287.495. Final award conclusive unless an appeal is taken — grounds for setting aside — disputes governed by this section, claims arising on or after August 13, 1980. — 1. The final award of the commission shall be conclusive and binding unless either party to the dispute shall, within thirty days from the date of the final award, appeal the award to the appellate court. The appellate court shall have jurisdiction to review all decisions of the commission pursuant to this chapter where the division has original jurisdiction over the case. Venue as established by subsection 2 of section 287.640 shall determine the appellate court which hears the appeal. Such appeal may be taken by filing notice of appeal with the commission, whereupon the commission shall, under its certificate, return to the court all documents and papers on file in the matter, together with a transcript of the evidence, the findings and award, which shall thereupon become the record of the cause. Upon appeal no additional evidence shall be heard and, in the absence of fraud, the findings of fact made by the commission within its powers shall be conclusive and binding. The court, on appeal, shall review only questions of law and may modify, reverse, remand for rehearing, or set aside the award upon any of the following grounds and no other:
(1) That the commission acted without or in excess of its powers;
(2) That the award was procured by fraud;
(3) That the facts found by the commission do not support the award;
(4) That there was not sufficient competent evidence in the record to warrant the making of the award.
2. The provisions of this section shall apply to all disputes based on claims arising on or after August 13, 1980.
Notes of Decisions
Bolen v. Orchard Farm R-V Sch. Dist., 291 S.W.3d 747 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 18× “Section 287.495, the statutory source for appellate jurisdiction to review decisions issued under the Act, grants this court the ability to review final decisions of the Commission.”
Davis v. Rsch. Med. Ctr., 903 S.W.2d 557 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 6× “We cannot agree with the conclusion of the court of appeals that ‘Section 3732 [RSMo 1939, now § 287.495, RSMo 1994 6 ] has not been affected by the new Constitution.”
Otte v. Langley's Lawn Care, Inc., 66 S.W.3d 64 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 12× “Section 287.495, which governs awards from the commission, states that such awards “shall be conclusive and binding unless either party to the dispute shall, within thirty days from the date of the final award, appeal the award to the appellate court.”
Taylor v. Ballard R-II Sch. Dist., 274 S.W.3d 629 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 12× “Analysis Appellate review of the decisions of the Commission is prescribed by statute, section 287.495, and by article V, section 18, of the Missouri Constitution.”
Rector v. City of Springfield, 820 S.W.2d 639 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 10× “vorably to the Commission's order, there is sufficient evidence to support its finding that the employee was involved in a different on-the-job accident in 1987 resulting in additional partial disability to him or whether, as the employer contends, the only finding supported by…”
Strait v. Treasurer of Missouri, 257 S.W.3d 600 (Mo. 2008).
· cites it 8× “Section 287.495 provides in relevant part: "The final award of the commission shall be conclusive and binding unless either party to the dispute shall, within thirty days from the date of the final award, appeal the award to the appellate court.”
Treasurer of the State of Missouri, Appellant, v. Daryl Majors, Respondent, 506 S.W.3d 348 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 6× “*352 Standard of Review Our review of the Commission’s decision is governed by Article V, Section 18, of the Missouri Constitution and Section 287.495, RSMo.Cum. Supp. 2000. Article V, Section 18, provides for judicial review to determine whether the Commission’s award is…”
Martin v. Mid-Am. Farm Lines, Inc., 769 S.W.2d 105 (Mo. 1989).
· cites it 6× “) I would remand to the Commission for a hearing at which Martin will be allowed to produce proof in a manner consistent with the requirements of Section 287.250(3). Finally, on the issue of the medical bills, I would reverse.”
Boyer v. Nat'l Express Co., 49 S.W.3d 700 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 9× “On appeal, Boyer contends the Commission erred by: (1) finding and setting an amount of Boyer’s permanent partial disability because: (a) the Commission acted without or in excess of its powers pursuant to Section 287.495 RSMo 1994 (all further references herein shall be to RSMo…”
Buescher v. Missouri High. & Transp. Comm'n, 254 S.W.3d 105 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 6× “Schoemehl’s appeal from the Commission’s denial of her survivorship claim was proper, in that it was filed within thirty days of the final award, as required by Section 287.495. 3 Here, in contrast, the issue of survivorship benefits was not raised until well after Mr.”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 287.495(4) — 2 cases
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.