Tester v. Autco Distributing, Inc.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Tester v. Autco Distributing, Inc.

749 S.W.2d 21, 1988 Mo. App. LEXIS 568, 1988 WL 37879

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 26, 1988

DocketNo. 53883

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 749 S.W.2d 21 (Tester v. Autco Distributing, Inc.) 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

Tester v. Autco Distributing, Inc., 749 S.W.2d 21, 1988 Mo. App. LEXIS 568, 1988 WL 37879 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

REINHARD, Judge.

Employee appeals an award by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission denying compensation in a workers’ compensation case. We affirm.

Employee sought compensation under the Workers’ Compensation Law, Ch. 287, RSMo 1986. Employee presented sufficient evidence at the hearing before an administrative law judge to support an award of compensation. However, employer presented contradictory evidence on the issue of the cause of employee’s injury. The administrative law judge awarded no compensation, and the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirmed the award and entered a final award denying compensation.

We must affirm the award if it is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record and if the award reasonably could have been reached upon [22]*22consideration of all the evidence in the light most favorable to the award. Banner Iron Works v. Mordis, 663 S.W.2d 770, 773 (Mo.App.1983). The power to judge the credibility of witnesses, to resolve conflicts in testimony, to weigh evidence, and to draw factual inferences is vested in the commission, through its administrative law judge as trier of fact. Counts v. John Fabick Tractor Co., 745 S.W.2d 839, 840 (Mo.App.1988).

An extended opinion would have no prec-edential value. We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Judgment affirmed.

GARY M. GAERTNER, P.J., and CRIST, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

REINHARD, Judge.

Employee appeals an award by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission denying compensation in a workers’ compensation case. We affirm.

Employee sought compensation under the Workers’ Compensation Law, Ch. 287, RSMo 1986. Employee presented sufficient evidence at the hearing before an administrative law judge to support an award of compensation. However, employer presented contradictory evidence on the issue of the cause of employee’s injury. The administrative law judge awarded no compensation, and the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirmed the award and entered a final award denying compensation.

We must affirm the award if it is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record and if the award reasonably could have been reached upon [22]*22consideration of all the evidence in the light most favorable to the award. Banner Iron Works v. Mordis, 663 S.W.2d 770, 773 (Mo.App.1983). The power to judge the credibility of witnesses, to resolve conflicts in testimony, to weigh evidence, and to draw factual inferences is vested in the commission, through its administrative law judge as trier of fact. Counts v. John Fabick Tractor Co., 745 S.W.2d 839, 840 (Mo.App.1988).

An extended opinion would have no prec-edential value. We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Judgment affirmed.

GARY M. GAERTNER, P.J., and CRIST, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

749 S.W.2d 21, 1988 Mo. App. LEXIS 568, 1988 WL 37879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tester-v-autco-distributing-inc-moctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack