Ott Law Firm Agent-Safe Plain Text
Official source remains authoritative.

Case: James Cowhick, Claimant/Appellant, v. Sealed Power Corporation, Employer/Respondent, and Planet Insurance Company, Insurer/Respondent.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: employment
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/james-cowhick-claimantappellant-v-sealed-power-corporation-employerrespon-16980
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=16980
Related Practice Areas:
- Employment Law: https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment?ott_archive=missouri-courts&ott_archive_practice_area=employment&ott_archive_query=James+Cowhick%2C+Claimant%2FAppellant%2C+v.+Sealed+Power+Corporation%2C+Employer%2FRespondent%2C+and+Planet+Insurance+Company%2C+Insurer%2FRespondent.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=24&ott_archive_link_evidence=tag%3A+employment%3B+text%3A+employer&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: employment; source: tag; score: 24; evidence: tag: employment, text: employer)
- Insurance Bad Faith: https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith?ott_archive=missouri-courts&ott_archive_practice_area=insurance-bad-faith&ott_archive_query=James+Cowhick%2C+Claimant%2FAppellant%2C+v.+Sealed+Power+Corporation%2C+Employer%2FRespondent%2C+and+Planet+Insurance+Company%2C+Insurer%2FRespondent.&ott_archive_link_source=text&ott_archive_link_score=8&ott_archive_link_evidence=text%3A+insurer%3B+text%3A+insurance+company&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: insurance-bad-faith; source: text; score: 8; evidence: text: insurer, text: insurance company)
- Workers' Compensation: https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation?ott_archive=missouri-courts&ott_archive_practice_area=workers-compensation&ott_archive_query=James+Cowhick%2C+Claimant%2FAppellant%2C+v.+Sealed+Power+Corporation%2C+Employer%2FRespondent%2C+and+Planet+Insurance+Company%2C+Insurer%2FRespondent.&ott_archive_link_source=text&ott_archive_link_score=6&ott_archive_link_evidence=text%3A+labor+and+industrial+relations+commission%3B+text%3A+occupational+disease&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: workers-compensation; source: text; score: 6; evidence: text: labor and industrial relations commission, text: occupational disease)

---
## 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.