From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hasten v. Wal-Mart

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO
Dec 3, 1996
935 S.W.2d 83 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996)

Opinion

Nos. 69770 69971

OPINION FILED: December 3, 1996

BEFORE THE LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION.

Rex M. Burlison, O'Fallon, for employee/appellant.

Evans Dixon, Laura E. Smith, St. Louis, Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Eva C. Sterner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for employer/respondent.

Before Crane, P.J., Smith and Pudlowski, J.J.



ORDER

This is an appeal from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission. Claimant alleges the administrative law judge used the wrong legal standard when determining causation and that the decision of the Commission is not supported by substantial and competent evidence. We have carefully reviewed all of the evidence in the record and find competent and substantial evidence exists to support the Commission's decision and such evidence is not contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. We discern no jurisprudential value in issuing an extended legal opinion. The judgment of the Commission is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been furnished with a memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order.


Summaries of

Hasten v. Wal-Mart

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO
Dec 3, 1996
935 S.W.2d 83 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996)
Case details for

Hasten v. Wal-Mart

Case Details

Full title:JOY HASTEN, EMPLOYEE/APPELLANT, v. WAL-MART, EMPLOYER/RESPONDENT

Court:Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO

Date published: Dec 3, 1996

Citations

935 S.W.2d 83 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996)