Faulkner v. LEAR CORPORATION

Missouri Court of Appeals

Faulkner v. LEAR CORPORATION

269 S.W.3d 459, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1288, 2008 WL 4330326

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 23, 2008

DocketED 91008

StatusPublished

This text of 269 S.W.3d 459 (Faulkner v. LEAR CORPORATION) 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

Faulkner v. LEAR CORPORATION, 269 S.W.3d 459, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1288, 2008 WL 4330326 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James Faulkner (Employee) appeals from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s (Commission) decision *460 adopting the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision denying him workers’ compensation benefits and concluding that Employee’s injuries did not injury arising out of and in the course of his employment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the Commission’s decision is supported by sufficient competent and substantial evidence, and is not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.3d 220, 222-23 (Mo. banc 2003). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the decision pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James Faulkner (Employee) appeals from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s (Commission) decision *460 adopting the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision denying him workers’ compensation benefits and concluding that Employee’s injuries did not injury arising out of and in the course of his employment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the Commission’s decision is supported by sufficient competent and substantial evidence, and is not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.3d 220, 222-23 (Mo. banc 2003). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the decision pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 S.W.3d 459, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1288, 2008 WL 4330326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/faulkner-v-lear-corporation-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack