court should reverse the circuit court stretch and and reverse the final administrative decision of the commission this case is about the rule that the claimant bears the burden by a preponderance of the evidence of showing that she has sustained accidental injuries her injury arose out of her employment it's hard to see how anyone could fail to do so and also because we believe that the commission physician has effectively written the rising out of language out of the test the only supreme court has held that the arising out of part of the test is about causation whether the employee can show that she was exposed to some risk of injury to a greater degree than she would have banished she had not been employed here we have a minimal record with respect to this the relevant facts are the claimant fell down and broke her wrists while going to get the mail from her employer she went to change her shoes preparatory to going downstairs and she fell that's all there is there no evidence that she was exposed to a greater risk than are members of the general public therefore the workers compensation commission could not have properly determined that she satisfy the arising out of apparent turning turn tackle legal standards a little the purpose of the test is have is to make industry internalize its own costs by paying for the injuries it causes there are two requirements both of which must be satisfied the in the course of requirement establishes a nexus with the employment it has to do with the time and the place and the circumstances that is the injury must occur during work hours at the workplace or some place at the work takes the employee and it must occur while faced by the general public we have pellet case lie has divided the potential risks into three categories but all three get at in some way whether there was a greater risk to indicate where such a risk exists and one indicates where it is not urgently needed first of all and there was no if it evidence that medication was what was in the mail what with the doorbell rang correct it didn't make it and she said suggested that it might have been either medication or audiotapes because of the those were the two things he got most frequently that he needed it right then and we don't know how often he received his installments no matter he's ordered her to go to the door immediately or you make of that but he didn't he could but there's no evidence he did that and and i suppose your honor suggesting that he did the equivalent of ordering her to rest i suppose i suppose that could factor in but that's not the situation we have here if that did happen that's not in the evidence i  she went to muse to inform her that she was going downstairs to pick up the delivery and them because she was wearing how slippers as she were only did she attempted to change into her regular shoes when she tried to put her regular shoes on she fell she did not fall down the stairs as she was going to get something at the door i mean this is just a totally any empirical representation of what happened to this woman that' used falling down when you're changing from your house slippers to your shoes on when a man's to which the general public is not exposed we don't think so your honor and that we that the fact is it doesn't really matter exactly how she found this case because both changing one's shoes and going down the stairs are normally fairly safe not doing it on the stairs if you're forced to go up  but there's no evidence of that changing shoes that's that's certainly something aren't there competing inferences that can be drawn from that the cat that usually happens i think when you have a credibility issue and then and then when you it depending on which side you but if it only exists within the realm of private possibilities nothing but yes speculation and conjecture you can't rely on as here i mean it's possible that that that she had to change your shoes on what we know but it's also possible that she did it for  contract i mean people do both of those things for many reasons would it be reasonable inference that because the doorbell ring and she wanted to get to the door before whoever was ringing the doorbell let him because he knew that it could be medication that she rushed in changing to him and changing your shoes was necessary for her slippers interface was necessary in order for her ears to the work boss following in we don't really believe that that's possible because that's only one of a range of things that could have happened she she knew a delivery was coming but she evidently wasn't expecting anything in particular because she didn't know what it was she if she had been missing something then that and waiting for that would be another matter  but there was no evidence of that there was no evidence that she had had any difficulty getting to the door in time to fetch the mail before there's no evidence for that matter that they didn't break or they leave the packages that she didn't get to the door in time there just isn't any evidence  and which we can depend to say that in the of those potential things happened here and even if she didn't expect prescription medication outside interesting that was it that was an example of it maybe it was not the best example she didn't we have you know she didn't say that she was worried about getting there in time she didn't say the person didn't wait for her this is something that she had done before the mailman may have known that that someone was there all the time because of her condition we did she suggest that we should infer from the fact that she went to mr mews first and then she had a change of shoes that she was running out of time but we might as easily  infer that she knew that she had plenty of time to do it because she could have yelled over her shoulder to them that she was going to fetch the mail saying this is part of the normal routine activity she did every day so there where you're saying there's nothing it takes that out of it  rest either because as you say she was waiting for medication she was you know she you know she she thought it might be prescription medication they could get but there's just nothing to suggest that she was in any way hurried and  and there's just there's nothing to show there's only the possibility we can theorize other possibilities that might have led her to rash but we don't have any evidence to take that out of the possible to the probable and the frequency of her trips you also suggest that the trips were so frequent well we don't we don't even have evidence that it was daily although the commission did assume that it was but there's no reason to assume delivery of medication would be daily that he couldn't receive it an increment that would last longer than that or the same with audio tapes and even if it was daily that would not be enough because the claimant had testimony of employees who said that they saw her breasts and they and she had two sources of urgency in that case she had her boss ask her to do something to last moment that made her upset if prices actually see it she was asked to do something in the last minute she assistant attorney general in the case may think that she's the most time and effort into it and i'd also like to acknowledge and set forth a mediately on the record that perhaps sort of a shortcoming of the case has to do with my my argument i think distilled down to its finest terms as you know what happened here she does this on a daily basis she's a housekeeper she helps and she goes up and down stairs all the time as part of her normal routine daily activities she follows one of those trips why is this  go down a flight of stairs this is apartment building which she does or did she she doesn't so what happened this occasion takes that out of the normal routine activity and she would demonstrated this at the trial and i admit that it's not said quite clearly enough in the record but at the trial she demonstrates she's on the stairs she's changing her shoes on the stairs both downstairs breaks both ricin not yourself and conscious well could you tell me how changing your shoes from slippers exposes you to a wris grader's v m the risk to which the general public is exposed every time they change their shoes but just talk to me i suggest that perhaps we don't get to that test because the first part of the test is if that's the only get to that if that if the  so she doesn't contaminate first flippers when she comes back in i mean where's all that mean and i'd appreciate what you're saying just hold it hold it and i wish that the workers compensation commission met in this building and we had  half hour forty five minutes to produce the entire trial down from upton sinclair's sausage factory the point is is that we can't fill in the gaps in the evidence can we we can to a certain extent if we have a permissible inference which i first assert is that the commission found that that  walking down the stairs she she was changing her slippers somewhere evidently at the top of the stairs and from home she was changing her slippers she was not walking up and down the stairs there's not testified to and i appreciate that and but but if if further explanation as to what that based the commission's decision was should have been addressed in the one nine hundred eat petition at the time of the commission's decision it was does the directing of a proposed order from the standpoint of either side have to do with the decision in that case can can the attorney general or can you just make the decision for the average triggers that we are suggesting here what is that by no i'm  just suggesting that that at the conclusion of the trial he was the attorney general position that i approved arising out of in the course of and perhaps we're looking at the snapshot vacuum of this transcript as opposed to the two years of the case peers have to do with the evidence in this case that my question was the provided you with with sufficient information so as to affirm the commission's decision counsel have you taken a look at what the supreme court said in breach of the commission or  suffer the dislocation that were shoulder when she bent over to pick up a transfer schedules that she had dropped and she lost her balance down we've got two supreme court cases well more somebody is taking up the for a blind man that receives medications who die during the pendency of the litigation she is going to go pick up a pack a package that being someone's ringing the doorbell you know that even medications or tapes it's my position in bed that she's wearing how shoes as i don't know if that's not coming from chicago there's a lot of eastern european cleaning ladies and they were there how they made the shoes outside and warehouse shoes so as to protect that the hide you know stand in the center nature of the inside of the house so the stairs well it did if it was it was not not in the narrative a box was check to say arising out of a night and i as i say i don't know how that happened but the arbitrator never actually thought that we conceded the issue and your order it is not my understanding from speaking to counsel that anytime they were ever convinced subsequent to that we argued before the commission that was not the case and the issue was left alone there and it has yes and your honor you also i want to point out that there is an issue that she she now claims and she claimed before that there was a i need to have a sanitary environment and there is no evidence of that in the record she never said in her testimony the idea that there was a need for a sanitary szekely sanitary environment comes only from council and now he's suggested that also that it was a custom among women of these sorts which cancels out his earlier suggestion that that it was e risk requirement because just because a task is part of the players do does not mean that it will be any particularly greater risk than anyone else while almost it's required to be formed to where ever greater risk