Case Name: Mary Beth RUSH, Appellant, v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2006-06-30
Citations: 194 S.W.3d 885
Docket Number: No. ED 87259
Parties: Mary Beth RUSH, Appellant, v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., Respondent.
Judges: Before GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., P.J., GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J., and KENNETH M. ROMINES, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 194
Pages: 885–886

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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 medi cal 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).