HOFF v. ST. CLAIR R-XIII SCHOOL DISTRICT, 353 S.W.3d 682 (2011)
Court: Court of Appeals of Missouri
Number: inadvmoco120313000426
Visitors: 13
Filed: Nov. 22, 2011
Latest Update: Nov. 22, 2011
Summary: ORDER PER CURIAM. John Hoff (Employee) appeals, and St. Clair R-XII School District (Employer) and its insurer Missouri United School Insurance Counsel cross-appeal, the Final Award Allowing Compensation of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission). In his final award, the Division of Workers Compensation Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found Employee permanently and totally disabled solely as the result of a work-related injury. Employer was held liable for future medical an
Summary: ORDER PER CURIAM. John Hoff (Employee) appeals, and St. Clair R-XII School District (Employer) and its insurer Missouri United School Insurance Counsel cross-appeal, the Final Award Allowing Compensation of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission). In his final award, the Division of Workers Compensation Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found Employee permanently and totally disabled solely as the result of a work-related injury. Employer was held liable for future medical and..
More
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
John Hoff (Employee) appeals, and St. Clair R-XII School District (Employer) and its insurer Missouri United School Insurance Counsel cross-appeal, the Final Award Allowing Compensation of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission).
In his final award, the Division of Workers Compensation Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found Employee permanently and totally disabled solely as the result of a work-related injury. Employer was held liable for future medical and spousal nursing care. Employee was awarded past medical expenses with no deductions for collateral insurance. Employer was not obligated to pay additional amounts for housing modifications. After appeal by both Employer and Employee, the Commission adopted the decision of the ALJ with minor modifications.
On appeal. Employee and Employer both cite multiple errors in the Commission's Award. We have reviewed the briefs and the Record on Appeal, and find no error of law in this case. Thus, a written opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
AFFIRMED.
Source: Leagle
