James Cowhick, Claimant/Appellant, v. Sealed Power Corporation, Employer/Respondent, and Planet Insurance Company, Insurer/Respondent.
Decision date: Unknown
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.
Syllabus
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: James Cowhick, Claimant/Appellant, v. Sealed Power Corporation, Employer/Respondent, and Planet Insurance Company, Insurer/Respondent. Case Number: No. 71177 Handdown Date: 05/27/1997 Appeal From: Labor and Industrial Relations Commission Counsel for Appellant: Counsel for Respondent: Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: Per Curiam. Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Opinion:
Before Clifford H. Ahrens, C.J., William H. Crandall Jr., and Charles B. Blackmar, Sr. J. ORDER The claimant has worked for many years in a physically demanding job requiring heavy lifting and strong exertion. He filed two separate claims asserting occupational disease, one relating to the upper extremities, hands, and wrists, and the other to the cervical and lumbar spines. The Administrative Law Judge awarded permanent partial disability on the former claim, but denied the claims for additional temporary total
disability and further reimbursement for medical expenses. He found that the claimant had not established the element of causation as to the cervical and lumbar spine claims, and so denied both compensation and reimbursement for medical expenses. The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, after a remand, upheld the decision of the ALJ. We affirm the decision of the Commission. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
PER CURIAM
Separate Opinion: This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
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