287.100. Legislative intent relative to other laws expressed. — Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as amending or repealing any statute or ordinance relating to associations or funds for the relief, pension, retirement, or other benefit of firemen, policemen, or other public employees, their widows, children or dependents, or as in any manner interfering with such associations, funds or benefits, now or hereafter established, but any such public employees, his widow, children or dependents, who shall receive compensation under this chapter shall have deducted from any benefit otherwise payable by any pension or other benefit fund to which the municipal corporation or other public employer contributes, a part of such benefit proportionate to the amount then being contributed to such fund by such employer, which deductions shall be made only during the compensation period. Nor shall anything in this chapter be construed as interfering with the right of any public employee to draw full wages, or collect and retain his full fees, so long as he holds his office, appointment or employment, but the period during which the same are received after the injury shall be deducted from the period of compensation payments due hereunder.
Notes of Decisions
Morrow v. City of Kansas City, 788 S.W.2d 278 (Mo. 1990).
· cites it 15× “The employer contended that under § 287.100, RSMo 1978, and § 287.160.3, RSMo Supp.”
City of St. Louis v. Grimes, 630 S.W.2d 82 (Mo. 1982).
· cites it 16× “Second, it is asserted by appellant that § 287.100, RSMo 1978, when properly construed, declares a legislative intent that *86 the Workers’ Compensation Law not displace or interfere with public employee rights under pension or wage continuation plans adopted by local…”
Strohmeyer v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 396 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. Ct. App. 1965).
· cites it 10× “However, the arguments advanced with respect to § 287.100, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., are more extensive in the instant case than those presented in Point and a further look at that section is in order.”
St. Louis Police Officers' Ass'n v. Bd. of Police Commissioners, 846 S.W.2d 732 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 9× “However, section 287.100, RSMo 1986 (section 287.100), provides, in part: Nor shall anything in this chapter be construed as interfering with the right of any public employee to draw full wages, and retain his full fees, so long as he holds his office, appointment or employment.”
Evans v. Missouri Utils. Co., 671 S.W.2d 812 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 3× “Section 287.100, RSMo 1978, expressly required the credit in City of St.”
Shelton v. City of Springfield, 130 S.W.3d 30 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “” Section 287.100. 4 Shelton argues, however, that his pension claim nonetheless overlaps with his workers’ compensation claim, so that collateral estoppel is appropriate, because both the Pension Plan and the Workers’ Compensation Law use similar terms of art and require…”
Reifschneider v. City of Des Peres Pub. Saf. Comm'n, 776 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. 1989).
· cites it 2× “The petition also purported to seek relief under § 287.100, RSMo 1986, which provides a cause of action when an employer discriminates against an employee for exercising his rights under workers’ compensation law.”
State ex rel. Chang v. Ely, 26 S.W.3d 214 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).
“She later processed a claim for compensation pursuant to §§ 287.100 et seq., RSMo 1994, and received benefits.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.