St. Louis Counsel
Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Thomas Hasselbring 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
thomas-hasselbring
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Civil Litigation
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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.

Civil 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 Thomas Hasselbring

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases
Appellant

Thomas Hasselbring appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's denial of worker's compensation benefits for a leg amputation. Hasselbring argued the Commission erred in finding that a work-related accident was not the prevailing factor in his disability, but rather a pre-existing popliteal aneurysm. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's award, concluding that its findings were supported by competent and substantial evidence and that it did not exceed its powers by applying the prevailing factor test or adopting an expert's opinion.

Workers' CompensationCivil Litigation