Chappel v. DELMAR GARDENS OF CHESTERFIELD, LLC

Missouri Court of Appeals

Chappel v. DELMAR GARDENS OF CHESTERFIELD, LLC

342 S.W.3d 372, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 760, 2011 WL 2237780

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 7, 2011

DocketED 95330

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 342 S.W.3d 372 (Chappel v. DELMAR GARDENS OF CHESTERFIELD, LLC) 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

Chappel v. DELMAR GARDENS OF CHESTERFIELD, LLC, 342 S.W.3d 372, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 760, 2011 WL 2237780 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Alma Chappel (“Employee”) appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“the Commission”) dismissing her claim for workers’ compensation benefits. Employee con *373 tends the Commission’s decision dismissing her claim was not supported by -competent and substantial evidence and was inconsistent with Missouri law.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Alma Chappel (“Employee”) appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“the Commission”) dismissing her claim for workers’ compensation benefits. Employee con *373 tends the Commission’s decision dismissing her claim was not supported by -competent and substantial evidence and was inconsistent with Missouri law.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

342 S.W.3d 372, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 760, 2011 WL 2237780, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chappel-v-delmar-gardens-of-chesterfield-llc-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack