Brown v. City of St. Louis

879 S.W.2d 651, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 786, 1994 WL 187035
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Brown v. City of St. Louis. Read the opinion of the Court — 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 1698
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 17, 1994·No. No. 65020·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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

Brown v. City of St. Louis, 879 S.W.2d 651, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 786, 1994 WL 187035 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).

879 S.W.2d 651 (Brown v. City of St. Louis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Brown v. City of St. Louis
842 S.W.2d 163 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1992)