Henderson v. Schnucks Markets

Missouri Court of Appeals

Henderson v. Schnucks Markets

100 S.W.3d 141, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 381, 2003 WL 1214026

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 18, 2003·No. No. ED 81657·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Rodney Henderson (Appellant) appeals from the Award of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) (Award) finding that Appellant sustained 30% permanent partial disability (PPD) from a 1995 injury, but denying additional medical treatment, temporary benefits, and ruling that Appellant suffered 0% PPD from a 1996 injury, and that there was no liability on the part of the Second Injury Fund. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the Commission’s Award and related findings are supported by competent and substantial evidence, and are not contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence contained in the whole record before the Commission. Sutton v. Vee Jay Cement Contracting Co., 37 S.W.3d 803, 807 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment 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.

Rodney Henderson (Appellant) appeals from the Award of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) (Award) finding that Appellant sustained 30% permanent partial disability (PPD) from a 1995 injury, but denying additional medical treatment, temporary benefits, and ruling that Appellant suffered 0% PPD from a 1996 injury, and that there was no liability on the part of the Second Injury Fund. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the Commission’s Award and related findings are supported by competent and substantial evidence, and are not contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence contained in the whole record before the Commission. Sutton v. Vee Jay Cement Contracting Co., 37 S.W.3d 803, 807 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Henderson v. Schnucks Markets, 100 S.W.3d 141, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 381, 2003 WL 1214026 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

100 S.W.3d 141 (Henderson v. Schnucks Markets) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related