Wilken v. QUALSERV CORPORATION

Missouri Court of Appeals

Wilken v. QUALSERV CORPORATION

342 S.W.3d 342, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 666, 2011 WL 1842773

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 17, 2011

DocketWD 72362

StatusPublished

This text of 342 S.W.3d 342 (Wilken v. QUALSERV CORPORATION) 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

Wilken v. QUALSERV CORPORATION, 342 S.W.3d 342, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 666, 2011 WL 1842773 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appellant John Wilken suffered two accidents at work in January and February 2006. Soon after the second incident he began complaining of back pain. Wilken’s general health later deteriorated. He is now completely and permanently disabled. An Administrative Law Judge in the Division of Workers’ Compensation found that Wilken was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission reached the opposite conclusion, finding that the accidents Wilken identified did not cause him an “injury,” and that the workplace accidents were not the “prevailing factor” in causing his current medical condition and disability. Wilken appeals. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no prece-dential value, an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appellant John Wilken suffered two accidents at work in January and February 2006. Soon after the second incident he began complaining of back pain. Wilken’s general health later deteriorated. He is now completely and permanently disabled. An Administrative Law Judge in the Division of Workers’ Compensation found that Wilken was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission reached the opposite conclusion, finding that the accidents Wilken identified did not cause him an “injury,” and that the workplace accidents were not the “prevailing factor” in causing his current medical condition and disability. Wilken appeals. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no prece-dential value, an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

342 S.W.3d 342, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 666, 2011 WL 1842773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilken-v-qualserv-corporation-moctapp-2011.