William Wagner, Employee/Appellant, v. William Wagner, Employee/Respondent and Commercial Union Insurance, 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.
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: William Wagner, Employee/Appellant, v. William Wagner, Employee/Respondent and Commercial Union Insurance, Insurer/Respondent. Case Number: 73738 Handdown Date: 09/15/1998 Appeal From: Labor and Industrial Relations Commission Counsel for Appellant: James F. McCartney Counsel for Respondent: Susan M. Kelly Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Hoff, P.J., Gaertner and Rhodes Russell, J.J., concur. Opinion: ORDER Opinion modified by Court's own motion on October 20, 1998. This substitution does not constitute a new opinion. In this workers' compensation case, William Wagner (Employee) appeals from the final award of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) affirming the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), which awarded Employee permanent partial disability of 20 percent of the right wrist. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the Commission's award is supported by competent and substantial evidence and further, is not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Davis v. Research Medical Center, 903 S.W.2d 557, 565 (Mo. App. 1995). An extended opinion would have no
precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. 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
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