Volk v. Chrysler, LLC

Missouri Court of Appeals

Volk v. Chrysler, LLC

356 S.W.3d 884, 2012 WL 123287, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 47

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 17, 2012

DocketED 96876

StatusPublished

This text of 356 S.W.3d 884 (Volk v. Chrysler, LLC) 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

Volk v. Chrysler, LLC, 356 S.W.3d 884, 2012 WL 123287, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 47 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ray Volk (“Claimant”) appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“the Commission”) denying him disability benefits following the conclusion of his employment with Chrysler, LLC (“Employer”). Claimant argues the Commission erred in discounting his testimony and that of his medical expert and that Claimant proffered substantial, competent evidence linking his work activities to his resulting carpal tunnel syndrome.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and 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.

Ray Volk (“Claimant”) appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“the Commission”) denying him disability benefits following the conclusion of his employment with Chrysler, LLC (“Employer”). Claimant argues the Commission erred in discounting his testimony and that of his medical expert and that Claimant proffered substantial, competent evidence linking his work activities to his resulting carpal tunnel syndrome.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

356 S.W.3d 884, 2012 WL 123287, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/volk-v-chrysler-llc-moctapp-2012.