Hudson v. ST. MARY'S HEALTH CENTER

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hudson v. ST. MARY'S HEALTH CENTER

245 S.W.3d 256, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 173, 2008 WL 304917

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 5, 2008

DocketED 90042

StatusPublished

This text of 245 S.W.3d 256 (Hudson v. ST. MARY'S HEALTH CENTER) 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

Hudson v. ST. MARY'S HEALTH CENTER, 245 S.W.3d 256, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 173, 2008 WL 304917 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Arminnie Hudson appeals from the Order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission denying her disability benefits. Ms. Hudson contends the Commission erred because it failed to consider the “extended premises doctrine” when it determined that her injury did not arise within the course and scope of her employment. Because we find the Commission did not err, we affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the award 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.

Arminnie Hudson appeals from the Order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission denying her disability benefits. Ms. Hudson contends the Commission erred because it failed to consider the “extended premises doctrine” when it determined that her injury did not arise within the course and scope of her employment. Because we find the Commission did not err, we affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the award pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 S.W.3d 256, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 173, 2008 WL 304917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hudson-v-st-marys-health-center-moctapp-2008.