claimant brief in Missouri

2018Lastly, Claimant's brief violates Rule 84.04(e) because it fails to set forth the applicable standard of review, presents no legal argument for reversal, nor does it contain any citation to legal authority or "specific page references to the relevant portion of the record on appeal." An argument section "should develop the claim of error by showing the interaction between the relevant principles of law and the facts of the particular case." Johnson , 300 S.W.3d 580 , 582.

2018In her argument section, Claimant makes numerous factual assertions *462 unrelated to the Commission's determination of her case, and exclusively argues the merits of her underlying employment claim for unemployment benefits, which is not before this Court for review; thus, Claimant's brief does not provide a "legal reason for any claim of reversible error or explains why those reasons constitute error in the context of the case." Id. ; see also Taylor v. St.

2014Plank v. Koehr, 831 S.W.2d 926, 927 (Mo. banc 1992) ("It is not grounds for objection that the information may be inadmissible at trial, but it is sufficient if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."). 6 Judge Schaefer did not exceed her jurisdiction in granting the SIF's requests to depose Dolan and denying Claimant's motion to quash.

2014Plank v. Koehr, 831 S.W.2d 926, 927 (Mo. banc 1992) (“It is not grounds for objection that the information may be inadmissible at trial, but it is sufficient if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”). 6 Judge Schaefer did not exceed her jurisdiction in granting the SIF’s requests to depose Dolan and denying Claimant’s motion to quash.

2007“The primary purpose of the statement of facts is to afford an immediate, accurate, complete and unbiased understanding of the facts of the case.” In re the Marriage of Shumpert, 144 S.W.3d 317, 320 (Mo.App.

2007“The primary purpose of the statement of facts is to afford an immediate, accurate, complete and unbiased understanding of the facts of the case.” In re Marriage of Shumpert, 144 S.W.3d 317, 320 (Mo.App.

2007Livingston v. Schnuck Mkts., Inc., 184 S.W.3d 617, 619 (Mo.App.

2007Livingston v. Schnuck Mkts., Inc., 184 S.W.3d 617, 619 (Mo.App.

2006“An appellate court is obliged to determine only those questions stated in the points relied on.” McMillan v. Wells, 924 S.W.2d 33, 37 (Mo.App.1996). ‘Where a brief fails to comply with the applicable rules and does not sufficiently advise the court of the contentions asserted and the merit thereof, ‘the court is left with the dilemma of deciding that case (and possibly establishing precedent for future cases) on the basis of inadequate briefing and advocacy or undertaking additional research and briefing to supply the deficiency.’ ” Huffman v. SBC Services, Inc., 136 S.W.3d 592, 594 (Mo.App.2

1996Each is designated “POINT II.” The first reads: “The Industrial Commission erred in affirming the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that the in [sic] injury of November 3,1989 was outside the scope of employment for the reason the ALJ and the Commission should have found competent and substantial evidence on the whole record to establish the Claimant met her burden of proof that the fall was compen-sable.” The second reads: “The Commission and the ALJ erred in not relying on the Claimant’s testimony and failing to follow the statutory presumptions in favor of the Claimant.” The pu

2012Id.

2007Bishop v. Metro Restoration Services, Inc., 209 S.W.3d 43, 45 (Mo.App.

2024Supp. 2021 (effective from August 28, 2021, to the present); Malone v. Treasurer of State, 72 S.W.3d 608, 610 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002). 2 On June 22, 2023, the Commission entered an order denying Claimant’s motion for reconsideration.

2024See id.

2024See id.; section 287.495.1; Thorp, 390 S.W.3d at 875 ; Harris, 53 S.W.3d at 167 ; see also Rutherford, 458 S.W.3d at 461 .

2022We first note that Claimant's brief introduces new facts in its statement of facts in violation of 84.04(c)'s requirement that the statement of facts "be a fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination without argument," and contrary to the purpose of the statement of facts, which "is to afford an immediate, accurate, complete and unbiased understanding of the facts of the case." Vogel v. Steffen, 628 S.W.3d 224 , 226 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021) (emphasis added) (quoting Lattimer v. Clark, 412 S.W.3d 420, 422 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013)).

2022We first note that Claimant's brief introduces new facts in its statement of facts in violation of 84.04(c)'s requirement that the statement of facts "be a fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination without argument," and contrary to the purpose of the statement of facts, which "is to afford an immediate, accurate, complete and unbiased understanding of the facts of the case." Vogel v. Steffen, 628 S.W.3d 224 , 226 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021) (emphasis added) (quoting Lattimer v. Clark, 412 S.W.3d 420, 422 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013)).

2021See Thomas, 326 S.W.3d at 880-81 .

2021Thus, the Commission’s denial under 8 CSR 20-3.030(2) has no bearing on the ALJ’s determination under 8 CSR 50-2.010(11). 12 Thomas, 326 S.W.3d at 883 .

2020Of Missouri, Inc., 515 S.W.3d 804, 807 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017). 2 All statutory references are to RSMo (2019), which was the version of the statute in effect at the time of Claimant’s claim, unless otherwise indicated. 6 Discussion Point I: The Commission did not Err in Finding Employee Failed to Prove She Sustained an Occupational Disease While Working for Employer In Point I, Claimant argues the Commission exceeded its authority by substituting its own medical opinion of causation for the opinion of her doctor.

2019Comm’n, 287 S.W.3d 671, 673 (Mo. banc 2009). “‘The prevailing factor’ is defined to be the primary factor, in relation to any other factor, causing both the resulting medical condition and disability.” § 287.020.3(1) (emphasis omitted).

2019See Lawrence, 310 S.W.3d at 251 ("Pursuant to Section 287.063.3, the statute of limitations did not begin to run on Claimant's claim of tinnitus until it became reasonably discoverable and apparent that her tinnitus was related to the noise exposure while working for Employer.").

2019Scott v. King, 510 S.W.3d 887, 892 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017). 2 concentration.

2017Edwards v. Zweifel, 498 S.W.3d 860, 862 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016).

2017While it is correct that Claimarit’s burden to prove that the work accident was the prevailing factor causing his knee injury is one of reasonable probability, see Hoven, 414 S.W.3d at 678 , that standard of proof does not change the fact that “competing expert witness opinions present a question of fact for the Commission tó decide.” Campbell v. Trees Unlimited, Inc., 505 S.W.3d 805, 808 (Mo. App. S.D. 2016). 8 Here, the Commission determined that because of “the complex.nature of the claimed injury” to Claimant’s right knee, the Commission would not rely on its “own lay opinions[,]” or even

2013See Taylor v. Contract Freighters, Inc., 315 S.W.3d 379, 380 (Mo.App.