Heddles v. Sachs Electric Co.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Heddles v. Sachs Electric Co.

94 S.W.3d 439, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 49, 2003 WL 139395

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 21, 2003

DocketNo. ED 81506

StatusPublished

This text of 94 S.W.3d 439 (Heddles v. Sachs Electric Co.) 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

Heddles v. Sachs Electric Co., 94 S.W.3d 439, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 49, 2003 WL 139395 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Ray Heddles (“Claimant”) appeals from the judgment of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“Commission”) affirming the decision of the administrative law judge to deny his request for worker’s compensation from Sachs Electric Company (“Employer”). We find no error and affirm.

Claimant asserts on appeal that Commission applied an incorrect standard of law under section 287.067.7 RSMo 2000 to evaluate his claim and that its decision was not supported by the evidence. He argues that Commission incorrectly asked whether prior employment was “a” substantial contributing factor to his injury, as opposed to “the” substantial contributing factor. See section 287.067.7. We find that Commission properly applied the law in determining Employer’s liability. The alleged semantic error, on the facts of Claimant’s request for compensation, did not alter the outcome. In addition, we find that Commission’s award is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record. Chatmon v. St. Charles County Ambulance Dish, 55 S.W.3d 451, 455 (Mo.App.2001).

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. We affirm the judgment of Commission pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM.

Ray Heddles (“Claimant”) appeals from the judgment of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“Commission”) affirming the decision of the administrative law judge to deny his request for worker’s compensation from Sachs Electric Company (“Employer”). We find no error and affirm.

Claimant asserts on appeal that Commission applied an incorrect standard of law under section 287.067.7 RSMo 2000 to evaluate his claim and that its decision was not supported by the evidence. He argues that Commission incorrectly asked whether prior employment was “a” substantial contributing factor to his injury, as opposed to “the” substantial contributing factor. See section 287.067.7. We find that Commission properly applied the law in determining Employer’s liability. The alleged semantic error, on the facts of Claimant’s request for compensation, did not alter the outcome. In addition, we find that Commission’s award is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record. Chatmon v. St. Charles County Ambulance Dish, 55 S.W.3d 451, 455 (Mo.App.2001).

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. We affirm the judgment of Commission pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 S.W.3d 439, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 49, 2003 WL 139395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heddles-v-sachs-electric-co-moctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack