HULSEY v. TREASURER OF STATE OF MISSOURI AS CUSTODIAN OF SECOND INJURY FUND, 488 S.W.3d 728 (2016)
Court: Court of Appeals of Missouri
Number: inadvmoco161013000124
Visitors: 13
Filed: May 03, 2016
Latest Update: May 03, 2016
Summary: ORDER Patricia Hulsey ("Claimant") appeals from a decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission denying her claims against the Second Injury Fund for failure to prove a compensable primary injury and failure to provide competent, reliable and persuasive medical causation evidence. Claimant argues the Commission erred in denying her claims because the Commission failed to review the whole record and improperly discounted the Claimant's medical and vocational experts. We have reviewe
Summary: ORDER Patricia Hulsey ("Claimant") appeals from a decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission denying her claims against the Second Injury Fund for failure to prove a compensable primary injury and failure to provide competent, reliable and persuasive medical causation evidence. Claimant argues the Commission erred in denying her claims because the Commission failed to review the whole record and improperly discounted the Claimant's medical and vocational experts. We have reviewed..
More
ORDER
Patricia Hulsey ("Claimant") appeals from a decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission denying her claims against the Second Injury Fund for failure to prove a compensable primary injury and failure to provide competent, reliable and persuasive medical causation evidence. Claimant argues the Commission erred in denying her claims because the Commission failed to review the whole record and improperly discounted the Claimant's medical and vocational experts.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and affirm the decision of the Commission. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
Source: Leagle
