Joel Stenger, Respondent-Employee, v. Rogers Development Company, and R&R Bermuda Road Properties, Inc., and General Accident/Travelers Insurance Company, Appellants.
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.
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: Joel Stenger, Respondent-Employee, v. Rogers Development Company, and R&R Bermuda Road Properties, Inc., and General Accident/Travelers Insurance Company, Appellants. Case Number: 73454 Handdown Date: 06/09/1998 Appeal From: Labor and Industrial Relations Commission Counsel for Appellant: Thomas B. Tobin, William Lemp and Edward M. Vokoun Counsel for Respondent: Rex M. Burlison 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 General Accident/Travelers Insurance Company (Travelers), Rogers Development Co. (RDC), and R&R Bermuda Road Properties, Inc. (R&R) (collectively referred to as Appellants) appeal from a Temporary or Partial Award of workers' compensation benefits entered in favor of Joel Stenger (Claimant) by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission). Appellants contend the Commission erred in (1) determining Claimant was the joint employee of RDC and R&R, and (2) awarding Claimant attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Section 287.560 RSMo 1994. Travelers also contends the Commission erred in not piercing the corporate veil to find an individual was Claimant's employer. R&R and RDC also contend the Commission erred in concluding Claimant was an employee rather than an independent contractor. 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). Separate Opinion: None 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