From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McPherson v. St. Louis Regional Medical Center

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One
Nov 15, 1994
886 S.W.2d 754 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994)

Opinion

No. 66171.

November 15, 1994.

APPEAL FROM THE LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION.

Leroy Crouther, Jr., St. Louis, for appellants.

Robert N. Hendershot, St. Louis, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.


ORDER


Claimants appeal an award of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission denying their claim for death benefits as partial dependents of their deceased son, who was killed in the course of his employment. We affirm.

Employer/insurer was directed to pay $5,000 in funeral expenses, an award which is not challenged on appeal.

Claimants' sole contention on appeal is that the Commission applied an incorrect legal standard in determining whether they were partial dependents of the decedent within the meaning of § 287.240 RSMo Cum.Supp. 1993. We have reviewed the record, the Commission's award and the briefs of the parties and find that the Commission's award is consistent with the applicable legal standard and is supported by competent and substantial evidence. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the award pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).


Summaries of

McPherson v. St. Louis Regional Medical Center

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One
Nov 15, 1994
886 S.W.2d 754 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994)
Case details for

McPherson v. St. Louis Regional Medical Center

Case Details

Full title:MACEO AND ANNA M. McPHERSON, CLAIMANTS/APPELLANTS, v. ST. LOUIS REGIONAL…

Court:Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One

Date published: Nov 15, 1994

Citations

886 S.W.2d 754 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994)

Citing Cases

Morris v. Southern Pacific Company

" This language has been explicitly approved by this court in Cary v. Los Angeles Ry. Co., 157 Cal. 599, [21…