Russell v. MATTINGLY LUMBER AND MILLWORK

190 S.W.3d 500, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 528, 2006 WL 1071981
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 25, 2006·No. ED 86686·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael Russell (“Employee”) appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s (“Commission”) finding that Mattingly Lumber & Millwork (“Employer”) is not liable to Employee for any further medical treatment and that Employee suffered only a 5% permanent partial disability of his body. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties 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 would have no prece-dential value.

The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this 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

Russell v. MATTINGLY LUMBER AND MILLWORK, 190 S.W.3d 500, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 528, 2006 WL 1071981 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

190 S.W.3d 500 (Russell v. MATTINGLY LUMBER AND MILLWORK) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Moore v. Moore
190 S.W.3d 500 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2006)