only on this case the facts are undisputed and susceptible to only a single reasonable inference we believe a decision of the commission in this case is wrong as a matter of law and requests the decision of arbitrator came in be reinstate so what specific evidence is there that he didn't just miss a step that doesn't amount to mere speculation ok paul again this is my my problem with the commission's decision in general is that they focus on the portion which is the mechanism of the fall not necessarily the cause of the fall in the the arbitrator laid out she found three reasonable employment risks first there was the crowd of students around him have been caused by the students may have been caused by the salt it may have been caused by what else the risers may have been caused by a meteorite or may have been caused by the sinking to a ship ok earthquake is pure speculation and try to reflect made on the inference period in that's what first cases all about if you don't know what cost to fall and you can't recover because you can't establish never testified that this actually caused him to be distracted he thought there was debris but even the average bear says right there was no body the green on the stairs absolutely soft i mean that he was selfless he doesn't have any idea why he fell so because there's class abilities he recovers based i want based on the fact that he is in the situation but he fell but he's not he's not in an he's it's not a neutral risk in my opinion he's walking up stairs he's in a supervisory role in a school in a school surrounded by students that are passing from one period to another and i i haven't been in ice one while but i'd imagine in the middle of a passing period the kids are rushing from one place to another we announced a new rule that everyone kind of stuff teachers in between classes and he falls it must be compensable because  a lot of students around we can just see a problem and then i can see the problem with that however he's walking upstairs and i just i have a problem with the fact that everyone's harping on the missing it stop explanation whereas we don't really know what caused you gentlemen wrote it actually i don't you wrote it but i did this case as is distinguishable from first cash them in first cash the woman was walking into a bathroom to retrieve an item that hadn't literally nothing to do with he dirt and there were no injuries or hearsay is pure speculate that says it's pure speculation which she didn't know what caused her fall she was asked a question she says but we don't know what caused her to fall but there were no risks associated with her being in the bathroom at that moment whereas in our case there are significant risks he's walking upstairs he's surrounded by students i have a soft in that the risers that speculation i agree the debris of the pens and pencils that speculation over the fact that there are students all around that's that's neat that's not something the public is exposed to between head size that again so every time somebody falls in a high school there's a recovery because the students that's really what you think think about it good luck it's a bit there's a failure of proof problem do you agree that the words he didn't say i've got small it meaning we the testimony was almost nothing he doesn't have but it next time quote unexplained falls do arise out of the point but that's because there are employment risks that elevate them beyond the risks that are exposed to by the general public it's clear that risks are broken down into three categories we have traversing up stairs and i appreciate that they counter as it is arguing that the children in the hallway i believe it was crowded but that's a risk that we all deal with on a daily basis every time i get on the el tracks every time i go into the daily center and virtually have to get the twenty fifth floor of their people around me it's a neutral wrist so the question becomes is there something about the employment that increases the risk beyond that to which the general public is exposed and the answer is here no there's just no proof of it and i would concede if he had testified hey i was walking up the stairs johnny asked me if he could come and have a meeting with niederauer so i turned around i saw him i missed the s that that could be a possible probable infers that he was distracted by jockey johnny talking or johnny bumped into him caused him to miss a step but that's that's not in this record to me only testimony in this record was period at the end of the passing period and there were children around him it's just speculation to say he's distracted to begin with i mean that's just speculation and then it's speculation contact elation the state he's distracted by kids i mean brain rese shows that our mind wanders forty one percent of the day every six seven six seconds our mind is wandering i mean he could be distracted because he's thinking about is a coming vacation so i bring that first hash is directly on point and the commission relied on  appropriately for the meaning of establishing what a reasonable inference is you cannot just be possible it has to be probable so i could go buy a lottery ticket now is it possible that i'm going to win the lottery certainly  possible but can we reasonably infer that i will probably win the lottery and that's that's what this case is about i mean i would completely agree it's just a failure proof there's just nothing in this record which ties his his fall to any increased employment risk what is in the record is that he was honest he was truthful he went to the doctor he said i missed a step that's that's you know it had nothing to do with the brain had nothing to do with students had nothing to do with his loose raisers those are all possibilities and i disagree with you i mean there are possibilities but it's not reasonable and probable if are you cannot make the result inference that those were the cause of his fall we would submit to you that the decision of the commission should be affirmed as it is supported by the manifest right of the evidence and i would just like to address that i do believe the stand appropriate standard is manifest weight we're dealing with inferences here and even if the facts are undisputed if you can have more than one inference it's still a question of fact and it's still a question of fact of the beast decided by the commission and i would submit that that record does port the commission's findings so much any of the question for me