KINNIKIN v. SECOND INJURY FUND, 352 S.W.3d 368 (2011)
Court: Court of Appeals of Missouri
Number: inadvmoco120208000219
Visitors: 16
Filed: Nov. 14, 2011
Latest Update: Nov. 14, 2011
Summary: ORDER PER CURIAM. John Kinnikin (hereinafter, "Claimant") brings this appeal following the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's (hereinafter, "the Commission") award, denying Claimant permanent total disability compensation from the Second Injury Fund. Claimant raises one point on appeal, alleging the Commission ignored uncontradicted, unimpeached medical and vocational evidence. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. No error of law appears. We find the
Summary: ORDER PER CURIAM. John Kinnikin (hereinafter, "Claimant") brings this appeal following the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's (hereinafter, "the Commission") award, denying Claimant permanent total disability compensation from the Second Injury Fund. Claimant raises one point on appeal, alleging the Commission ignored uncontradicted, unimpeached medical and vocational evidence. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. No error of law appears. We find the C..
More
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
John Kinnikin (hereinafter, "Claimant") brings this appeal following the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's (hereinafter, "the Commission") award, denying Claimant permanent total disability compensation from the Second Injury Fund. Claimant raises one point on appeal, alleging the Commission ignored uncontradicted, unimpeached medical and vocational evidence.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. No error of law appears. We find the Commission's decision is supported by competent and substantial evidence and is not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.3d 220, 223 (Mo. banc 2003). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, we have provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.
The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Source: Leagle
