OTT LAW

Ron E. Taylor, Appellant, v. Taylor Brothers Home Builders, and American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Respondents.

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: Ron E. Taylor, Appellant, v. Taylor Brothers Home Builders, and American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Respondents. Case Number: 72103 Handdown Date: 12/09/1997 Appeal From: Labor and Industrial Relations Commission Counsel for Appellant: Counsel for Respondent: Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Crahan, C.J., Crandall, Jr., J., and Crist, Sr.J., concur. Opinion: ORDER Ron E. Taylor (Employee) appeals the judgment of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission denying his claim for permanent and total disability benefits from Taylor Brothers Home Builders (Employer) and awarding him only compensation for permanent and partial disability benefits. We review the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission to determine whether the findings are authorized by the law and supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the decision. Sitzes v. Sitzes Repair Service & Towing, 898 S.W.2d 95, 97 (Mo. App. 1994); Section 287.490, RSMo 1994. We have reviewed the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties and find the decision was supported by competent and substantial evidence and no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment 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.

Related Opinions