Case Name: Victor R. MISURACA (deceased), Employee/Respondent, and Patricia Misuraca, Dependent/Respondent, v. GENCORP, INCORPORATED, Employer/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2002-09-24
Citations: 86 S.W.3d 129
Docket Number: No. ED 80566
Parties: Victor R. MISURACA (deceased), Employee/Respondent, and Patricia Misuraca, Dependent/Respondent, v. GENCORP, INCORPORATED, Employer/Appellant.
Judges: Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J., and MARY K. HOFF, J., and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 86
Pages: 129–129

Head Matter:
Victor R. MISURACA (deceased), Employee/Respondent, and Patricia Misuraca, Dependent/Respondent, v. GENCORP, INCORPORATED, Employer/Appellant.
No. ED 80566.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Sept. 24, 2002.
Ellen E. Morgan, Law Offices of Ellen E. Morgan, Ballwin, MO, for appellant.
Duane L. Coleman, Lewis, Rice & Fing-ersh, L.C., St. Louis, MO, for respondent.
Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J., and MARY K. HOFF, J., and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J.
. After he filed his original claim, Victor Mi-suraca died for reasons unrelated to his claim in this case. After his death, his widow, Patricia Misuraca, filed an amended claim adding herself as claimant.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Gencorp, Inc. (Employer) appeals the award of the Labor and Industrial Commission (Commission) which found, in a two-to-one decision, that Victor R. Misura-ca (Employee) had a fifty percent permanent partial disability of the body as a whole due to a back injury he sustained while at work. The Commission dissent would have modified the administrative law judge's decision so that Employee was awarded thirty-five percent permanent partial disability.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be without merit. We find the Commission's award is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the Commission's award pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the award pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).