worker's compensation injury i think we agree with the man the manifest way to the eminence here and you can petition a pal for an unknown reason in a normal appearing in functions their case which could be used by the public and staircase caused the petitioner to fall when her record this statement was taken she did not mention this chip or given the stairs causing her to fall it is not mentioned in the history of being in the medical records ships exist even if it's alleged that there was some hazard there in the staircase it's not certain that such ship or did it actually cause the claim in this case the failure on the commission adopted send in the commission in the commission decision there that she reported to the individual who took her statement that she didn't know what caused her to fall it wasn't until she went back to the staircase took her own photographs or statement when story you know in the in her brief the petition does point out that this it was it's extremely rare that the public would ever use this stairway and that in her six years of working there she hasn't seen anyone use on cross examination it was confirmed that the public could use it it's pointed out in the briefs i also want to point out in the first cash case where compensable really was the night that was an employee bathroom that was not a public area where the claim nt in that case well i just thought that was instructive in this case comparing that that's not necessarily the open and shut factor where it's and it may not be the situation where the incident happened to be an employee only or not stairs carelessly to get somewhere related to her work i do understand where you're going back coming your honor and again this isn't something that was noted in the in the earlier history just something that was it could be put out there  small bit is nothing more than speculation speculation is that enough to lead to the conclusion that this injury arose out of her employment inherent risk this petitioner face than traversing the stairs is a response by the general public and not incidental to h pre and i normally wouldn't start here but council said something which was discussed in his place that i find so frustrating that i have to start here this whole thing about being coached i felt insulting insulting to me it's insulting to you it's certainly insulting to roy's a comment he's a highly educated woman and besides that any reasonable person she she testified she testified that three weeks after the accident she went back to the stairwell and she took these pictures of herself ourselves she's a reasonable person i think that's all things hold coaching and so that's why i'm starting i wasn't even going to say anything but he mentioned it again and again i feel that it's really insulting to  history here if you look at her statement and yes she was in a hospital six different medications including three narcotic medications is the woman who testified that she was healthy she was from really an inline speed skater sh take medication in office and she's on all these medications and she asked to give a statement and you look at her statement it's very simple question you know what you're doing with your educational level i mean it's a very simple questions she very simple answers where did she fall she wasn't asked about her schedule for that day she wasn't a i was you know go through everything you were doing that day had she been asked possibly about her schedule she would have answered that she had a meeting that day so i don't think there's anything inconsistent inappropriate that took place or any basis to finding that the arbitrator made a decision and the commission affirmed that decision that wasn't supported by the evidence here there's nothing to show that is against the would rule differently and i find that that's the distinction here so again i don't believe that there's any thing here to show that the that there wasn't sufficient evidence that were true in the commission's rely upon the making there not necessarily here on that those circumstances as well the second point i want to make this whole conflicting histories isn't something that i made up or pulled out of thin air this was the specific finding of the dissenting arbitrator in this case and that's why i