Turner v. St. Louis County

Missouri Court of Appeals

Turner v. St. Louis County

886 S.W.2d 114, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 1390, 1994 WL 463907

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided August 30, 1994·No. No. 65490·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Julius Turner, appeals from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s decision finding that appellant did not suffer a compensable injury. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the findings of the Commission are supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record. As we further find an extended opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm the Commission’s finding pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum, solely for the use [115]*115of the parties here involved, has been provided explaining the reasons for the decision,

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Julius Turner, appeals from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s decision finding that appellant did not suffer a compensable injury. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the findings of the Commission are supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record. As we further find an extended opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm the Commission’s finding pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum, solely for the use [115]*115of the parties here involved, has been provided explaining the reasons for the decision,

Turner v. St. Louis County, 886 S.W.2d 114, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 1390, 1994 WL 463907 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

886 S.W.2d 114 (Turner v. St. Louis County) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.