Hill v. THE BOEING COMPANY

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hill v. THE BOEING COMPANY

341 S.W.3d 194, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 641, 2011 WL 1797270

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 10, 2011

DocketED 95838

StatusPublished

This text of 341 S.W.3d 194 (Hill v. THE BOEING COMPANY) 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

Hill v. THE BOEING COMPANY, 341 S.W.3d 194, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 641, 2011 WL 1797270 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Tamara Hill (hereinafter, “Claimant”) brings this appeal following the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s (hereinafter, “the Commission”) award, denying Claimant compensation from the Second Injury Fund. Claimant raises one point on appeal, alleging the Commission ignored uncontradicted, unimpeached medical and vocational evidence.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. No error of law appears. We find the Commission’s decision is supported by 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, 223 (Mo. banc 2003). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no prece-dential value. However, we have provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

The judgment is affirmed 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.

Tamara Hill (hereinafter, “Claimant”) brings this appeal following the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s (hereinafter, “the Commission”) award, denying Claimant compensation from the Second Injury Fund. Claimant raises one point on appeal, alleging the Commission ignored uncontradicted, unimpeached medical and vocational evidence.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. No error of law appears. We find the Commission’s decision is supported by 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, 223 (Mo. banc 2003). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no prece-dential value. However, we have provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

341 S.W.3d 194, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 641, 2011 WL 1797270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-the-boeing-company-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack