Hauser v. MARKETS

276 S.W.3d 880, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 88, 2009 WL 307488
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 10, 2009·No. ED 91517·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Betty Hauser (“Claimant”) appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s decision to deny compensation on her occupational disease claim against Dierbergs Markets. We find no grounds upon which to reverse the decision of the Commission. Claimant did not satisfy her burden of proving that she sustained an occupational disease. Accordingly, the Commission did not err in denying Claimant benefits.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the Commission’s decision under Rule 84.16(b).

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

Hauser v. MARKETS, 276 S.W.3d 880, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 88, 2009 WL 307488 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

276 S.W.3d 880 (Hauser v. MARKETS) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Wren
276 S.W.3d 880 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2009)