Skip to content
Ott Law Firm

Debra Y. Sanders, Employee-Respondent, v. Echlin/Pacer Industries, Employer-Appellant, and National Union Fires Ins. Co. c/o Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., Insurer-Appellant.

Decision date: Unknown

Parties & Roles

Disposition

Affirmed

Slip Opinion Notice

This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Related Legal Help

Researching a similar employment law issue?

This archive page is for legal research. For a practical overview of claims, deadlines, evidence, and next steps, start with the related practice page.

Opinion

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Case Style: Debra Y. Sanders, Employee-Respondent, v. Echlin/Pacer Industries, Employer-Appellant, and National Union Fires Ins. Co. c/o Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., Insurer-Appellant. Case Number: 72857 Handdown Date: 03/31/1998 Appeal From: Labor and Industrial Relations Commission Counsel for Appellant: Timothy M. Tierney and Mary Anne Lindsey Counsel for Respondent: Donald S. Singer and Kenneth E. Dick Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. R. Dowd, Jr., P.J., Simon and Hoff, J.J., concur. Opinion: O R D E R Echlin/Pacer Industries and its insurer, National Union Fire Ins. Co. c/o Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., (collectively referred to as Employer) appeal from a Temporary or Partial Award of workers' compensation benefits entered in favor of Debra Y. Sanders (Claimant) by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission). (FN1) Employer contends the Commission erred as a matter of law in (1) finding Claimant sustained her burden of proving her medical condition was clearly work-related, as required by section 287.020 RSMo 1994, in the absence of expert medical opinion that Claimant's lifting activities at work were a substantial factor in causing the resulting medical condition; (2) finding Claimant had not unreasonably refused to submit to medical treatment offered by Employer under section 287.140.5 RSMo 1994; (3) awarding Claimant attorney's fees pursuant to section 287.203 RSMo 1994, as interpreted in P.M. v. Metromedia Steakhouses Co., 931 S.W.2d 846 (Mo. App.

E.D. 1996); and (4) finding employee had sustained a compensable injury for which future medical care was required pursuant to section 287.140 RSMo 1994. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. The Commission's award is supported by substantial and competent evidence on the whole record. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm in accordance with Rule 84.16(b). Footnotes: FN1. The State Treasurer as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund is not a party to this appeal although it is a party to the administrative proceedings below. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.

Authorities Cited

Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.

Statutes

Rules

Cases

Related Opinions

Other opinions in the same practice area.

Kathryn Torre-Stewart, Appellant/Plaintiff, v. The Washington University-St. Louis, Respondent/Defendant.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 24, 2026#ED113602

affirmed

The court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's disability discrimination and hostile work environment claims under the Missouri Human Rights Act because she failed to plead facts demonstrating legal disability or a hostile work environment based on disability. However, the court reversed and remanded the retaliation claim, finding that plaintiff alleged sufficient facts establishing the elements of retaliation under the Act based on her complaints of disability discrimination.

Read The Employment Law GuideGuide
Civil Litigationper_curiam7,351 words
Read opinion