Case Name: Raymond HARGIS, Employee/Respondent, v. REE'S CONTRACT SERVICES, INC., Employer/Appellant, and Treasurer, State of Missouri, as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Additional Party/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2005-06-28
Citations: 165 S.W.3d 528
Docket Number: No. ED 85646
Parties: Raymond HARGIS, Employee/Respondent, v. REE’S CONTRACT SERVICES, INC., Employer/Appellant, and Treasurer, State of Missouri, as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Additional Party/Respondent.
Judges: Before PATRICIA L. COHEN, P.J. and KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 165
Pages: 528–528

Head Matter:
Raymond HARGIS, Employee/Respondent, v. REE’S CONTRACT SERVICES, INC., Employer/Appellant, and Treasurer, State of Missouri, as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Additional Party/Respondent.
No. ED 85646.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
June 28, 2005.
John P. Kafoury, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Robert J. Lenze, Michael T. Finneran, Office of the Attorney General, St. Louis, MO, for respondent.
Before PATRICIA L. COHEN, P.J. and KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Ree's Contract Services, Inc. (Employer) appeals from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's (Commission) award finding Raymond Hargis (Claimant) permanently and totally disabled as a result of an injury he sustained while working for Employer, and awarding future medical and psychiatric benefits. Employer contends the Commission's award is not supported by competent and substantial evidence and is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. After reviewing the whole record, we find the Commission's award is supported by competent and substantial evidence and is not contrary the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.3d 220, 223 (Mo. banc 2003). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. 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).