Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Eldon Bugg v. James L. Rutter, Jean Goldstein, and Christy Blakemoregreen1 sentence2023Employer’s Point III is denied. 21 Motion for Damages for Frivolous Appeal In Collins’s Point IV on cross-appeal, he requests that this Court award him attorney fees pursuant to Rule 84.19 for requiring him to respond to what he asserts is Employer’s frivolous appeal. 10 Rule 84.19 provides that “[i]f an appellate court shall determine that an appeal is frivolous it may award damages to the respondent as the court shall deem just and proper.” “The authority to assess damages for a frivolous appeal rests within the sound discretion of this court.” Bugg v. Rutter, 466 S.W.3d 596, 605 (Mo. App. W | 1 | 1 |
Karen Ritchie v. Silgan Containers Manufacturing Corp. and Travelers Casualty Ins. of Americagreen2 sentences2023Similarly, in Ritchie, the Commission found, even though a doctor had treated Ritchie in 2014 for elbow pain that the doctor believed was exacerbated by her operation of a forklift, the doctor who diagnosed Ritchie with complex regional pain syndrome, lateral epicondylitis, and cubital tunnel syndrome in 2017 “was the only diagnostician to make a causal connection between the repetitive motion disease and some work-related activity or exposure.” Ritchie, 625 S.W.3d at 792, 796. 2023Employer argues that this Court’s focus should be on interpreting the word “condition” in the statute to mean “defective state of health” such that Collins’s “condition” was the disc herniation at L5-S1 that was discovered by an MRI performed on April 11, 2018. “‘Looking to the plain, obvious, and natural import of the [statutory] language, it follows that a person cannot be diagnosed with an “occupational disease or repetitive trauma” until a diagnostician makes a causal connection between the underlying medical condition and some work-related activity or exposure.’” Ritchie, 625 S.W.3d at 79 | 1 | 1 |
Hannick v. Kelly Temporary Servicesgreen1 sentence2002The city contends the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission erred in awarding claimant benefits for his neck injury because claimant failed to comply with the notice requirements of § 287.420; that claimant failed to prove the city was not prejudiced by the lack of timely notice “and failed to demonstrate any good cause for failing to give timely notice of his injury.” The purpose of § 287.420 “is to enable the employer to minimize injury by providing medical diagnosis and to facilitate timely investigation of facts surrounding the injury.” Gander v. Shelby County, 988 S.W.2d 892, 895 (Mo. | 1 | 1 |
Prater v. Thorngate, Ltd.green1 sentence2002Maxon, 9 S.W.3d at 733 ; Bryant, 963 S.W.2d at 348 ; Weniger, 860 S.W.2d at 361 ; Elgersma, 829 S.W.2d at 37 ; Prater v. Thomgate, Ltd., 761 S.W.2d 226, 229 (Mo.App.1988). | 1 | 1 |
Hillenburg v. Lester E. Cox Medical Centergreen1 sentence1995Cox Medical Center, 879 S.W.2d 652, 655 [3] (Mo.App.1994). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Elgersma v. DePaul Health Center
green
2 sentences2002Maxon, 9 S.W.3d at 733 ; Bryant, 963 S.W.2d at 348 ; Weniger, 860 S.W.2d at 361 ; Elgersma, 829 S.W.2d at 37 ; Prater v. Thomgate, Ltd., 761 S.W.2d 226, 229 (Mo.App.1988). 1993Elgersma, 829 S.W.2d at 37 . | 2 | 1993–2002 |
Allcorn v. Tap Enterprises, Inc.
green
2 sentences2023Employer disagrees with the Allcorn court’s determination that it is not the diagnosis of a medical condition itself that triggers the notice requirement of section 287.420 but, rather, when “a diagnostician makes a causal connection between the underlying medical condition and some work-related activity or exposure.” Id. at 829 . 2023Employer contends that the Commission erred in relying exclusively on Allcorn v. Tap Enterprises, Inc., 277 S.W.3d 823 (Mo. App. S.D. 2009), in finding that the notice requirement pursuant to section 287.420 was not triggered until the Diagnostic Doctor opined on June 17, 2020, that Collins’s work duties caused his occupational disease. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Maxon v. Leggett & Platt
red
1 sentence2002Maxon, 9 S.W.3d at 733 ; Bryant, 963 S.W.2d at 348 ; Weniger, 860 S.W.2d at 361 ; Elgersma, 829 S.W.2d at 37 ; Prater v. Thomgate, Ltd., 761 S.W.2d 226, 229 (Mo.App.1988). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Weniger v. Pulitzer Publishing Co.
green
1 sentence2002Maxon, 9 S.W.3d at 733 ; Bryant, 963 S.W.2d at 348 ; Weniger, 860 S.W.2d at 361 ; Elgersma, 829 S.W.2d at 37 ; Prater v. Thomgate, Ltd., 761 S.W.2d 226, 229 (Mo.App.1988). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Lott
neutral
1 sentence2002Maxon, 9 S.W.3d at 733 ; Bryant, 963 S.W.2d at 348 ; Weniger, 860 S.W.2d at 361 ; Elgersma, 829 S.W.2d at 37 ; Prater v. Thomgate, Ltd., 761 S.W.2d 226, 229 (Mo.App.1988). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.