Case Name: Jeffrey SAULS, Employee/Appellant, v. PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Employer/Respondent, and Division of Employment Security, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2012-08-28
Citations: 375 S.W.3d 263
Docket Number: No. ED 97834
Parties: Jeffrey SAULS, Employee/Appellant, v. PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Employer/Respondent, and Division of Employment Security, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: Before CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, P.J., SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J., and GLENN A. NORTON, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 375
Pages: 263–263

Head Matter:
Jeffrey SAULS, Employee/Appellant, v. PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Employer/Respondent, and Division of Employment Security, Respondent/Respondent.
No. ED 97834.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division 1.
Aug. 28, 2012.
John J. Ammann, St. Louis, MO, for Employee/Appellant.
Stuart H. Berkowitz, St. Louis, MO, for Employer/Respondent.
Larry R. Ruhmann, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent DES.
Before CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, P.J., SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J., and GLENN A. NORTON, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Jeffrey Sauls appeals from the award of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (the Commission) denying him unemployment benefits. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the Commission's decision is supported by sufficient competent and substantial evidence. Berwin v. Lindenwood Female College, 205 S.W.3d 291, 294 (Mo.App. E.D.2006). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the decision pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).