May v. Medicredit, Inc.

Missouri Court of Appeals

May v. Medicredit, Inc.

482 S.W.3d 880, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 232, 2016 WL 1085525

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 15, 2016

DocketNo. ED 102974

StatusPublished

This text of 482 S.W.3d 880 (May v. Medicredit, 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

May v. Medicredit, Inc., 482 S.W.3d 880, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 232, 2016 WL 1085525 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kamechia May (“Claimant”) appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (the “Commission”) denying her employment benefits. In her two- points on appeal, Claimant contends the Commission erred in finding: 1) that Claimant voluntarily quit her employment; [881]*881and, 2) that Claimant left work without good cause attributable to her work or employer.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties 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.

Kamechia May (“Claimant”) appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (the “Commission”) denying her employment benefits. In her two- points on appeal, Claimant contends the Commission erred in finding: 1) that Claimant voluntarily quit her employment; [881]*881and, 2) that Claimant left work without good cause attributable to her work or employer.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

482 S.W.3d 880, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 232, 2016 WL 1085525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/may-v-medicredit-inc-moctapp-2016.