Hudson v. ST. MARY'S HEALTH CENTER

245 S.W.3d 256, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 173, 2008 WL 304917
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 5, 2008·No. ED 90042·Published

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

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

245 S.W.3d 256 (Hudson v. ST. MARY'S HEALTH CENTER) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.