Manley v. Mulligan Contruction Co.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Manley v. Mulligan Contruction Co.

107 S.W.3d 285, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 194, 2003 WL 346899

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 18, 2003·No. No. ED 81887·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Earl E. Manley (Employee) appeals from a Final Award Allowing Compensation (Final Award) of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) modifying an Award and Decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Employee argues that the Commission erred in concluding that the Second Injury Fund (the Fund) has a right to subrogation for permanent total disability (PTD) benefits. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that, following Missouri Supreme Court precedent in Cole v. Morris, 409 S.W.2d 668 (Mo.1966), the Commission did not act without or in excess of its powers in concluding that the Fund has a right to subro-gation for PTD benefits. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Earl E. Manley (Employee) appeals from a Final Award Allowing Compensation (Final Award) of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) modifying an Award and Decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Employee argues that the Commission erred in concluding that the Second Injury Fund (the Fund) has a right to subrogation for permanent total disability (PTD) benefits. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that, following Missouri Supreme Court precedent in Cole v. Morris, 409 S.W.2d 668 (Mo.1966), the Commission did not act without or in excess of its powers in concluding that the Fund has a right to subro-gation for PTD benefits. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Manley v. Mulligan Contruction Co., 107 S.W.3d 285, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 194, 2003 WL 346899 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

107 S.W.3d 285 (Manley v. Mulligan Contruction Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related