Rinderer v. Maplewood Eye Care Group

Missouri Court of Appeals

Rinderer v. Maplewood Eye Care Group

837 S.W.2d 24, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 1463, 1992 WL 188801

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided August 11, 1992·No. No. 61457·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Employer appeals from an award to claimant by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and 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.

Employer appeals from an award to claimant by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and 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).

Rinderer v. Maplewood Eye Care Group, 837 S.W.2d 24, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 1463, 1992 WL 188801 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

837 S.W.2d 24 (Rinderer v. Maplewood Eye Care Group) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.