Case Name: Charles Roy BENNETT, Appellant, v. GARDNER DENVER, INC., Respondent, Treasurer of the State of Missouri-Custodian Of The Second Injury Fund, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2008-09-23
Citations: 269 S.W.3d 448
Docket Number: No. WD 68541
Parties: Charles Roy BENNETT, Appellant, v. GARDNER DENVER, INC., Respondent, Treasurer of the State of Missouri-Custodian Of The Second Injury Fund, Respondent.
Judges: Before JAMES M. SMART., JR., Presiding Judge, THOMAS H. NEWTON, Judge, and RONALD R. HOLLIGER, Judge.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 269
Pages: 448–449

Head Matter:
Charles Roy BENNETT, Appellant, v. GARDNER DENVER, INC., Respondent, Treasurer of the State of Missouri-Custodian Of The Second Injury Fund, Respondent.
No. WD 68541.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
Sept. 23, 2008.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 28, 2008.
Application for Transfer Denied Dec. 16, 2008.
John Richard Boyd, Kansas City, MO, for Appellant.
Brian J. Fowler, Kansas City, MO., for Respondent Gardner Denver, Inc.
Maureen T. Shine, Kansas City, MO, for Respondent Treasurer of the State of Missouri-Custodian 2nd Injury Fund.
Before JAMES M. SMART., JR., Presiding Judge, THOMAS H. NEWTON, Judge, and RONALD R. HOLLIGER, Judge.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Charles Roy Bennett (Bennett) appeals an award by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) finding that a 2003 accident was not a substantial factor in aggravating his previous cervical disease. Bennett argues a videotape was improperly admitted into evidence; the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) abused his discretion when he denied Bennett's request to treat a witness as adverse; the Commission erred in affirming the award of the ALJ because the ALJ ignored competent and substantial evidence from a treating doctor and other medical experts that the accident exacerbated the underlying degenerative process; and the Commission erred in denying him future costs for his workplace accidents in 2000 and 2003.
We affirm the decision of the Commission for the reasons stated in the memorandum provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).