Ott Law Firm

GINA BEAMAN, Appellant vs. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, INC., Respondent

Decision date: June 23, 2020SD36473

Parties & Roles

Appellant
GINA BEAMAN

Disposition

Affirmed

Procedural posture: Appeal from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission

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

GINA BEAMAN, ) ) Appellant, ) ) vs. ) No. SD36473 ) LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, INC., ) Filed: June 23, 2020 ) Respondent. )

APPEAL FROM THE LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION AFFIRMED Gina Beaman lost a workers' compensation claim for failure to carry her burden of proof. She appeals, charging in each of six points that "there was not sufficient competent evidence" to support a decision against her. See § 287.495.1(4), RSMo. (2000) 1

Only factual findings needed to make an award for the employee need evidentiary support. Annayeva v. SAB of TSD of City of St. Louis, 597 S.W.3d 196, 200 n.8 (Mo. banc 2020). This tracks a basic precept – no evidence is needed to find against the party who bore the burden of proof or to uphold that decision on appeal. See, e.g., Taylor v. Taylor, 585 S.W.3d 390, 395 & n.5 (Mo. App. S.D. 2019). Offering no cognizable legal basis for reversal, Beaman's § 287.495.1(4) complaints fail without further discussion or analysis. See Guinn v. Treasurer, No. SD36380, slip op. at 9 (Mo. App. S.D. May 4, 2020). We reject all points and affirm the denial of benefits. MARY W. SHEFFIELD, J. – OPINION AUTHOR DANIEL E. SCOTT, P.J. – CONCURS DON E. BURRELL, J. – CONCURS

1 Harmonized with the constitutional standard ("supported by competent and substantial evidence[,]" Mo. Const. art. V, § 18) in Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.3d 220, 222 (Mo. banc 2003).

Authorities Cited

Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.

Cases

Holdings

Issue-specific holdings extracted from the court's opinion.

AI-generated
  1. Issue: Whether a workers' compensation decision against an employee, who failed to carry her burden of proof, can be reversed on appeal for lack of sufficient competent evidence to support the decision.

    No; no evidence is needed to find against the party who bore the burden of proof or to uphold that decision on appeal, and only factual findings needed to make an award for the employee require evidentiary support.

    Standard of review: supported by competent and substantial evidence

Related Opinions

Cases sharing legal topics and authorities with this opinion.

majority4,814 words
Read opinion