Taylor v. May Department Stores

Missouri Court of Appeals

Taylor v. May Department Stores

55 S.W.3d 887, 2001 WL 1117762

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 25, 2001

DocketNo. ED 79061

StatusPublished

This text of 55 S.W.3d 887 (Taylor v. May Department Stores) 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

Taylor v. May Department Stores, 55 S.W.3d 887, 2001 WL 1117762 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

May Department Stores Company (hereinafter, “May Company”) appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (hereinafter, “the Commission”) affirming an award in favor of Tena Taylor (hereinafter, “Taylor”). May Company claims the Commission erred in its finding of permanent partial disability in that there was overwhelming credible medical evidence which established Taylor had full range of motion in her right wrist and normal grip strength.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcripts. ‘When the right to compensation depends on the acceptance of one of two competing medical theories, the issue is one of fact and the [ejommission’s findings will not be disturbed unless the [cjommission acted unreasonably in accepting testimony that was not substantial or decided the issue contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.” George v. Shop ’N Save Warehouse Foods, Inc., 855 S.W.2d 460, 462 (Mo.App. E.D.1993).

Based on the foregoing, May Company’s argument is without merit, and we hold there was substantial and competent evidence in the record to support the Commission’s decision. Garibay v. Treasurer of Missouri, 930 S.W.2d 57, 59 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). Taylor’s motion to dismiss is [888]*888denied. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed 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.

May Department Stores Company (hereinafter, “May Company”) appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (hereinafter, “the Commission”) affirming an award in favor of Tena Taylor (hereinafter, “Taylor”). May Company claims the Commission erred in its finding of permanent partial disability in that there was overwhelming credible medical evidence which established Taylor had full range of motion in her right wrist and normal grip strength.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcripts. ‘When the right to compensation depends on the acceptance of one of two competing medical theories, the issue is one of fact and the [ejommission’s findings will not be disturbed unless the [cjommission acted unreasonably in accepting testimony that was not substantial or decided the issue contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.” George v. Shop ’N Save Warehouse Foods, Inc., 855 S.W.2d 460, 462 (Mo.App. E.D.1993).

Based on the foregoing, May Company’s argument is without merit, and we hold there was substantial and competent evidence in the record to support the Commission’s decision. Garibay v. Treasurer of Missouri, 930 S.W.2d 57, 59 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). Taylor’s motion to dismiss is [888]*888denied. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 S.W.3d 887, 2001 WL 1117762, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-may-department-stores-moctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack