Chaganti & Associates, P.C. v. Division of Employment Security

Missouri Court of Appeals

Chaganti & Associates, P.C. v. Division of Employment Security

502 S.W.3d 68, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1032, 2016 WL 6081864

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 18, 2016

DocketWD 78968

StatusPublished

This text of 502 S.W.3d 68 (Chaganti & Associates, P.C. v. Division of Employment Security) 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

Chaganti & Associates, P.C. v. Division of Employment Security, 502 S.W.3d 68, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1032, 2016 WL 6081864 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission determined that four persons working for Chaganti and Associates, P.C. performed services in employment, and that Chaganti had failed to file required reports for some of those employees during 2010, 2011, and 2012. The Commission assessed a penalty against Chaganti for failure to file the required reports. Cha-ganti appeals, contending that the Commission’s determination that the four workers were “employees” is not supported by competent and substantial evidence, and that the Commission’s assessment of a penalty was unjustified. We affirm. We likewise deny Chaganti’s Motion to Vacate the Commission’s Decision, which was taken with the case. Because a published opinion would have no prece-dential value, we have provided the parties with an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission determined that four persons working for Chaganti and Associates, P.C. performed services in employment, and that Chaganti had failed to file required reports for some of those employees during 2010, 2011, and 2012. The Commission assessed a penalty against Chaganti for failure to file the required reports. Cha-ganti appeals, contending that the Commission’s determination that the four workers were “employees” is not supported by competent and substantial evidence, and that the Commission’s assessment of a penalty was unjustified. We affirm. We likewise deny Chaganti’s Motion to Vacate the Commission’s Decision, which was taken with the case. Because a published opinion would have no prece-dential value, we have provided the parties with an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

502 S.W.3d 68, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1032, 2016 WL 6081864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chaganti-associates-pc-v-division-of-employment-security-moctapp-2016.