Vester-Bates v. Ponderosa Steak House

Missouri Court of Appeals

Vester-Bates v. Ponderosa Steak House

209 S.W.3d 539, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1986, 2006 WL 3791254

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided December 26, 2006·No. No. ED 88108·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Pamela Sue Vester-Bates (“Vester-Bates”) appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“Commission”) after the Commission found that Vester-Bates was partially disabled while working for her employer, Respondent Ponderosa Steak House, and awarded her, inter alia, temporary total disability benefits of $79.67/ week.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, and no error of law appears. Therefore, an opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been given a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. 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.

Appellant Pamela Sue Vester-Bates (“Vester-Bates”) appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“Commission”) after the Commission found that Vester-Bates was partially disabled while working for her employer, Respondent Ponderosa Steak House, and awarded her, inter alia, temporary total disability benefits of $79.67/ week.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, and no error of law appears. Therefore, an opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been given a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Vester-Bates v. Ponderosa Steak House, 209 S.W.3d 539, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1986, 2006 WL 3791254 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

209 S.W.3d 539 (Vester-Bates v. Ponderosa Steak House) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.