Skip to content
Ott Law Firm

Raymond L. Stroup, Employee/Respondent, v. Von Weise Gear Company, and Hartford Insurance Company, Employer/Insurer/Appellant.

Decision date: Unknown

Parties & Roles

Disposition

Affirmed

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

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: Raymond L. Stroup, Employee/Respondent, v. Von Weise Gear Company, and Hartford Insurance Company, Employer/Insurer/Appellant. Case Number: 72286 Handdown Date: 11/25/1997 Appeal From: Labor and Industrial Relations Commission Counsel for Appellant: Richard A. Day Counsel for Respondent: Craig E. Hellmann Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Grimm, P.J., Pudlowski and Gaertner, JJ., concur. Opinion: ORDER Employer appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission awarding employee permanent partial disability and medical treatment attributable to reactive airway disease. Employer appeals on two grounds. First, it asserts the employee failed to give proper notice of the alleged accident in accordance with Section 287.420 RSMo 1994. Second, employer argues the Commission's findings that claimant was exposed to trichlorethylene and other chemicals is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to 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.

Authorities Cited

Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.

Statutes

Rules

Related Opinions

Other opinions in the same practice area.

Kathryn Torre-Stewart, Appellant/Plaintiff, v. The Washington University-St. Louis, Respondent/Defendant.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 24, 2026#ED113602

affirmed

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.

Read The Employment Law GuideGuide
Civil Litigationper_curiam7,351 words
Read opinion