Patterson v. Ford Motor Co.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Patterson v. Ford Motor Co.

852 S.W.2d 433, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 705, 1993 WL 158450

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 18, 1993·No. No. 62613·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Claimant appeals from an order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) affirming the dismissal, for failure to prosecute, of his workers’ compensation claim. We affirm. The Commission’s award is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record; no error of law appears. 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.

Claimant appeals from an order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) affirming the dismissal, for failure to prosecute, of his workers’ compensation claim. We affirm. The Commission’s award is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record; no error of law appears. 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).

Patterson v. Ford Motor Co., 852 S.W.2d 433, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 705, 1993 WL 158450 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

852 S.W.2d 433 (Patterson v. Ford Motor Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.