Case ID: sw3d_136/html/0129-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Carlo PICCININO, Respondent/Employee, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Appellant/Employer, and Missouri State Treasurer, Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Appellant/Additional Party.
    No. ED 83565.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
    May 25, 2004.
    Daniel J. Harlan, St. Charles, MO, for General Motors Corp.
    Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Barbara L. Toepke, Caroline Bean, Asst. Attys. Gen., St. Louis, MO, for Missouri State Treasurer.
    Harry J. Nichols, Stephen G. Kaludis, St. Louis, MO, for respondent.
    Before GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., P.J. and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR. and MARY R. RUSSELL, JJ.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

General Motors Corporation (Employer) and the Second Injury Fund (Fund) appeal the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission), which modified the award of the administrative law judge (ALJ), awarding Carlo Piccinino (Claimant) disability benefits.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. We find the Commission’s award is supported by competent and substantial evidence. Section 287.495, RSMo 2000. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no prece-dential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).