Hubbell Killark Electric & Liberty Insurance Corp. v. Buffington

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hubbell Killark Electric & Liberty Insurance Corp. v. Buffington

477 S.W.3d 695, 2015 WL 8229643

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 8, 2015

DocketED 102925

StatusPublished

This text of 477 S.W.3d 695 (Hubbell Killark Electric & Liberty Insurance Corp. v. Buffington) 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

Hubbell Killark Electric & Liberty Insurance Corp. v. Buffington, 477 S.W.3d 695, 2015 WL 8229643 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER ■

PER CURIAM .

Hubbell, Inc., formerly known as Killark Electric Manufacturing Company (“Employer”), appeals from a judgment of the ■Missouri Labor and Industrial Commission (“the Commission”) affirming the award of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), which found that Felicia Buffington’s (“Employee’s”) claim was compensable and awarding $76,600.14 for permanent partial disability and $39, 245.95'for medical expenses. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential [696]*696purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

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 .

Hubbell, Inc., formerly known as Killark Electric Manufacturing Company (“Employer”), appeals from a judgment of the ■Missouri Labor and Industrial Commission (“the Commission”) affirming the award of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), which found that Felicia Buffington’s (“Employee’s”) claim was compensable and awarding $76,600.14 for permanent partial disability and $39, 245.95'for medical expenses. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential [696]*696purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

477 S.W.3d 695, 2015 WL 8229643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hubbell-killark-electric-liberty-insurance-corp-v-buffington-moctapp-2015.