In Lord v. Daugherty (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 441, 423 N.E.2d 96, the Ohio Supreme Court set forth the following test to determine whether there is a causal connection between the injury and the employment: (1) the proximity of the scene of the accident to the place of employment; (2) the degree of control the employer had over the scene of the accidentl (3) the benefit the employer received from the injured employee's presence at the scene of the accident.'" the list is not exhaustive, and courts are to consider the totality of the circumstances; see also MTD Products, Inc. v. Robatin (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 66, 572 N.E.2d 661. Reviewing courts are to examine the separate and distinct facts of each case because workers' compensation cases tend to be fact specific. see also Faber v. R.J. Frazier Co. (1990), 72 Ohio App.3d 9, 15, 593 N.E.2d 410, 8 Anderson's Ohio App. Cas. 620. No one factor is controlling. Id. Workers' compensation statutes must be liberally construed in favor of the employee; thus, the phrase "arising out of" employment must be accorded a liberal construction. Id.; see also, R.C. 4123.95. Courts are to be guided by the fundamental principle that the requirements are to be liberally construed in favor of awarding benefits. Id. The first factor examines the proximity of the scene of the accident to the place of employment. The second factor involves the degree of control the employer had over the scene of the accident. Rosado concedes that he was on a public street when the accident occurred, but argues he was in close proximity to the main office and the street was within CMHA's housing campus. CMHA argues that it exercised no control over the street and cites our decision in Beharry v. Cleveland Clinic Found. (Nov. 22, 1995), Cuyahoga App. No. 68050, 1995 Ohio App, to support its argument. Courts have "recognized that ownership and control are not paramount to injuries sustained on the employment premises." Faber, supra; see also Frishkorn v. Flowers (1971), 26 Ohio App.2d 165, 167, 270 N.E.2d 366, 368; Sloss v. Case Western Reserve Univ. (1985), 23 Ohio App.3d 46, 23 Ohio B. 90, 491 N.E.2d 339.