Logan v. AT & T OPERATIONS, INC.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Logan v. AT & T OPERATIONS, INC.

307 S.W.3d 186, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 361, 2010 WL 1049172

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 23, 2010

DocketED 93323

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 307 S.W.3d 186 (Logan v. AT & T OPERATIONS, INC.) 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

Logan v. AT & T OPERATIONS, INC., 307 S.W.3d 186, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 361, 2010 WL 1049172 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Lanobie Logan (hereinafter, “the Claimant”) appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (hereinafter, “the Commission”), denying her unemployment compensation benefits. Claimant raises two issues on appeal. First, Claimant alleges she had good cause to file a late appeal of the deputy’s determination because she was suffering from pregnancy complications, was placed on bed rest, and acted in a reasonable manner by attempting to fax her appeal to the Commission within the time limit. Second, Claimant asserts she did not voluntarily quit her job because she was suffering from pregnancy complications and was physically unable to return to work.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and transcript on appeal. The Commission’s decision is supported by competent substantial evidence and authorized by law. Korkutovic v. Gamel Co., 284 S.W.3d 653, 656 (Mo.App. E.D.2009). An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law 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. The Commission’s decision is affirmed 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.

Lanobie Logan (hereinafter, “the Claimant”) appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (hereinafter, “the Commission”), denying her unemployment compensation benefits. Claimant raises two issues on appeal. First, Claimant alleges she had good cause to file a late appeal of the deputy’s determination because she was suffering from pregnancy complications, was placed on bed rest, and acted in a reasonable manner by attempting to fax her appeal to the Commission within the time limit. Second, Claimant asserts she did not voluntarily quit her job because she was suffering from pregnancy complications and was physically unable to return to work.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and transcript on appeal. The Commission’s decision is supported by competent substantial evidence and authorized by law. Korkutovic v. Gamel Co., 284 S.W.3d 653, 656 (Mo.App. E.D.2009). An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law 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. The Commission’s decision is affirmed pursuant to rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

307 S.W.3d 186, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 361, 2010 WL 1049172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/logan-v-at-t-operations-inc-moctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack