You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Wright v. TG Missouri Corp.

Citations: 499 S.W.3d 764; 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 972; 2016 WL 5724843Docket: No. ED 104032

Court: Missouri Court of Appeals; October 4, 2016; Missouri; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Robert G. Wright, Jr. sustained a 30% permanent partial disability due to a work-related accident in 2010. The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission awarded him medical expenses, temporary total disability benefits, and future medical treatment. TG Missouri Corporation and The Hartford Insurance Companies, Ltd. appealed this decision. The court found the Commission's ruling to be supported by competent and substantial evidence and affirmed the award. The court reviewed the parties' briefs and the legal file, concluding that the claims of error were without merit, with no legal errors identified. An extended opinion detailing the facts and legal principles was deemed unnecessary; however, a memorandum opinion outlining the reasons for the decision was provided for the parties. The judgment was affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Legal Issues Addressed

Affirmation of Commission's Awards

Application: The court affirmed the award of medical expenses, temporary total disability benefits, and future medical treatment provided by the Commission.

Reasoning: The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission awarded him medical expenses, temporary total disability benefits, and future medical treatment.

Appellate Review under Rule 84.16(b)

Application: The court utilized Rule 84.16(b) to affirm the judgment without an extended opinion, citing no need for detailed exposition of facts and legal principles.

Reasoning: The judgment was affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Standard of Review for Administrative Agency Decisions

Application: The court applies the standard of review to determine if the Commission's decision is supported by competent and substantial evidence.

Reasoning: The court found the Commission's ruling to be supported by competent and substantial evidence and affirmed the award.