as this court has addressed this issue a number of times in the last few years obviously we know that we look at three different kinds of risks when determining whether there is an injury that has rises out in the first is whether the risk is peculiar to the in poignant moment when the person is doing something that's specific to the job the employer can reasonably expect them to be doing when they have their injury the second kind of risk is what's called the neutral risk where they're histories in the medical records in this court has gone through this in the young decision in the cited maybe even the told us it in young justice is pointed out of that what's in the medical records is a general statement isn't necessarily given the doctor the whole map and that and happily what happened and when they're testifying at trial that's an elaboration on the general statement this is a yes when the commission chooses to believe i'm sorry i missed the first  what he said that's when the commission chooses not to leave the petitioner this case leave good i would submit in this case that the arbitrator made of a very bad and it went on but we're concerned about a commission up here ok well the years and their medical records it's just that i step on the the point i'm trying to make is that i don't think it's justifiable to disbelieve the petitioner's testimony of walking fast throughout basically a half hour workday four hours where she has to and she you know describe her workstation very well she's going back and forth between five stations trying to keep up and also i don't think anyone suggesting that it would have been on the mission believe her we could've reversed that but they didn't believe or where they said wait a minute the only thing you said was you stephanie and that's not a quality quantitative difference a qualitative difference carmina quantity  where i'm going with all this justice is that stepping funny can be an accident in light of someone who has an increased level of risk of walking when they're doing it qualitatively more risky in the sense that they're doing it at a it wasn't just reaching him to reach and he overstretched it was an increased risk by the gist of the peculiar nature of employment which is what i think we're having we have here i just don't think it's fair to say oh she's walking that's not possible when the record overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that she's walking back and forth four hours a day very quickly and yes she pivots four times per minute if she's going back and forth but the problem is the commission didn't make that fight right they didn't make make the finding and i think that you're going to have to say that it's against the manifest weight of the evidence to say that cheap she's not believable in her job just as right i mean the reason they didn't make that finding was based on credibility right in the credibility was not based on sort of their credibility findings not based upon her testimony about the job her credibility of credibility finding was based on the notion that the medical records on station as well you know we just look at her testimony about her job first of all it's intuitively make sense because that's what someone does when their job is to bring parts some of parts and bring them to the assembly line second of all it's contained in the history she gave  bothered by those by the employer which had the opportunity to suggest bring someone to say that's not what i think that is just beyond any reasonable doubt that that's how one does that job and she's doing what does that mean away stepping on right what does overstretching mean what is you know what i lifted this box and i did it kind of funny and we don't really get into the weird little things that make an accident happen instead of people who normally do that's not found in in our cases i think we sort of understand that if you do this it's in an aspect of your job or you're doing a lot you know and in the course and in this particular case the commission decided you know we think this woman did walk and she snapped money and my question was the same questioning us before why is the opposite repeating what i said is against the manifest with the evidence and this court has shown a willingness to look into go beyond what's just in the medical records for a job description or a mechanism of injury which is what you guys did feces and that rain because the employer didn't didn't dispute that they did they had someone at a trial that didn't get up and say well there's no bird feces in there it was presumed that he was testifying in a in a credible manner of young was the initial accident or did not say that there was over reaching that in the history of medical but i believe the employer in young complained that the histories got more and more dramatic to the doctors as time went on and that would reverse the commission sure i'm asking you to number one find that walking is a neutral risk which was suggested an ad hoc which we know it is right and that is you know reversing the commission is that the commission decision well there's no increased risk the commission didn't really do a thorough risk analysis as you have done in that in in all the other cases yes i think you should reverse their conclusion that walking cannot  just merely arise out of the act walking i guess what i mean to say is if you're born again quickly to keep up with an assembly line you're going to you're increasing your chance to step up when you're walking in all there for half  analysis because that's what we have to do here and that's really the question i mean house has spoken at length about her job she had to walk that she had to turn numerous times a day i just don't think that that's really the point here i mean this is not a repetitive description about i was all of sudden walking quickly pivoting carrying this part because they went back and they analyzed all of the medical records contemporaneously when she was actively receiving treatment and those records indicated they immediately for her condition had generated to such an extent that any movement that you would have done whether it be the first time or the hundredth time was going to ultimately was that it was her underlying condition that was the cause of her to do so in this case there would be pointed out there were we do think there are some differences in the histories here but that's not our job that's the commissions down the way that they did they do that where credibility by incredible young and and make a determination as to who they believe i guess what i was responding to was also the medical evidence that dr holmes gave her a contrary opinion as you're saying to dr conner who basically said it just happened it just happened to have happened while she was at work if we didn't matter where she was still isn't there or at the risk analysis because the the your degenerative condition it's basically a personal risk i mean hercules tendon rupture as she was walking and it was because we she was at the doctor five days before  active treatment for her heel and her foot and her ankle with surgery recommended her bone spur that dr holmes explained was actually a finding that the killie's tendon had been weakened so i mean dr holmes opinion was that achilles walking is not in itself an increased risk is there are cases simply speaks to evidence that says we walked fifteen thousand steps where the normal person is ten thousand steps yes is walking being treated there well i think that everyone walks every day in everyone chooses different amounts whether or not you think that running is healthy for you or not i mean there there's walking that you do all the time so that walking in there's a defect on the floor we see the carpet and we walk on the carpet in and you're stepping funny because of the carpet or anything i think there's a lot it's just being on a constant force not enough but if there's some sort of effect that's what we're looking for the same with stairs that of walking up and down the stairs is not necessarily in itself any increased risk but when you look at those stairs and there's a runner that's poking up or they're incredibly  that if you have if your body structure gives way under the stress of your labor that that is a compensable injury and if there is causal connection you can't take away from it just because it was go happen some day well but we've gotten books talk about what do you mean the stress of your labor right and that goes back to the risk which we discussed as i read it because the three categories of r going to happen anyway because they had a disease structure because the worker's compensation act is designed to allow people to recover if they aggravated preexisting condition assuming there was an accident again so that's why i find dr holmes testimony strangely self serving but also irrelevant because the fact that she had a disease that killed his tendon which was not at the point where ruptured was