Skip to content
Ott Law Firm

William Wagner, Employee/Appellant, v. William Wagner, Employee/Respondent and Commercial Union Insurance, Insurer/Respondent.

Decision date: Unknown

Parties & Roles

Disposition

Mixed outcome

  • {"type":"affirmed","scope":null}
  • {"type":"modified","scope":null}

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: 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.

Authorities Cited

Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.

Rules

Cases

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