facts but the facts and sells are so few other words we know from the from the employee that she has almost no recollection of the events that led up to her eating we know from the employee goes to the motive for the assault was all but those are two i believe those are actually two questions and those are two inferences and need to be made one is who took the money and if we assume that it was in fact the coworker who took the money the question becomes you would happen particularly with regard to the money why i believe that there's a difference between the parties agreeing to the testimony and evidence as to what occurred on that day versus inferences that are correct but i believe that you can if you wish if you take into account the fact that the employee or the coworker took the money the commission never makes a determination that the reason for the beating was in order to effectuate the taking of the money and there's a there's a difference between that's the inference that's the relevant inference that we're talking about here that's a relevant question that we're talking about the commission never even makes that the employee is that she has almost no recollection of what led up to be if you look at the d v d interview and you look at her testimony she clearly indicates not that she was bending over but that she was  the police report which indicates that mr mosley in a bid to the beating and then subsequently indicated that the sexual relationship they had an argument over sex they started to strike each other and then he eventually l right there are so you know what reason i did that was because she said no now well how many crimes because he had been charged well in my mind whether the took the money or didn't take the money the real question is going to be why did he beat the employee but even if that's the case if he beats the employee that's a crime of opportunity says i didn't leave or within an inch that's why when i look at this case the question becomes what's possible and what's probable and the question becomes with the undisputed evidence we have in the record what is possible versus probable and it's just not probable necessarily that he assuming he took the money that he beat her in order to effectuate the taking he had the money in his hands earlier that day in the dollar tree he had exams all you do is walk problem and to just say in the face of that the evidence that suggests that this was a beating that was a crime of passion he didn't just hit her over the head he peter within an inch of her life clearly this was more than just hitting someone over the head and taking the money what i what i say what i'm trying to say is that when you look at this and you determine that he took place and then the money is this it the fact that the money is missing one possible conclusion is that the beating itself was part and parcel to trying to get the money another possible conclusion it was get away mark is it probable i don't think in these facts you can determine that it's probable and based on that i would assert that the commission real quickly as to the second portion of our argument relative to the treatment assuming that it's a compensable accident it's the employer's position that the the specific treatment that was being authorized by the commission  actually two specific other words they said based on the testimony of the doctor the ploy should go to florida at a treatment facility the doctor was question regarding whether she knew of a facility here in illinois in all likelihood would cheaper and she was unaware but she had not really investigated and while i think the commission can authorize specific modalities and those that are recommended by that doctor just to just say that it's of the court pointed out that it was more likely   she put your money b entirely possible that the employee has met their birth it's possible that the assault was motivated by a desire to take the nightly deposits and certainly you can take the circumstance same  employee hasn't met their burden of proving that one of those is more likely than the other with the commission finds that one of those is more likely that the question i have in that regard is what what is  commission found in their in their findings that shows that the likelihood that the employee was beaten was in order to obtain the cash but it's just something that's what than not this occurred and i don't know that he determined that the the facts establish more probably than not that the beating was a result of the desire to take the money but who decides what the f mind and then he's out the door if he had quit before he had it might have been in my mind of the same theory it's been a whole i'm going to be out the door any second now because i'm going to go bob someone that makes sense