Case ID: sw3d_175/html/0207-01.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

Robert PRATTE, Appellant, v. HAUSER MECHANICAL and Hanover Insurance Company, Respondents.
    No. ED 86134.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
    Nov. 1, 2005.
    David J. Jerome, Schuchat, Cook & Werner, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
    Brian K. McBrearty, McBrearty, Hart & Kelly, L.C., Clayton, MO, Emily Rushing Kelly, Asst. Attorney General, St. Louis, MO, for respondents.
    Before GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., P.J., GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J., and KENNETH M. ROMINES, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Robert Pratte (Pratte) appeals the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s Final Award Denying Compensation to Pratte. The Commission affirmed the administrative law judge’s finding that, because Pratte’s allegations were contradicted by his medical records, the date of his injury could not be ascertained “with any degree of reasonable certainty.” Considering the whole record, the Commission’s decision is supported by sufficient, competent and substantial evidence. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the Record on Appeal, and we find no error of law in this case. Thus, a written opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b)(4).