Case ID: sw3d_194/html/0885-01.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

Mary Beth RUSH, Appellant, v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., Respondent.
    No. ED 87259.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
    June 30, 2006.
    Shawn M. Scharenborg, Jackson, MO, for appellant.
    Matthew D. Leonard, Simon and Early, P.C., St. Louis, MO, for respondent.
    Before GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., P.J., GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J., and KENNETH M. ROMINES, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mary Beth Rush (Rush) appeals the Labor and Industrial Commission’s (Commission’s) decision, which affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s denial of Rush’s workers’ compensation claim. On appeal, Rush argues that the Commission erred when it 1) found her account of her medical history was uncorroborated; 2) found that she changed her account of the accident over time; 3) relied too heavily on records of Rush’s chiropractor without a proper foundation by statutory affidavit; 4) found insufficient evidence of causation; and 5) found that an accident had not occurred.

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).