Buie v. Yushin USA, Ltd.

119 S.W.3d 175, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1627, 2003 WL 22331881
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 14, 2003
DocketNo. ED 82157
StatusPublished

This text of 119 S.W.3d 175 (Buie v. Yushin USA, Ltd.) 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
Buie v. Yushin USA, Ltd., 119 S.W.3d 175, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1627, 2003 WL 22331881 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Beth Buie (hereinafter, “Employee”) brought this two count action against Yushin U.S.A. Ltd., d/b/a Ortech (hereinafter, “Employer”) and Jim L. Deline, M.D. (hereinafter, “Doctor”). Employee claims Employer wrongfully discharged her, and Employer and Doctor conspired to deny her workers’ compensation benefits. The trial court dismissed a count of her petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in that Employee’s exclusive remedy is under [176]*176the Missouri Workers’ Compensation Act and for failure to state an actionable claim of conspiracy. Employee appeals the trial court’s judgment dismissing her claim against Doctor.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcripts and find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its judgment. James v. Poppa, 85 S.W.3d 8, 9 (Mo. banc 2002). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion, only for the use of the parties, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

Related

James v. Poppa
85 S.W.3d 8 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
119 S.W.3d 175, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1627, 2003 WL 22331881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buie-v-yushin-usa-ltd-moctapp-2003.