Williams v. City of St. Louis

Missouri Court of Appeals

Williams v. City of St. Louis

245 S.W.3d 884, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 60, 2008 WL 124001

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 15, 2008

DocketED 89730

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 245 S.W.3d 884 (Williams v. City of St. Louis) 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

Williams v. City of St. Louis, 245 S.W.3d 884, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 60, 2008 WL 124001 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Debra Williams (hereinafter, “Claimant”) appeals pro se from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (hereinafter, “the Commission”) denying her workers’ compensation benefits from injuries she claims arose during the course and scope of her employment with the City of St. Louis (hereinafter, “Employer”). Claimant raises two points on appeal challenging the Commission’s decision to deny benefits. Both of Claimant’s points argue the Commission erred in denying her benefits in that she presented substantial evidence of her injuries and mistreatment by Employer.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and transcript on appeal. The Commission’s decision is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the record. Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.3d 220, 222-23 (Mo. banc 2003). An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the Commission’s decision 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.

Debra Williams (hereinafter, “Claimant”) appeals pro se from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (hereinafter, “the Commission”) denying her workers’ compensation benefits from injuries she claims arose during the course and scope of her employment with the City of St. Louis (hereinafter, “Employer”). Claimant raises two points on appeal challenging the Commission’s decision to deny benefits. Both of Claimant’s points argue the Commission erred in denying her benefits in that she presented substantial evidence of her injuries and mistreatment by Employer.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and transcript on appeal. The Commission’s decision is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the record. Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.3d 220, 222-23 (Mo. banc 2003). An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the Commission’s decision pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 S.W.3d 884, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 60, 2008 WL 124001, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-city-of-st-louis-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack