Hertzing v. Beck Motors, Inc.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hertzing v. Beck Motors, Inc.

474 S.W.3d 599, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1145, 2015 WL 6924992

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 10, 2015

DocketNo. ED 102590

StatusPublished

This text of 474 S.W.3d 599 (Hertzing v. Beck Motors, Inc.) 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

Hertzing v. Beck Motors, Inc., 474 S.W.3d 599, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1145, 2015 WL 6924992 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Beck Motors, Inc., (Employer) appeals the Final Award of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) modifying the decision of the administrative law judge (ALJ) and adopting the findings, conclusions, decision and award of the ALJ to the extent that they were not inconsistent with the findings, conclusion, decision, and modifications set forth in the Commission’s award finding Richard Hertzing (Claimant) was entitled to worker’s compensation benefits for permanent total disability and temporary partial disability and finding that Claimant’s compensation is not.subject to any reduction under Section 287.120.6(1) ¹ We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal-file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. The. decision and order of the Commission is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this .case would- serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a-memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Beck Motors, Inc., (Employer) appeals the Final Award of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) modifying the decision of the administrative law judge (ALJ) and adopting the findings, conclusions, decision and award of the ALJ to the extent that they were not inconsistent with the findings, conclusion, decision, and modifications set forth in the Commission’s award finding Richard Hertzing (Claimant) was entitled to worker’s compensation benefits for permanent total disability and temporary partial disability and finding that Claimant’s compensation is not.subject to any reduction under Section 287.120.6(1) ¹ We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal-file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. The. decision and order of the Commission is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this .case would- serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a-memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

474 S.W.3d 599, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1145, 2015 WL 6924992, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hertzing-v-beck-motors-inc-moctapp-2015.