From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hubbard v. Pillsbury Company

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three
Sep 30, 1986
717 S.W.2d 286 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986)

Opinion

No. 50981.

September 30, 1986.

APPEAL FROM LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION.

Stern, Pressman Soule, Gary T. Soule, Clayton, for claimant-appellant.

Evans Dixon, Robert M. Evans, St. Louis, for employer-respondent.


Claimant, in a worker's compensation action, appeals a final award of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission which had affirmed the award of the administrative law judge. Claimant contends that the Commission's award, which denied her permanent partial disability, thirty one additional days of temporary total disability and certain additional medical expenses, was not supported by sufficient competent evidence. We affirm.

When the claimant attacks the sufficiency of the evidence, our standard of review is to determine whether the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's award is supported by substantial and competent evidence. We so find and an extended opinion would serve no precedential value. Judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).


Summaries of

Hubbard v. Pillsbury Company

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three
Sep 30, 1986
717 S.W.2d 286 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986)
Case details for

Hubbard v. Pillsbury Company

Case Details

Full title:EULA M. HUBBARD, CLAIMANT-APPELLANT, v. THE PILLSBURY COMPANY…

Court:Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three

Date published: Sep 30, 1986

Citations

717 S.W.2d 286 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986)

Citing Cases

Preston v. Cutter

It is provided by statute that suits of attachment and executions against administrators, where the cause of…

Lynch v. Webster

The reason assigned for the distinction is, that in the former case, being a party to the transaction, he is…