issues here the first is a legal issue as to whether with the activity of mr tolls or officer tolls on february seventeenth two thousand and nine was in the course of an arose out of his employment in our position is that we submit to you that what he was doing their morning was simply preparing to go to work the lifting of the duty big as he calls it when he was going to put it into the trunk of his car was is he first of all we are position is he was not in the course of this employment at the time in the lifting of the duty big was not or a risk unique or incident earning activity that was also admitted that there was no requirement for him to bring the duty big with him and i believe what he really testified to was that it was he was doing this simply to make it easier for him so we didn't have to go into car in at the time encounters what he perceives to be a reckless motorist and he decides to take action and apprehend the individual driving recklessly i believe the quirk in this case i believe believe the commission found that he was not in a course of disappointment the appellate court made a determination that at the moment he assumed  how can there be no they called their they call the therapist in here here's the significant statement he makes he talks about the fact that he's going to stop there because he's probably going to have surgery in the next two weeks and it goes on there pain to the point that he requires there was his testimony that was he was just so if the incident from the bag didn't creases paid to the point where he needed surgery isn't that th evidence in a credibility i there's no question about it so i don't end up with paul i i'm suggesting to you that the commission's decision on causation is contrary to the manifest way to the evidence why is that because you have physical therapy notes on one hand which are what you're basing your argument on and you have the claimant's testimony on the other hand denying that he told the therapist what's contained within the therapist knows  credibility determination has as already been determined then there is also the the surgeon's testimony that on february the thirteenth he did not recommend surgery so you also have that testimony at that point there may have been discussions regarding what could happen in the future but there had been no surgery recommendation made at that point and so you really do have kind of railing evidence that the commission was charged with the terminating the credibility of the difference here though is the fear that when he discusses this with the fear it's clear he's saying i'm going to have a procedure in the next two don't they have the right to do that they they have the right to do it i just think that it's against the man to swear to be evidence because of the fear that we know because he had this condition for quite a long bit of time in this thing that he violation of the rule for the simple reason that there's that there's enough there's there's substantial evidence here to show that this man was a surgical came to the annoying i'm using the term doctor modern cars didn't agree with what the the type of injury as described could have caused me crease and pain and i think is important even if we had except the notion that there's a dispute in medical opinion and that's for the commission to decide that establishes duty bag in his patrol car so to get that duty bag to his to his work his patrol car he must travel he must move it there sort of a person is a teacher in on high school and  teacher and it's recently foreseeable that teacher and many teachers do work from home teacher may have taken that textbook home for perilous implants so if the reason for for a fall was carrying a textbook which directly related to the employment yes i  disagree with that i think that on his a while driving in he is he is a police officer in fact he's always a police officer so i mean he might see somebody get mugged on the side of the road but was personal vehicle over make it  homeowner certainly acquiesced in that mr coles testified that he was allowed to take the duty back home for safekeeping because five many officers did and they did it so they didn't have to lock it because it is happy and that goes to the point about the increased risk is a forty pound bag these officers have to turn around that is an increased risk not faced by the general public is that maintaining caring for curing using that duty bags part of the day to day chop an officer that those officers before just a few items i would like to address the justice department and inquired and i think you did too justice holder about whether or not the record showed whether the officer tolls it is uniform aren't we we don't know if it was not discussed so i don't we don't know if he was in uniform leaving the house or it was going to change we still part of one of the list about a black one to remove was that a police officer would be on duty twenty four hours a day and is it the interpretation of the case law i submit to you it is not now we we did cite seat there there really isn't a lot of case law on this c n n says he's close but obviously there was evidence of a deviation i believe it might be an issue and so when they go to the tavern they go to the washroom and the gun falls down and shoot them in the foot in their cover right i would submit to they are not why not because they're not engaged in the activity incidental to their duties because the record desirea caught does not discuss what his job duties were other than focusing on the fair good they were to maintain or keep control if you will of the duty begin is the justice hudson was he asking to do the big could be left in the locker officer tolls clearly said you know i wanted him and wanted to be as smart as possible so i didn't have to take it out kerry would have back in the car when i