Sutton v. CEMENT

Missouri Court of Appeals

Sutton v. CEMENT

252 S.W.3d 259, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 667, 2008 WL 2053570

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 13, 2008

DocketED 90110

StatusPublished

This text of 252 S.W.3d 259 (Sutton v. CEMENT) 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

Sutton v. CEMENT, 252 S.W.3d 259, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 667, 2008 WL 2053570 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Larry Sutton (Claimant), deceased, and his three minor children, C.E.S., C.W.S., and L.D.S., (collectively the Children) appeal from the order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) denying the Children’s Application for Substitution of Parties as Payee on Permanent Total Disability Benefits (Application for Substitution of Parties) on the ground that the Commission did not have jurisdiction to consider the Children’s request. The Application for Substitution of Parties asked the Commission to allow the Children to stand in the place of Claimant so they could receive the permanent total disability benefits previously awarded to Claimant. We affirm the Commission’s finding that it had no jurisdiction to consider the Children’s appeal.

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 would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the final 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.

Larry Sutton (Claimant), deceased, and his three minor children, C.E.S., C.W.S., and L.D.S., (collectively the Children) appeal from the order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) denying the Children’s Application for Substitution of Parties as Payee on Permanent Total Disability Benefits (Application for Substitution of Parties) on the ground that the Commission did not have jurisdiction to consider the Children’s request. The Application for Substitution of Parties asked the Commission to allow the Children to stand in the place of Claimant so they could receive the permanent total disability benefits previously awarded to Claimant. We affirm the Commission’s finding that it had no jurisdiction to consider the Children’s appeal.

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 would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the final judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 S.W.3d 259, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 667, 2008 WL 2053570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sutton-v-cement-moctapp-2008.