Adams v. TREASURER OF THE STATE

Missouri Court of Appeals

Adams v. TREASURER OF THE STATE

260 S.W.3d 436, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1076, 2008 WL 3843575

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 19, 2008

DocketED 90397

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 260 S.W.3d 436 (Adams v. TREASURER OF THE STATE) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. TREASURER OF THE STATE, 260 S.W.3d 436, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1076, 2008 WL 3843575 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Debra Adams (“Claimant”) appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“the Commission”) denying her claim against the Second Injury Fund (“the Fund”). Claimant contends the Commission erred in finding that she had not met her burden of proof on the issue of permanent total disability against the Fund.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Debra Adams (“Claimant”) appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“the Commission”) denying her claim against the Second Injury Fund (“the Fund”). Claimant contends the Commission erred in finding that she had not met her burden of proof on the issue of permanent total disability against the Fund.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 S.W.3d 436, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1076, 2008 WL 3843575, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-treasurer-of-the-state-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack