Brown v. City of St. Louis
This text of 879 S.W.2d 651 (Brown v. City of St. Louis) 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.
Opinion
Claimant appeals pro se from the denial of his workers’ compensation claim. We affirm.
Claimant’s brief does not comply with Rule 84.04. As stated in a previous workers’ compensation case appealed by this claimant, claimant filed “an incomprehensible brief.” Brown v. City of St. Louis, 842 S.W.2d 163, 165 (Mo.App.E.D.1992). We would be justified in dismissing his appeal for this failure. Nevertheless, we elected to review his claims and find that none have merit.
The decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record. No error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value. Rule 84.16(b).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
879 S.W.2d 651, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 786, 1994 WL 187035, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-city-of-st-louis-moctapp-1994.