GINA BEAMAN, Appellant vs. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, INC., Respondent
Decision date: June 23, 2020SD36473
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.
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).
Related Opinions
Kathryn Torre-Stewart, Appellant/Plaintiff, v. The Washington University-St. Louis, Respondent/Defendant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 24, 2026#ED113602
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.
Karla K. Allsberry, Appellant, vs. Patrick S. Flynn, et al., Respondents.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictDecember 23, 2025#ED113270
Connie Haworth vs. Guest Services, Inc., et al.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictNovember 25, 2025#WD87623
Victoria Amrine vs. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Employer, and Division of Employment Security(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictNovember 25, 2025#WD88066
Phillip Weeks, Appellant, vs. City of St. Louis, Respondent.(2025)
Supreme Court of MissouriNovember 4, 2025#SC101018