Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Jonathan Mirfasihi 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
jonathan-mirfasihi
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Workers' Compensation
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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.

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.

Cases Involving Jonathan Mirfasihi

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Mar 30, 2021

Jonathan Mirfasihi vs. Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies, LLC

Appellant

Jonathan Mirfasihi appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's denial of his workers' compensation claim for a thumb injury, which he asserted was an occupational disease caused by his work duties at Honeywell. The Commission reversed an administrative law judge's award, finding Mirfasihi failed to demonstrate that his work duties were the prevailing factor causing his injury, particularly due to a lack of expert medical opinion linking specific activities to his condition. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's final award, concluding that the Commission did not err in its findings regarding the absence of expert medical evidence for causation or in its evaluation of conflicting medical opinions.