St. Louis Counsel
Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Center For Surgical Specialties, P.C. Missouri Cases

This party appears in the Ott Law Firm Missouri court opinion archive. The cases below connect legal research paths to related practice pages when the opinions map to practical client issues.

Party ID
center-for-surgical-specialties-pc
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Employment Law
Archive note: This is a summary of public court records and is not legal advice. Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source. 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 Practice Pages

Practical guidance connected to this party profile

These links route party-name research from the court archive into Ott Law Firm practice pages when the associated opinions map to a practical client issue.

Employment LawCivil LitigationWorkers' Compensation

Legal Help From The Archive

Need help turning court research into a case plan?

If a party-profile research path points to a current injury, employment, insurance, or litigation issue, Ott Law Firm can review the facts and explain practical next steps.

Free ConsultationCall Ott Law Firm

Cases Involving Center For Surgical Specialties, P.C.

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases
Respondent

S&B Hauling & Construction and Utah Business Insurance Company of America appealed a Labor and Industrial Relations Commission award concerning a medical fee dispute with The Center for Surgical Specialties, P.C. Appellants argued the Commission erroneously shifted the burden of proof regarding the reasonableness of medical charges and that there was insufficient evidence to support the award. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's award, clarifying that while the burden of going forward with evidence may shift, the ultimate burden of persuasion remains with the healthcare provider. The court also found sufficient competent evidence supported the Commission's decision that the medical fees were fair and reasonable.

Employment LawWorkers' CompensationCivil Litigation