Case ID: sw3d_186/html/0416-01.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

Charles KETCHUM, Respondent, v. COMMERCIAL INSTALLATION & CONSTRUCTION CO., and Missouri Printing Industry Trust, Appellants, and Lawrence O. Willbrand, Cross-Appellant.
    Nos. ED 86444, ED 86491.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
    Jan. 24, 2006.
    Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 2, 2006.
    Application for Transfer Denied April 11, 2006.
    
      Jeffrey Michael Proske, Mary Anne Lindsey (co-counsel), St. Louis, MO, for appellants.
    Lawrence 0. Willbrand, St. Louis, MO, for respondent Ketchum.
    Dana M. Ellison, St. Louis, MO, for respondent Treasurer of MO.
    Lawrence 0. Willbrand, St. Louis, MO, pro se, cross-appellant.
    Before GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., P.J., GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J., and KENNETH M. ROMINES, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Commercial Installation and Construction Co. and Missouri Printing Industry Trust appeal the Labor and Industrial Commission’s (Commission’s) award of permanent total disability benefits to Charles E. Ketchum (Ketchum). On appeal, Commercial argues that the Commission erred as a matter of law and exceeded its jurisdiction when it awarded Ketchum permanent total disability benefits. Ket-chum’s attorney, Lawrence 0. Willbrand (Willbrand), cross-appeals the Commission’s limitation of his attorney’s fees award.

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). 
      
      . Appellants will collectively be referred to as “Commercial.''
     
      
      . The Second Injury Fund was originally a party in this case. However, the Commission did not find Second Injury Fund liability, and neither is this liability an issue on appeal.