Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Stahl Speciality Company 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
stahl-speciality-company
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Stahl Speciality Company

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Jul 26, 2022

Ronald Lamy vs. Stahl Speciality Company

Respondent

Ronald Lamy appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's denial of his workers' compensation claim for a left wrist injury, arguing an earlier compromise settlement only covered his left shoulder. The Commission had concluded the prior settlement, which addressed a "left upper extremity" injury, encompassed the wrist injury and thus exhausted its jurisdiction. The appellate court affirmed, finding no legal error in the Commission's determination that the broad language of the compromise settlement, coupled with Lamy's knowledge of the wrist condition, precluded the new claim.