are as follows in order to reach an area of the bank where a certain set of keys were stored she had to descend a set of three stairs during the course of the given day and this is the un re testimony at trial she had been counted those stairs fifteen to twenty five times every day fifteen to twenty five times every single day and this particular day was the end of a shift in the process of going down those steps she fell down injured her right knee there is no evidence there was no evidence at trial that this fall was a result of any idiopathic problem that she had there was no evidence at trial that increased risk is the frequency of having to expend to go up and down the stairs as many times as she did i point to the two cases that that we really rely on and i prefer the first case is the only consolidated telephone case in that situation the employee there had to was forced to go up to the second floor of her office in order to use the restroom and the court there found that yes the the frequency would happen how she would have to  you're on a robot arm unfortunately that the case is the case law doesn't really delineate between whether somebody has more experience with going down stairs or not the bottom line is going downstairs ultimately it does come i believe down to what the commission says is is dangerous or not here but no rises to that increase risk but the problem is the commission here didn't decided on that that basis that if you read the commission's decision they basically set aside the whole the whole point about the frequency of how she had to encounter the steps they cited t case on credibility issues which i think really are collateral to the entire basis of the decision and what the decision should have been decided on whether or not she had any priest rests with the commission on hindsight if they decide the general public doesn't generally have to encounter stuff fifteen to twenty five times a day that's the grease risk and that's what we come down to now if it was a situation like in the caterpillar case where the employee there just had to go up and down the curve i think twice a day once go down there to do her job yes but basically you are the media is it doesn't matter why she fell she doesn't have to have an explanation a person who goes up and down the stairs fifteen to twenty five times five days a week mean i would counter with first cash has nothing to do with stairs don't first cash the employee there was in the restroom retrieving something for i think a container for her lunch she went to the restroom  so other than that if you're honest would like i will address the issue with the credibility issues that the the commission had with my client to speculate about why she thought she fell and she tried to do that and when she ultimately conceded that she didn't know the commission's coming back and saying well she's still got approved what caused her to fall if she doesn't know she doesn't tends to argue this by saying that the facts are in dispute it however at trial the facts were disputed and there was an issue as to how she additionally though all the facts in a case are undisputed if they're susceptible to more than one in france then the manifest weight standard to a neutral rest unexplained fall the commission states that time in two separate places in their decision evidence on the record to support the finding that she had an unexplained fall they did not find her credible they did not find  all of the different reasons that she gave to be credible and they relied on that to say well she didn't know how she now so it's got to be unexplained they also look at the histories provided to dr klein shaken dr may day and if you look at  second then they looked at it and they don't know that an unexplained fall still requires more than merely showing it individually in an inability to explain why it was probably hurt the petitioner must provide the false stem from an employment related risk in terms of having an increased risk there's nothing different in those stairs than any other stairs there was no defect there was no damage to the stairs they were well let's they were corrupted there's nothing in in fact in the description of those stairs that show that there was fact that she had to traverse the steps multiple times a day but she still did not provide evidence as to what caused her to fall so despite the fact that she had to go up and down the stairs fifteen to twenty five times a day the commission did review that when they did find that that was not sufficient petitioner can show that there was an increased risk so they give it they can be absolutely absolutely we're not all just well i think what they're saying here in the sentence is that the she didn't explain anything else that caused her to fall there was no quantitative damage there was no positive damage there wasn't anything else that she said she wasn't carrying anything did she said that she went up and down them about fifteen to twenty five times one that is quantitative but the commission has disregarded that and said that we don't believe that and that's what they're saying when they point out the fact that they said they don't believe  and in closing i just wanted to point out that petitioner does say all of the cases but all of the cases in his brief do relate to the manifest weight standard and all of facts you know they might be different  they might be related to these facts but the commission and this court looked at all of the evidence and in the case this petitioner stated this court has looked at why there are that decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence well i think that that would be up for the commission to decide whether that would be any different than that but the general public traverses and i think the commission looked at the number of times and they decided that it didn't rise to the r possible but i think it would depend upon the stairs the type of employment in look at people that live in apartment buildings live in houses with stairs  or i don't know what you have on the fourth quarter so i'm not sure i would still think that it would be up to the commission to make that determination and take all of the facts that were presented at trial and then come to that decision  is a little different here because i'm asking you to reverse what the commission found our the commission really did not back should we decide the case on the fifteen to twenty five times up and down the stairs they decided t certain point where we reach where we know from common sense standpoint that's beyond what people deal with integrating with that was probably for the commission to make that decision if they did it correctly and if they used that as their basis