must be some type of risk that is connected in some incidental to the employment and that's the whole issue about these especially with regards to repetitive trauma and applications of preexisting condition also only indicates that it was her that was increased by her work duties and the case law is clear that that's not enough they're asked to actually be some sort of approbation celebration of the underlying condition percentage of the work may be spent on any particular task and or into the legal definition of the drama and if you look at the testimony of this area as well as job description provided of the building service worker otherwise known as a janitor you see that her time is spent cleaning and servicing restrooms by hand gathering and don't be water w dealership but unsuccessful attempt to find work or three because of her age her skills her education her training and her work history that there is no more reasonably stable job market yes that the job was in one that was created by the mercy but they did so with the understanding that they were going to retrain her and give her a new skills and it wasn't just you know here's this stuff had come to try out i mean he twelve months of on the john job training the job down my mom please goals for the claimant the job indemnified written evaluations are important bases the job contemplated ongoing counseling with human resources during the entire training process to make sure that she could actually learn the skills that were necessary the jobs that would get him in job offer it was to provide a claimant with a new set of skills and it did all set of skills and the claim refused to talk she actually never even contacted the employer about the job instead she did just continue to choose to receive her and they were disability benefits from an assay are asked she not only she refused the job  basically just guessing that he felt that she was going to be money to do this that if that get requested that he have the appropriate testing to actually formulate his opinion and he also said during the testimony the best indication as to whether she could do the job was if she went in trying to do the job and claim it just chose not to do the job and she chose to stay at home and and take except her disability benefits from servers and again this was not a sham to offer it was done with the intention that providing her in training her over a year period of time and then you wonder why it's elevator they talk about him dollars and that case it was a case where the employee specifically took a job that the claim was made and ten dollars an hour petition to overcome or kg occasionally language deficit the office of training distinguishes the present situation from those cases where the employer offers these issues merely for the purpose of avoiding liability now they also indicate here in their decision they're very specific about why they are not awarded to work instead all respondents offer seems to reflect the genuine desire to help petition return to the workforce with skills that could terms of her abilities of spelling or for testing or any of that nothing was authorized nothing was done and now because two years later she doesn't agree to accept this position now we