Case Name: Joel STENGER, Respondent/Employee, v. ROGERS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, and R&R Bermuda Road Properties, Inc., and General Accident/Travelers Insurance Company, Appellants
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1998-06-09
Citations: 972 S.W.2d 594
Docket Number: No. 73454
Parties: Joel STENGER, Respondent/Employee, v. ROGERS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, and R&R Bermuda Road Properties, Inc., and General Accident/Travelers Insurance Company, Appellants.
Judges: Before ROBERT G. DOWD, Jr., P.J., and SIMON and HOFF, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 972
Pages: 594–595

Head Matter:
Joel STENGER, Respondent/Employee, v. ROGERS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, and R&R Bermuda Road Properties, Inc., and General Accident/Travelers Insurance Company, Appellants.
No. 73454.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
June 9, 1998.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 28, 1998.
Application for Transfer Denied Aug. 25, 1998.
Thomas B. Tobin, The Cullinane Law Firm, St. Louis, for Rogers Dev. Co.
William Lemp, Clayton, for R&R Bermuda Rd. Prop.
Edward M. Vokoun, Evans & Dixon, St. Louis, for appellant.
Rex M. Burlison, Burlison, Suddarth & Koor, L.L.C., O’Fallon, for respondent-employee.
Before ROBERT G. DOWD, Jr., P.J., and SIMON and HOFF, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
General Accident/Travelers Insurance Company (Travelers), Rogers Development Co. (RDC), and R & R Bermuda Road Properties, Inc. (R & R) (collectively referred to as Appellants) appeal from a Temporary or Partial Award of workers' compensation benefits entered in favor of Joel Stenger (Claimant) by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission).
Appellants contend the Commission erred in (1) determining Claimant was the joint employee of RDC and R & R, and (2) awarding Claimant attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Section 287.560 RSMo 1994. Travelers also contends the Commission erred in not piercing the corporate veil to find an individual was Claimant's employer. R & R and RDC also contend the Commission erred in concluding Claimant was an employee rather than an independent contractor.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. The Commission's award is supported by substantial and competent evidence on the whole record. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).