that the sender itself was a rising out of and so far up to the point where the commissioner correctly realize it's a neutral risk analysis i've no problem there there now says it's correct but after that point when they start petitioner and the only other testifying witness of frank's there was an lpn license practitioner nurse that was not available bad day fridays are typically busier days and according to jenna franks february's actually for some reason particular busy month more importantly as well is from three o'clock to four o'clock that day miss ryan was working a program called piling nurse were she was answering questions of students instead of doing her normal duties but her normal duties don't go away she still has to do that so she has ninety minutes work to do the final thirty minutes of her to finish up her of her tasks for the day so witnesses testified that so miss run was delivering a prescription that contacted the student it was four twenty in the afternoon she said come pick up your prescription unfortunately you tested positive you need an antibiotic please come pick it up to show a into the analysis of whether or not this was an increased risk from a qualitative scam point because that mistake a law i believe it does your honor and that's where who does my main argument is the commission acknowledges that she may have been doing this if it wasn't a question of that they believe she was doing it or not was the contrary of it not to my knowledge your honor there is no other there is no other testifying witness and again the one witness they didn't mention on their faction or franks i don't up she actually stated you know what caused you to fall and she said no i just recall that i was i was and i don't i would see if i missed putting her exactly as a tip but at least she was alleging she was her difference as to why the individual is fering if it was based on a mistaken promise that she had to get this from the pharmacy and so do we only look at whether or not she was a fact i think there's two points of evidence and i'll answer question the first is that she's a student so i think the fact that you get the discount and that it is important back there the fact that she was going home for the weekend and the nature of her condition to be was not something i want to take home to mom and dad over to answer your question i don't think sell because the test she was trying to do was still work really has she wasn't rushing to get a little susan soccer game she's trying to get a prescription that she already told the student did your honor she testified that she test and fifteen times and then typical day so that wasn't a record that was in the record your honor and then janet franks was off the other nurse who was working that day testified i go up and down the stairs quite frequently then the record was of circumstances that were supported by the circumstance of why she was in a rush supporting her testimony that she was in a rush to continue her point which she states makes her less  attitude an increased rate risk and a quantitative basis in that to which general of what is exposed was there any evidence in the record as to how and that case many times the general public or the six times carried the day in that case and now the other issue i would say with this claim your honor with you that she was also carrying a work product in her hand which was a prescription granted it was a fairly small prescription in her left hand and  shows that she was walking down the stairs when her accident occurred i would assert that walking down the stairs during this unexplained all will be contrary to someone who is in a self perceived rush and  is that she may have felt or perceive that she was in a rush but she failed to prove that she was in a rush at the direction of respondents so that she may have perceived herself to be in a rush and i would imagine will quite a few of us can feel we're in a rush but that i believe myself from the facts that were established in the case that this was her own self perception but she did establish even in the record she didn't say she was running down the stairs when this happened and i say though i might have been running i thought that was a reference in here and read in the record that you said i might have been have that was the only requirement that was needed every case from now on till the end of our contests is tish's always testified that they felt like they were in a rush to get some job completed they have to per prove objectively that villa park i believe that that was one of the considerations that were made by this court that they felt there was a direction well if it could be a direction but it is not the only way i believe that is one of the factors whether i that she was working as a nurse at for the university at the time but happened though she had an unexplained fall she has to be able to explain you know what you know from a qualit saying here's what the results are now is there any question that she would then have a prescription and get go would go down to the for the low to get the prescription filled out that would that one of the that letter that's what i'm oeuvre you know one of the things it's asking us to do is to make assumptions or shoe reisa lover of conjecture this goes to the the ten to fifteen times on average you know never testified as to how many times that this was part of her that she d job requirement and tumbled by the argument that this wasn't found to be in the specific direction of the employer as an employer have to tell them all you need to go down the stairs at certain times to be compatible i mean february's a magical month that's more busier than any other month without any explanation but she felt that that needed this they were short staffed one nurse that day and i guarantee that doesn't happen other times and that made  that day she also testified she had to dial a nurse which is negativity that they are normally used to doing anyway but then this was her perception i think that even with her own self perception the fact remains that there were tears you know there was nothing to prove that she was running to go down the stairs we don't have any evidence that we had that evidence to the contrary was that she was walking down the stairs we have the evidence answer your earlier question ms jennifer franks did testified that if she's the one who she stated hypothetically speaking if she's the one who charted the prescription she would be the one to take the prescription down to the pharm now the other issue is the slippery slope part i think if response counsel had brought up any testimonies say some of the circumstances were more accurate was to testimony to two witnesses who were fairly consistent with what they were saying the circumstances of the day was i was busy i think it's irrelevant to say how do you know if there are sometimes regular it's you can be regularly then she testified in that way for if she just used the word earth if i recall your honor she stated that she was also used she doesn't recall what specifically because of that she was she does recall the issue she was