Resinger v. Mississippi Lime Co.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Resinger v. Mississippi Lime Co.

504 S.W.3d 97, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 803, 2016 WL 4437969

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 23, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103885

StatusPublished

This text of 504 S.W.3d 97 (Resinger v. Mississippi Lime 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

Resinger v. Mississippi Lime Co., 504 S.W.3d 97, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 803, 2016 WL 4437969 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Mississippi Lime Company and ACE American Insurance Company appeal from a final award issued by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission finding Earl Resinger sustained 6 percent permanent partial disability due to tinnitus caused by his employment. Finding that the Commission’s decision is supported by competent and substantial evidence, we affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion 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

Mississippi Lime Company and ACE American Insurance Company appeal from a final award issued by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission finding Earl Resinger sustained 6 percent permanent partial disability due to tinnitus caused by his employment. Finding that the Commission’s decision is supported by competent and substantial evidence, we affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion 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)

504 S.W.3d 97, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 803, 2016 WL 4437969, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/resinger-v-mississippi-lime-co-moctapp-2016.