Case Name: John W. RICHARDSON, Employee-Appellant, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Employer-Respondent, and Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Additional Party-Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2004-03-16
Citations: 129 S.W.3d 447
Docket Number: No. ED 83414
Parties: John W. RICHARDSON, Employee-Appellant, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Employer-Respondent, and Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Additional Party-Respondent.
Judges: Before CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, P.J., WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR., and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 129
Pages: 447–448

Head Matter:
John W. RICHARDSON, Employee-Appellant, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Employer-Respondent, and Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Additional Party-Respondent.
No. ED 83414.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
March 16, 2004.
Elbert A. Walton, Jr., St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Daniel J. Harlan, St. Charles, MO, Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Barbara L. Toepke, Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Louis, MO, for respondent.
Before CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, P.J., WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR., and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
In this workers' compensation case, claimant John Richardson appeals from the final award of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission denying compensation. The claimant alleges the Commission erred in: (1) failing to award any compensation on his claim against General Motors for his July 1992 injury; (2) denying compensation from the second injury fund; and (3) excluding a number of his exhibits.
We have reviewed the parties' briefs and the record on appeal. We find the Commission's decision is supported by sufficient competent and substantial evidence on the whole record and no error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum, for their information only, explaining the reasons for our decision.
The award is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).