Russell v. MATTINGLY LUMBER AND MILLWORK
Cases that cite this one
1 later published case cites this decision.
- Moore v. Moore (Mo. Ct. App. 2006)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
ORDER
Michael Russell (“Employee”) appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s (“Commission”) finding that Mattingly Lumber & Millwork (“Employer”) is not liable to Employee for any further medical treatment and that Employee suffered only a 5% permanent partial disability of his body. We affirm.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value.
The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.