you my lady gave out she said her foot stuck on the step now the commission takes exception with the report woods initially states burfoot courthouse and there's always debris on the steps either way it's consistent because her foot stuck on the step just as she fell and there's no inconsistency there maybe in the details or something that was sticky on that strip which caused her to lose her footing twist wrinkle and start going down so she fell as a result of the condition of the premises she doesn't add up to show there was a defect here fall and as for the commission's finally now that she was not credible once again point to all the evidence in the record there's no evidence that contradicts her testimony that so once again we would argue that the commission's decision here was against the manifest great the evidence and that the officers injury did arise out of employment good afternoon justices me please the court my name is the system state's attorney james michael bailey and i'm representing cook county sheriff's department in this matter this is a very i believe this is a very simple case and it comes down to credibility and the central issue of the case of course is you know did the claimant injuries arise out of her employment that we standard review is simple it's was the commission's decision against the manifest with the evidence of the commission did a very thorough job of examining the record and the  testimony or i should say that testimony in the evidence contained within the record and he did a very thorough job of examining exactly what was said versus what the what the material evidence was in this case it happened a number of times in the commission quote that they quat the fact that there was no mention of a radio until it came time for trial there was no mention of any candy until it came time for a trial and one of the more interesting testimonial issues was  stated that she was able in a hospital emergency room to take norco out of her purse which she already admitted was several several several months old if front of a need to throw a twist in the or simple presentation but didn't the commission found that her on the stairs was a result of a neutral risk to which the general a look was also exposed absolutely hated the commission never identified the risk to which was referring i don't think anybody could i get in here's the reason i say that there was a witness to the expert who who was a couple feet away from her on the bottom of the stairs looking up who said in his testimony or in his and his witness report that he believed that she might have quite hurt the heel of her fought and really no skin str that was not a fix of the stairs of course it was also the supervisor's report that said that there was an absolutely nothing wrong with the stairs there were no there was no tape that was found if it's the players there was no candy there was no sticky spots so the reason may answer i don't know i don't think anyone knows this because there are so many different versions of the story they could be assumed the reason i that's a very good question but the simple fake the simple fact of the matter is is it is there are a number of there are a number of hangers culprit of her fall i think would be would be disingenuous i don't think it would be fair to either side because quite simply all we know is she stumbled she fell and she was hurt a she was a she was taking time off from her boobies at the door and she went downstairs to use the bed and she used the stairwell that everyone uses the fake apparently women children there is no question that th think they can sally take home opinion it to get to one thing and that is we don't believe we don't believe and if they don't believe her then credibility is the real issue here and if credibility is the real issue  commission's decision and that's what i think it really boils down to his credibility and whether or not they found her credible