Chamberlin v. City of St. Louis

Missouri Court of Appeals

Chamberlin v. City of St. Louis

273 S.W.3d 586, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 34, 2009 WL 113859

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 20, 2009

DocketED 91526

StatusPublished

This text of 273 S.W.3d 586 (Chamberlin 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.

Bluebook

Chamberlin v. City of St. Louis, 273 S.W.3d 586, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 34, 2009 WL 113859 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The City of St. Louis (“Employer”) appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“the Commission”) awarding Richard Cham-berlin (“Claimant”) permanent total disability benefits. Employer claims the Commission erred in making a determination on an issue that was not presented for determination in the stipulations of the parties at the hearing, by misinterpreting the testimony of Dr. Samuel Bernstein, Dr. Joseph Hanaway, and Dr. Anne-Marie *587 Puricelli, and in finding Claimant to be permanently and totally disabled from the last accident alone.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, 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.

The City of St. Louis (“Employer”) appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“the Commission”) awarding Richard Cham-berlin (“Claimant”) permanent total disability benefits. Employer claims the Commission erred in making a determination on an issue that was not presented for determination in the stipulations of the parties at the hearing, by misinterpreting the testimony of Dr. Samuel Bernstein, Dr. Joseph Hanaway, and Dr. Anne-Marie *587 Puricelli, and in finding Claimant to be permanently and totally disabled from the last accident alone.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, 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)

273 S.W.3d 586, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 34, 2009 WL 113859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chamberlin-v-city-of-st-louis-moctapp-2009.