Reid v. SECURITY ARMORED CAR SERVICES, INC.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Reid v. SECURITY ARMORED CAR SERVICES, INC.

190 S.W.3d 570, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 606, 2006 WL 1147752

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 2, 2006

DocketED 87061

StatusPublished

This text of 190 S.W.3d 570 (Reid v. SECURITY ARMORED CAR SERVICES, 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

Reid v. SECURITY ARMORED CAR SERVICES, INC., 190 S.W.3d 570, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 606, 2006 WL 1147752 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Cathryne Reid (hereinafter, “Employee”) appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (hereinafter, “the Commission”) denying her workers’ compensation benefits because her knee injuries were determined not to be work-related. Employee raises two issues on appeal. First, Employee claims the Commission erred in denying compensation because the record contained competent and substantial evidence that her injuries were work-related. Second, Employee alleges the Commission erred in adopting the administrative law judge’s (hereinafter, “ALJ”) award because the ALJ improperly substituted his personal opinion with respect to medical causation for the uncontradicted testimony of Employee’s expert.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and transcript on appeal. The Commission’s decision is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the record. Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.3d 220, 222-23 (Mo. banc 2003). An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the Commission’s decision 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.

Cathryne Reid (hereinafter, “Employee”) appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (hereinafter, “the Commission”) denying her workers’ compensation benefits because her knee injuries were determined not to be work-related. Employee raises two issues on appeal. First, Employee claims the Commission erred in denying compensation because the record contained competent and substantial evidence that her injuries were work-related. Second, Employee alleges the Commission erred in adopting the administrative law judge’s (hereinafter, “ALJ”) award because the ALJ improperly substituted his personal opinion with respect to medical causation for the uncontradicted testimony of Employee’s expert.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and transcript on appeal. The Commission’s decision is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the record. Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.3d 220, 222-23 (Mo. banc 2003). An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the Commission’s decision pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 S.W.3d 570, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 606, 2006 WL 1147752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reid-v-security-armored-car-services-inc-moctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack