Case Name: Kevin CHILDERS, Employee/Appellant, v. CUSTOMER DIRECT, LLC, Employer/Respondent, and Division of Employment Security, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2014-09-23
Citations: 443 S.W.3d 49
Docket Number: No. ED 101252
Parties: Kevin CHILDERS, Employee/Appellant, v. CUSTOMER DIRECT, LLC, Employer/Respondent, and Division of Employment Security, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: Before SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and PHILIP M. HESS, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 443
Pages: 49–49

Head Matter:
Kevin CHILDERS, Employee/Appellant, v. CUSTOMER DIRECT, LLC, Employer/Respondent, and Division of Employment Security, Respondent/Respondent.
No. ED 101252.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
Sept. 23, 2014.
John J. Ammann, St. Louis, MO, Heidi Kuns Durr, Clayton, MO, for employer/respondent.
Bart A. Matanic, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and PHILIP M. HESS, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Kevin Chüders (Employee) appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (the Commission) denying him unemployment benefits. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that there is sufficient competent and substantial evidence to support the Commission's decision, and the Commission did not err as a matter of law in finding Employee engaged in misconduct connected with work. Berwin v. Lindenwood Female College, 205 S.W.3d 291, 294 (Mo.App. E.D. 2006). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).