Case Name: Richard CHAMBERLIN, Employee/Respondent, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Employer/Appellant, and Treasurer of the State of Missouri, as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Additional Party/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2009-01-20
Citations: 273 S.W.3d 586
Docket Number: No. ED 91526
Parties: Richard CHAMBERLIN, Employee/Respondent, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Employer/Appellant, and Treasurer of the State of Missouri, as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Additional Party/Respondent.
Judges: Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J. and CLIFFORD H. AHRENS and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 273
Pages: 586–587

Head Matter:
Richard CHAMBERLIN, Employee/Respondent, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Employer/Appellant, and Treasurer of the State of Missouri, as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Additional Party/Respondent.
No. ED 91526.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
Jan. 20, 2009.
Robert T. Hart, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
Harry J. Nichols, Kevin Alan Nelson, Asst. Atty. General, St. Louis, MO, for Respondent.
Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J. and CLIFFORD H. AHRENS and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
The City of St. Louis ("Employer") appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission ("the Commission") awarding Richard Cham-berlin ("Claimant") permanent total disability benefits. Employer claims the Commission erred in making a determination on an issue that was not presented for determination in the stipulations of the parties at the hearing, by misinterpreting the testimony of Dr. Samuel Bernstein, Dr. Joseph Hanaway, and Dr. Anne-Marie Puricelli, and in finding Claimant to be permanently and totally disabled from the last accident alone.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).