Case Name: Carol D. TODD, Appellant, v. HALDEX BRAKE PRODUCTS CORP., Defendant, Division of Employment Security, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2005-01-11
Citations: 152 S.W.3d 437
Docket Number: No. WD 63574
Parties: Carol D. TODD, Appellant, v. HALDEX BRAKE PRODUCTS CORP., Defendant, Division of Employment Security, Respondent.
Judges: Before EDWIN H. SMITH, C.J., ULRICH and SPINDEN, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 152
Pages: 437–438

Head Matter:
Carol D. TODD, Appellant, v. HALDEX BRAKE PRODUCTS CORP., Defendant, Division of Employment Security, Respondent.
No. WD 63574.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
Jan. 11, 2005.
James M. Roberts, Blue Springs, MO, for Appellant.
Lary Raymond Ruhmann, St. Louis, MO, for Respondent.
Before EDWIN H. SMITH, C.J., ULRICH and SPINDEN, JJ.

Opinion:
Order
PER CURIAM.
Carol D. Todd appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) affirming the Appeals Tribunal's decision that she was disqualified, under § 288.050.1(1), from receiving immediate unemployment compensation benefits because she voluntarily left her employment with the respondent, Haldex Brake Products Corporation (Hal-dex), without good cause attributable to her employment or employer.
The appellant raises two points on appeal. In Point I, she claims that the Commission erred in affirming the Appeals Tribunal's decision denying her immediate unemployment benefits, based upon its finding that she voluntarily left her employment with Haldex without good cause, because the finding was not supported by competent and substantial evidence in that she did not voluntarily leave her employment, but was terminated by Haldex. In Point II, she claims that the Commission erred in affirming the Appeals Tribunal's decision denying her immediate unemployment benefits, based upon its finding that she voluntarily left her employment with Haldex without good cause, because the finding was against the weight of the evidence in that she left her employment due to an illness which was attributable to her work environment.
We affirm. Pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
. All statutory references are to RSMo 2000, unless otherwise indicated.