Missouri Court of Appeals, 1994

Brown v. City of St. Louis

Brown v. City of St. Louis
Missouri Court of Appeals · Decided May 17, 1994 · Ahrens, Gaertner, Grimm
879 S.W.2d 651; 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 786; 1994 WL 187035 (South Western Reporter, Second Series)

Brown v. City of St. Louis

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Claimant appeals pro se from the denial of his workers’ compensation claim. We affirm.

Claimant’s brief does not comply with Rule 84.04. As stated in a previous workers’ compensation case appealed by this claimant, claimant filed “an incomprehensible brief.” Brown v. City of St. Louis, 842 S.W.2d 163, 165 (Mo.App.E.D. 1992). We would be justified in dismissing his appeal for this failure. Nevertheless, we elected to review his claims and find that none have merit.

The decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record. No error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value. Rule 84.16(b).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.