Claunch v. DEGREE OF HONOR PROTECTIVE ASS'N

Missouri Court of Appeals

Claunch v. DEGREE OF HONOR PROTECTIVE ASS'N

182 S.W.3d 665, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1903, 2005 WL 3465995

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 20, 2005

DocketED 86185

StatusPublished

This text of 182 S.W.3d 665 (Claunch v. DEGREE OF HONOR PROTECTIVE ASS'N) 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

Claunch v. DEGREE OF HONOR PROTECTIVE ASS'N, 182 S.W.3d 665, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1903, 2005 WL 3465995 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Edna Mae Claunch (“Claunch”) appeals from the final award of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“Commission”) denying Claunch’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits from her employer, Degree of Honor Protective Association (“DOH”). Claunch contends the Commission erred in reversing the award of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) and denying benefits based on the notice requirement. Claunch also argues the Commission erred in finding the notice issue dispositive.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. After reviewing the whole record, we find the Commission’s award is supported by competent and substantial evidence and is not contrary the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.3d 220, 223 (Mo. banc 2003). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. 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). The DOH’s motion to strike portions of Claunch’s brief referencing these allegations is hereby denied.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Edna Mae Claunch (“Claunch”) appeals from the final award of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“Commission”) denying Claunch’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits from her employer, Degree of Honor Protective Association (“DOH”). Claunch contends the Commission erred in reversing the award of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) and denying benefits based on the notice requirement. Claunch also argues the Commission erred in finding the notice issue dispositive.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. After reviewing the whole record, we find the Commission’s award is supported by competent and substantial evidence and is not contrary the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.3d 220, 223 (Mo. banc 2003). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. 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). The DOH’s motion to strike portions of Claunch’s brief referencing these allegations is hereby denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 S.W.3d 665, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1903, 2005 WL 3465995, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claunch-v-degree-of-honor-protective-assn-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack