Huskic v. Labarge Products

Missouri Court of Appeals

Huskic v. Labarge Products

229 S.W.3d 155, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 749, 2007 WL 1412497

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 15, 2007·No. ED 88748·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Izudin Huskic (“Claimant”) appeals from the order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“Commission”) that awarded him compensation for 126.57 weeks of temporary total disability, amounting to $23,625.55 (less a $2,000.00 credit), and for 100 weeks of permanent partial disability, amounting to $18,666.00. The Commission’s order also found that he was not permanently and totally disabled and not entitled to further medical benefits beyond those already paid, and that he did not have a preexisting disability upon which to base any liability for the Second Injury Fund (“SIF”).

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court 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

PER CURIAM.

Izudin Huskic (“Claimant”) appeals from the order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“Commission”) that awarded him compensation for 126.57 weeks of temporary total disability, amounting to $23,625.55 (less a $2,000.00 credit), and for 100 weeks of permanent partial disability, amounting to $18,666.00. The Commission’s order also found that he was not permanently and totally disabled and not entitled to further medical benefits beyond those already paid, and that he did not have a preexisting disability upon which to base any liability for the Second Injury Fund (“SIF”).

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Huskic v. Labarge Products, 229 S.W.3d 155, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 749, 2007 WL 1412497 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

229 S.W.3d 155 (Huskic v. Labarge Products) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.