Lindsey v. Treasurer of the State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Lindsey v. Treasurer of the State

157 S.W.3d 349, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 639, 2005 WL 407328

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 22, 2005

DocketED 84640, ED 84639

StatusPublished

This text of 157 S.W.3d 349 (Lindsey v. Treasurer of the State) 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

Lindsey v. Treasurer of the State, 157 S.W.3d 349, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 639, 2005 WL 407328 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The Second Injury Fund appeals from the final award of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirming the award of the Administrative Law Judge finding Second Injury Fund liability for permanent total disability in claimant’s claim based on a June 2000 back injury, and permanent partial disability based on com-binative disability in claimant’s claims based on separate injuries in February, 1995 and May, 1996. Claimant cross-appeals. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the Commission are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our order affirming 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.

The Second Injury Fund appeals from the final award of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirming the award of the Administrative Law Judge finding Second Injury Fund liability for permanent total disability in claimant’s claim based on a June 2000 back injury, and permanent partial disability based on com-binative disability in claimant’s claims based on separate injuries in February, 1995 and May, 1996. Claimant cross-appeals. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the Commission are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 S.W.3d 349, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 639, 2005 WL 407328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lindsey-v-treasurer-of-the-state-moctapp-2005.