's correct can we agree that out of the l of our supreme court decisions a traveling employee is any employee for whom travel is an essential element of the employment direct that's that's also correct so in this case the claimant it's undisputed has to drive from indiana into illinois number of different facilities and was injured while he was at l b at one of the employer's facilities but obviously he's traveling interstate is traveling around making a number of stops and you tell us please why he does not qualify as a to compensate for tyshan or are a worker who because of the travel requirements associate with his job in the frequency in which he was exposed to street hazards that we are otherwise subject to want to do we base in this can i ask you this search do you have any cases that stands for that proposition that apply don't but i also don't have any cases where the traveling employee doctrine was applied at the central hub of the central think because it's obvious so are you saying that somebody is a regional supervisor or let's say walgreens or c v s west to travel between states all over the place was obviously going to be going to his employers or temple premises and that qualify correct because the reason for the traveling pulley dr arnot this court generated doctrine is to compensate for the street hazards there's nothing about this modest raise additional hazard to the employee it's it's reasonable for see ability is not street hazard the street doctrine is a creation that address a story street hazards well that's the judgment they made the st syllable by a travelling employed local the local establishment the hub of the business what do you mean by that because i asked a question because just as an asked you a scenario where you had travelled or had travelled somewhere to a different  location you seem to be saying there's some distinction because it's the local i believe that's true please or something about the injury or that there's nothing about that that it is there's nothing about engrafted your theory again it's the local hall who says it's a local hobby started out in indiana all of these facilities are arguably local pubs under that scenario you created so basically you're asking us to write the got out of existence unless the person's at somebody else's business well this was this this was his primary this was the the hub this was the place he went to and then made his daily trips back and forth and we'll tell you up completely and this is i understand it you've conceded for the record you have no case law to support your argument that a person he fell down after he went into the plant in danville well didn't go to abandon them bill i think that's where he was heading and i believe  started other than the st one in indiana but he would be that was the central hub because he was not injured reporting to his home base driving in his commute to the home base wasn't he  sorry it's always all the case law all the traveling plea case loss when somebody is injured away from the current employee there's no there's nothing particular about this employer's location an increased risk for for the employer so there are other places you don't have a problem he's jockeying trailers to the central location and that's that's what i have a problem with because he was injured at that location there are been cases where were cancelled was trying to bring on the issue of increased risk and the court has said that that's not part of the analysis as counsel has as repeatedly referred to this parking lot in step with the possible and hurt his back and i guess a couple of things you know i think if there were some reason to think that had he been in the building or on the premises and the t maintain the simplicity of this rule and you know not complicated as the employer would want by starting to carve out exceptions with no real argument as to why or basis for why there's no compelling reason here  to change that well we do have a series of cases that would suggest because the st one was in traveling employees at the time of the accident doesn't make them a traveling employee at all times we've got cases where people work in restaurants they worked in a restaurant that's their job but they're sent to the bank to make a deposit and they trip and fall on the street when they're making going to the bank we see they're traveling for you point in time where they trip a traveling employee when they were waiting on tables in the restaurant you know that's the barrow i would say no because i would say that traveling to the bank to make long i would say that is what i really don't have anything further to add if somebody has a question for me i don't think i could do anything but just repeat what i've already well there's there's no dispute that he was in the course correct that argument was developed by the commission in the workers compensation what's your perspective if they have it wrong their one hundred complaints ability arising out of my perspective is