or six like the ones that you're sitting on he's sitting on a concrete floor covered with tile he reaches to sit down to personal comfort of reaching for a cup of coffee puts it in the microwave goes to sit down falls and hits the floor he's ninety years how is it different than any rest anywhere else uses thing there were no one else that i'm aware of sits down on a caster chair with four wheels not five or six like they've done in the last fifty years no one is sitting on a surface that is so hard that when he falls his hip shatters it's not carpeted like we're sitting here today or would he has a greater risk than the general public he said that office and no one else  would be obvious in a chair that has arms you can reach for arms if the chair has more casters then it's not going to roll over as easily as a chair that has four where it's going to be wobbly well it wasn't defective it wasn't missing a commission supposed to apply the correct legal standard of quantitative and qualitative risks which they didn't do they simply took the arbitrator's decision and said he had the wrong legal standard we've applied the correct one i can tell you how we're not going to mention we're going to say we know that this is not an increased risk and this court has reversed in the past where the commission has not complied to walk or actually as a when they were close to what was the correct law they should have what they should have covered with work testimony that this was a reasonably dangers just description of it in the photographs and then it's up to the commission to make a determination of whether they think it's dangerous or not if they don't think it's dangerous you've got a problem  think think the chair scooted across which is not supposed to do no other chair looks like that chair you look at that chair you look at your chair you know to see a big difference it doesn't look the same your chairs are safe  program people can fall down but this is a greater risk and the commission had ten prior cases with boeing shares where they always found a compatible and then they decide to change on this one i don't know why i can't compare this case to the other case you know you can't compare i understand it's not it's not going to be a father before this court but it's persuasive that they decided to suddenly change their way of looking at this is one of those commission decisions have cases not like a person ever thought that a chair with casters might be dangerous these were routinely brought before the commission was found to be compensable prior to this case i don't really understand  it there's no factual dispute as to what happened and there the quantitative aspect has been cover and certainly more than three times in a week a qualitative i think is covered by the fact that he's on a much harder result of the reason the above the problem is you lifted up to the commission determined we're looking at the picture the jurors dangers and i guess they decided it wasn't because they didn't award of any money and they did not he wasn't exposed to heroes are greater than the general public which is the scene of a legal senator yes but they they never talk about quantity they never talk about the quality they just say the arbitrator used the wrong standard we are using the right stand her and without any discussion of facts and more we're going to say that there's no greater risk than the general public i can't think of anyone else in the general public who would be exposed to these conditions the evidence that you said the only evidence was presented is that photograph which shows and ancient chair different from all of the chairs with forecasters instead of five a concrete floor and the forecasters for the third chair scoots across the floor faster than a five caster chip we only have the evidence of what happened that he reached for it and the thing scoote different from every other i don't know why i think anyone have to say we can except as he was attempting to sit in the chair when he fell on the floors were so i mean really i'm not going to hold you that inconsistency but still we don't really know what happened except that he went to sit in a chair which people do all the time and by the way i have seen people fall chairs that aren't castable lynchers every jewelry that happens people missed chairs all the time even if the  typically one makes it more dangerous than a regular chair like that is that it's with holes caster chairs normally have arms so there's something to reach on to when you sit down  isn't wasn't breaking new ground that's what the commissioner always held is that this fact pattern was a greater risk but in this case for some reason they decided not this is a more susceptible petitioner than you would normally find a ninety year old man who's reaching and this in some tries to sit down in the chair in the chair scoots away because of the combination of the chair and the floor who was here this was the side this was seven  happened and i'm not sure what happened i don't think the record establishes what happened we know he was mistresses you seem like a great guy was at work and he missed the know and unfortunately he wasn't he didn't live long enough to tell us so i think counsel those representation that nothing is in dispute i don't think it's quite accurate the  e council started talking about the concrete floors there's no evidence of this would have been a different outcome different injury if you don't landed on the carpet the  sit on a message that number one number two it would seem to me that if it was the chairs fall he'd have been on the chair and then something happened he was i don't think ever actually on the chair immediately record and what's the us i don't think we i don't think you need to and i don't think there is evidence of that i don't think there's evidence of i think both counsel and i assume that somehow when he fel number on hand i mean you know ok ok but i'm just saying if it's like the record well is that some a lot of things are the records are argument the record is absent of a lot of things we as i read the record and as i sat through the hearing before the arbitrator i don't think we know what happened i don't think how mr society wound up on the floor he was at work and he called his employees cohen employees come point came and somehow the chair was invoked but i don't think the condition of the chair and on think the condition of the floor the fact that there was tape on the floor or anything like that i don't think there's what is happening that's actually inconsistent and at least the way i hear it with going to sit down it's chair scooting away that mr hammond is is testimony suggest that mr society was actually on the chair and only other comment i would like to make is that there is discussion regarding the metropolitan water case in the nec case you affirm the commission it was not a case where you were wrong but were overruling the commission  sit down i don't think that you know we'd be quibbling over the specific words we know what these from tallahassee was you know what the result was and you know since this case was brief you came out of your decision villa park where you have someone walking down stairs i mean we're not quibbling over is it the stairs are somehow dangerous it's just the fact that having you know a job that requires you to walk in a place that no one else has to go to the general public somebody who's in a place that the general public is never going to be his private office and he asked him throughout the day get up and down he said they are mad as testified that it was the first time that mr called to him to come he would always get up and walk over and tell him and his what to do so i think you know you really have difficulty distinguishing the two in terms of you know the increased risk issue and in the  case you know with the research institute you know that the commission found that there was no we creased risk and the court reversed and said matter of waters increased risk because it was a dangerous neighborhood that was a shooting i mean it doesn't have to be you know a slave ship you know and in that case a police officer testified that he was smear with the neighborhood and it was a more dangerous neighborhood in other words there was evidence that there was a greeter going actually was my case i have