Case Name: Scott TILLIS, Appellant, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, City of St. Louis Board of Police Commissioners, and Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of Second Injury Fund, Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2015-09-15
Citations: 472 S.W.3d 614
Docket Number: No. ED 102322
Parties: Scott TILLIS, Appellant, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, City of St. Louis Board of Police Commissioners, and Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of Second Injury Fund, Respondents.
Judges: Before Robert G. Dowd, Jr., P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Roy L. Richter, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 472
Pages: 614–615

Head Matter:
Scott TILLIS, Appellant, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, City of St. Louis Board of Police Commissioners, and Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of Second Injury Fund, Respondents.
No. ED 102322
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.
FILED: September 15, 2015
Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied October 22, 2015-
Booker T. Shaw, David Allen Dick, Co-Counsel, Thomas Everett Jones, Co-Counsel, Thompson Coburn, One US Bank Plaza, St, Louis, MO 63101, Attorney for Appellant.
Nelson Gregory Wolff, Jacob Charles Murov, Michael Arinin Wolff, Jerome J. Schlichter — all Co-Counsel, Schlicter, Bo-gard & Denton, 100 S..4th Street, Suite 900, St. Louis, MO 63102, Attorney for Respondent.
Before Robert G. Dowd, Jr., P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Roy L. Richter, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM
Scott Tillis, appearing pro se, appeals from the final award of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, which affirmed and adopted the decision of the Administrative Law Judge finding that Claimant sustained 15 percent permanent partial disability of the right shoulder as a result of a work-related injury, but denied Claimant benefits from the Second Injury Fund. We affirm.
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. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to. this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).