Penning v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Penning v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co.

572 S.W.3d 158

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 23, 2019

DocketWD 81808

StatusPublished

This text of 572 S.W.3d 158 (Penning v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co.) 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

Penning v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co., 572 S.W.3d 158 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam *159Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Inc., ("Employer"), and its insurer, American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania ("Insurer") appeal the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission ("Commission") awarding workers' compensation benefits to employee Thomas Penning. Employer and Insurer contend the Commission's award was erroneous because there was insufficient evidence that the accident was the prevailing factor in causing Penning's medical condition. Employer and Insurer further assert that the Commission acted without or in excess of its powers by ignoring Penning's failure to provide statutorily-required written notice to Employer of an occupational disease and by allowing Penning to "transfer" his allegation of injury from one claim to a separate claim. For reasons explained in a memorandum provided to the parties, we find no error and affirm the judgment.

AFFIRMED. Rule 84.16(b)

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

Per Curiam *159Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Inc., ("Employer"), and its insurer, American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania ("Insurer") appeal the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission ("Commission") awarding workers' compensation benefits to employee Thomas Penning. Employer and Insurer contend the Commission's award was erroneous because there was insufficient evidence that the accident was the prevailing factor in causing Penning's medical condition. Employer and Insurer further assert that the Commission acted without or in excess of its powers by ignoring Penning's failure to provide statutorily-required written notice to Employer of an occupational disease and by allowing Penning to "transfer" his allegation of injury from one claim to a separate claim. For reasons explained in a memorandum provided to the parties, we find no error and affirm the judgment.

AFFIRMED. Rule 84.16(b)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

572 S.W.3d 158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/penning-v-harley-davidson-motor-co-moctapp-2019.