I think the Member is correct, that if the work contributes to the injury, then that would be a casual link that might give rise to a claim. But I think what this section is intending to deal with is to deal with a situation where the work component of the injury is small and a worker might perhaps argue that working at a computer is not a very significant portion of his or her injury in your example, that the dominant cause had nothing to do with the work they're doing, then this section would say that that would not be contributing cause. In other words, the work part of the injury has to be significant, but it's also saying that it's not the only cause. There could be some non-work cause, some work cause. It has to be significant but it can't be trivial. If you have a worker that, say, has worked one day in his or her life on the computer and has a lot of time working at home, then that would be a trivial cause. After that, it's really a question of fact. I hope that helps.