Hulsey v. Treasurer of State of Missouri as Custodian of Second Injury Fund

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hulsey v. Treasurer of State of Missouri as Custodian of Second Injury Fund

488 S.W.3d 728, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 439, 2016 WL 1948870

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 3, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103576

StatusPublished

This text of 488 S.W.3d 728 (Hulsey v. Treasurer of State of Missouri as Custodian of Second Injury Fund) 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

Hulsey v. Treasurer of State of Missouri as Custodian of Second Injury Fund, 488 S.W.3d 728, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 439, 2016 WL 1948870 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Patricia , Hulsey . (“Claimant”) appeals from a decision, of the Labor and Industrial; Relations Commission-' denying her claims against the,Second Injury Fund for failure to prove a compensable- primary injury ,and failure to provide competent, reliable and persuasive medical causation evidence. Claimant argues the Commission erred in denying her claims because the Commission failed to review the whole record and improperly discounted the Claimant’s medical and vocational experts.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and affirm the decision of the Commission. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no prece-dential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

Patricia , Hulsey . (“Claimant”) appeals from a decision, of the Labor and Industrial; Relations Commission-' denying her claims against the,Second Injury Fund for failure to prove a compensable- primary injury ,and failure to provide competent, reliable and persuasive medical causation evidence. Claimant argues the Commission erred in denying her claims because the Commission failed to review the whole record and improperly discounted the Claimant’s medical and vocational experts.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and affirm the decision of the Commission. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no prece-dential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

488 S.W.3d 728, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 439, 2016 WL 1948870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hulsey-v-treasurer-of-state-of-missouri-as-custodian-of-second-injury-fund-moctapp-2016.