Loyd v. Ozark Electric Cooperative, Inc.

11 Citing cases

  1. Pavia v. Smitty's Supermarket

    118 S.W.3d 228 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 39 times

    In this latter step, all the evidence in the record is considered, including that unfavorable to the award made by the Commission. Id.; seeDavis v. Research Med. Ctr., 903 S.W.2d 557, 570 (Mo.App. 1995); see alsoLoyd v. Ozark Elec. Co-op, Inc., 4 S.W.3d 579, 584 (Mo.App. 1999). "The Commission reviews the record, and, where appropriate, it will also determine the credibility of witnesses and the weight of their testimony, resolve any conflicts in the evidence, and reach its own conclusions on factual issues independent of the ALJ. Shaw v. Scott, 49 S.W.3d 720, 728 (Mo.App. 2001). "

  2. Ogden v. Conagra Foods, Inc.

    512 S.W.3d 157 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017)

    SeeGillespie v. Am. Bus Lines, 246 S.W.2d 797, 799 (Mo. 1952) (distinguishing the "Claim for Compensation" document "from claimant's workmen's compensation claim generally").Workers' compensation cases can begin and have benefits paid without any Form 21 because proceedings are initiated by the Report of Injury. SeeLoyd v. Ozark Elec. Co–op., Inc. , 4 S.W.3d 579, 586 (Mo.App. 1999). Upon Conagra's Report of Injury on May 4, 2001, the Division opened a case (Injury No. 01–041053) under which Conagra timely paid total disability benefits through October 9, 2014. Form 21 or not, the disability case given Injury No. 01–041053 was and remained open, active as to benefit payments, pending, and unresolved on each day of the Schoemehl window from first to last.

  3. Dorris v. Kohl

    337 S.W.3d 107 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011)

    Eighty years ago, the Missouri Supreme Court stated that "[i]t is well settled that the [predecessor to § 292.020] is highly remedial and should be liberally construed to effectuate its true intent and meaning." Stein v. Battenfeld Oil Grease Co., 327 Mo. 804, 39 S.W.2d 345, 347 (1931); see also, e.g., Loyd v. Ozark Elec. Co-op., Inc., 4 S.W.3d 579, 584 (Mo.App. S.D. 1999) ("Case law has construed Section 292.020 broadly and liberally to provide coverage to employees."), overruled on other grounds, Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.3d 220; (Mo. banc 2003).

  4. Seeley v. Anchor Fence Company

    96 S.W.3d 809 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 10 times

    "Our review of the [Commission's] findings is limited to a review of questions of law." Loyd v. Ozark Elec. Coop., Inc., 4 S.W.3d 579, 583 (Mo.App. 1999). "This court will modify, reverse, remand or set aside an award only if the Commission acted without or in excess of its powers, the award was procured by fraud, the facts found by the Commission do not support the award, or there was not sufficient competent evidence in the record to warrant the making of the award."

  5. Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection

    121 S.W.3d 220 (Mo. 2003)   Cited 748 times
    Finding the claimant's total disability arose from a workplace accident rendering the claimant unable to perform basic physical activity due to back impairment

    ate Treasurer, 35 S.W.3d 441 (Mo. App. 2000); Cuba v. Jon Thomas Salons, Inc., 33 S.W.3d 542 (Mo. App. 2000); Smith v. Richardson Bros. Roofing, 32 S.W.3d 568 (Mo. App. 2000); Wilmeth v. TMI, Inc., 26 S.W.3d 476 (Mo. App. 2000); Deckard v. O'Reilly Automotive, Inc., 31 S.W.3d 6 (Mo. App. 2000); Boyles v. USA Rebar Placement, Inc., 26 S.W.3d 418 (Mo. App. 2000); DiMaggio v. Johnston Audio/D M Sound, 19 S.W.3d 185 (Mo. App. 2000); Soos v. Mallinckrodt Chemical Co., 19 S.W.3d 683 (Mo. App. 2000); Higgins v. D.W.F. Wholesale Florists, 14 S.W.3d 286 (Mo. App. 2000); Harp v. Malone Freight Lines, Inc., 16 S.W.3d 667 (Mo. App. 2000); Maxon v. Leggett Platt, 9 S.W.3d 725 (Mo. App. 2000); Ransburg v. Great Plains Drilling, 22 S.W.3d 726 (Mo. App. 2000); Kuczwara v. Continental Baking Co., 24 S.W.3d 712 (Mo. App. 1999); Tidwell v. Kloster Co., 8 S.W.3d 585 (Mo. App. 1999); Kizior v. Trans World Airlines, 5 S.W.3d 195 (Mo. App. 1999); Seaton v. Cabool Lease, Inc., 7 S.W.3d 501 (Mo. App. 1999); Loyd v. Ozark Elec. Co-op., Inc., 4 S.W.3d 579 (Mo. App. 1999); Willeford v. Lester E. Cox Medical Center, 3 S.W.3d 872 (Mo. App. 1999); Conley v. Treasurer of Missouri, 999 S.W.2d 269 (Mo. App. 1999); Reese v. Gary Roger Link, Inc., 5 S.W.3d 522 (Mo. App. 1999); Mickey v. City Wide Maintenance, 996 S.W.2d 144 (Mo. App. 1999); Mid-Missouri Mental Health Center v. Polston, 995 S.W.2d 527 (Mo. App. 1999); Gausling v. United Industries, 998 S.W.2d 133 (Mo. App. 1999); King v. A.P. Green Industries, Inc., 991 S.W.2d 223 (Mo. App. 1999); Pemberton v. 3M Co., 992 S.W.2d 365 (Mo. App. 1999); Williams v. DePaul Health Center, 996 S.W.2d 619 (Mo. App. 1999); Decker v. National Accounts Payable Auditors, 993 S.W.2d 518 (Mo. App. 1999); Kaderly v. Race Brothers Farm Supply, 993 S.W.2d 512 (Mo. App. 1999); Jacobs v. City of Jefferson, 991 S.W.2d 693 (Mo. App. 1999); Davis v. General Elec. Co., 991 S.W.2d 699 (Mo. App. 1999); Reese v. Coleman, 990 S.W.2d 195 (Mo. App. 1999); Flanigan v. St. James Paseo Learning Center, 996 S.W.2d 524 (Mo. App. 1999); Putnam-

  6. Poage v. Crane Co.

    523 S.W.3d 496 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 33 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Upholding a 6:1 ratio

    Courts sometimes discuss the substantial factor test to establish actual causation, while it is other times used for determining "proximate cause." SeeCallahan, 863 S.W.2d at 860–63 (discussing "substantial factor" analysis within the context of "but for" causation); Cf.Loyd v. Ozark Elec. Co-op., Inc., 4 S.W.3d 579, 587 (Mo. App. S.D. 1999) overruled by Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.3d 220, 225 (Mo. banc 2003) ("When two forces are actively operating, and each is sufficient by itself to bring about injury or death, the acts of one may be held to be a substantial factor and thus the proximate cause of the injury or death."). In both cases, the test is used to determine the same thing, and in either case, it is a question for the court to determine the submissibility of the case.

  7. Office of Pub. Counsel v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of State (In re Union Elec. Co.)

    422 S.W.3d 358 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 2 times

    Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. Dir. of Revenue, 83 S.W.3d 548, 553 (Mo. banc 2002) (emphasis added). Missouri courts have also referred to “transporting electricity”: “That equipment, which does not generate electricity but transports it....” Loyd v. Ozark Elec. Co-op., Inc., 4 S.W.3d 579, 585 (Mo.App.S.D.1999) (emphasis added), overruled on other grounds by Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.3d 220, 226 (Mo. banc 2003). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has referred to power cooperatives as being responsible for “transporting electricity.”

  8. Office of Pub. Counsel v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Mo. (In re Union Elec. Co.)

    WD75980 (Mo. Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2013)

    Missouri courts have also referred to "transporting electricity": "That equipment, which does not generate electricity but transports it . . . ." Loyd v. Ozark Elec. Co-op., Inc., 4 S.W.3d 579, 585 (Mo. App. S.D. 1999) (emphasis added), overruled on other grounds by Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.3d 220, 226 (Mo. banc 2003). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has referred to power cooperatives as being responsible for "transporting electricity."

  9. Spencer v. Sac Osage Electric Co-op, Inc.

    302 S.W.3d 792 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 19 times

    Thus the claim or application contemplated by the Workers' Compensation Act does not have to contain the usual elements of a petition in the civil action. Loyd v. Ozark Elec. Co-op., Inc., 4 S.W.3d 579, 586 (Mo.App. S.D. 1999) (quoting Groce v. Pyle, 315 S.W.2d 482, 492 (Mo.App. 1958)). The claim, however, must provide sufficient information such that the "'employer [and] the Commission [are] advised of the nature of the employee's claim.'"

  10. Elliott v. Indiana Western Express

    118 S.W.3d 297 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 4 times

    Id. at 815 (quoting Lorentz v. Missouri StateTreasurer, 72 S.W.3d 315, 318 (Mo.App. 2002)). In this latter step, all the evidence in the record is considered, including that unfavorable to the award made by the Commission. Id.; seeLoyd v. Ozark Elec. Coop.Inc., 4 S.W.3d 579, 584 (Mo.App. 1999). "The Commission is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses, and this [C]ourt will not substitute its interpretation of factual issues for that of the Commission even if it would have made a different determination."