Kelley v. SAINT FRANCIS MEDICAL CENTER

Missouri Court of Appeals

Kelley v. SAINT FRANCIS MEDICAL CENTER

268 S.W.3d 434, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1265, 2008 WL 4210464

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 16, 2008

DocketED 91075

StatusPublished

This text of 268 S.W.3d 434 (Kelley v. SAINT FRANCIS MEDICAL 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

Kelley v. SAINT FRANCIS MEDICAL CENTER, 268 S.W.3d 434, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1265, 2008 WL 4210464 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Saint Francis Medical Center and Zurich American Insurance Company (hereinafter and collectively, “Employer”) appeal from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (hereinafter, “the Commission”) which adopted the findings of the Administrative Law Judge, finding Tina Kelley (hereinafter, “Employee”) suffered a compensable injury to her wrists. Employer raises two points on appeal, claiming the Commission erred in awarding Employee benefits due to a prior settlement agreement and Employee failed to prove her job activities were a substantial factor in causing her injuries.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment 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.

Saint Francis Medical Center and Zurich American Insurance Company (hereinafter and collectively, “Employer”) appeal from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (hereinafter, “the Commission”) which adopted the findings of the Administrative Law Judge, finding Tina Kelley (hereinafter, “Employee”) suffered a compensable injury to her wrists. Employer raises two points on appeal, claiming the Commission erred in awarding Employee benefits due to a prior settlement agreement and Employee failed to prove her job activities were a substantial factor in causing her injuries.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 S.W.3d 434, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1265, 2008 WL 4210464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelley-v-saint-francis-medical-center-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack