when he came to realize that the back door was open after making sure no one was approaching the courthouse from the front mr gross testified that he crossed to the back of the courthouse descended four steps to the  secured it and hurried back up those stairs in order to return to his post before someone could enter the courthouse or through the front door the cynically he testified as he attended as he ascended the steps he skips the first step down the second step with his left but then he gets the third step and stepped up to the fourth step or the landing with his right foot pivoted on that foot heard a tap and proceeded to walk back you he testified he had to make those trips between forty to fifty times a day there's no evidence to the contrary respondents brief suggests that that can't possibly be the case if he had to man the first one of the court house alone during the time  had to go down and up the four steps before exit in that courthouse and also the fact that he had to turn in order to avoid a wall in front of him when those elements are combined with the fact that he was in a hurry that's arise out of the employment the manifest way that the evidence in this case is that injury occurred as he was ascending the staff maybe it's a matter of semantics that it was the fourth step which also could be called the landing but as he and reported the injury the following day consistently for reports were filed indicating that the stairway was the locus of his injury the fact that he didn't specifically mention that he was there hurry in those act summarize how the accident occurred in addition to erring on the issue of accident the commission also erred on the issue issue of causation  complaints he was complaining of swelling water on the knee and difficulty walking before the incident according to dr an abstract art dr nat's record that follows the accident doesn't give the subjective history is taken by the medical provider there's nothing that indicates this is what the petitioner told him at their point when the history says that he's there for a well checked history says that he's had complaints in this knee for three months but it doesn't stairs and he went up and down forty to fifty times a day he testified that he went downstairs in the general court house forty to fifty times a day council sites no coasters this bill and i workers compensation commission where the court did find that going up and down a stair multiple times a day could put an employee at a greater risk of injury than the general public in that case that employee went up and down my staff four hundred times a day now only did ship to do that because the general public may not down up and down but i know that our house i mean gulping down the stairs thirty times if i have to go to one room go out the door up the stairs and he's at the same he testified that at that time he was performing security at the king econ or house and he also i think counsel and given that he was the only person that was performing security that's not true there are other bailiffs president of morehouse and then as testimony s to where it happened because of the arbitrator's decision that says that page four that a close look at his claim reveals that he is not claiming he was injured on the stairs but rather after he had ascended the stairs and was walking back to his workspace right so the saying that that this injury didn't occur on the stairs but on a flat area someplace when did he say that him exactly what did he say he of the process of walking he turned and that's when he felt a pop in his eye wasn't because of an odd way out at the top of the landing he had to turn to get back to walk back to the front of the park house ok and between flights of stairs this is after he reaches the level the floor that he is wanting to be on and is walking back to his work station ye same doctor dr on and he returns with identical complaints of swelling in fluid in his knee this time he reports that his knee has felt like this for the past three months it's only been eight weeks since the work accident in order for that to be an aggravation there you know before two quick points i don't believe that there's anything in the record before this part that challenges and issues credibility with regard to the issue causation i think that's a harder harder issue that the court has to d determine and this court really needs to realize if we don't have expert testimony all we have is the evidence that's in front of us that's my argument that the manifest weight of the evidence that's before the support at this time points that his condition was aggravated or accelerated as a result of the work x and his his testimony was that his symptoms were different after the accident counsel and the other side he was pointing to his the record of doctor and post accident of august of two thousand and nine we don't have testimony indicating what portion of that medical record came from the petitioner we don't know what the subjective history was in that x in that record so we can't say he walked in there and said he's had the same complaint for three months we can't say that that he had the same findings because the findings are different in the medical