Case Name: Eva SPAETE, Claimant/Appellant, v. AMERICAN STANDARD PRINTING COMPANY, Employer/Respondent, and Providence Washington Insurance Company, Insurer/Respondent, and Treasurer of the State of Missouri as Custodian for the Second Injury Fund, Additional Party/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1996-03-05
Citations: 917 S.W.2d 626
Docket Number: No. 68629
Parties: Eva SPAETE, Claimant/Appellant, v. AMERICAN STANDARD PRINTING COMPANY, Employer/Respondent, and Providence Washington Insurance Company, Insurer/Respondent, and Treasurer of the State of Missouri as Custodian for the Second Injury Fund, Additional Party/Respondent.
Judges: Before SMITH, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and RHODES RUSSELL, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 917
Pages: 626–627

Head Matter:
Eva SPAETE, Claimant/Appellant, v. AMERICAN STANDARD PRINTING COMPANY, Employer/Respondent, and Providence Washington Insurance Company, Insurer/Respondent, and Treasurer of the State of Missouri as Custodian for the Second Injury Fund, Additional Party/Respondent.
No. 68629.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
March 5, 1996.
Harry James Nicholas, St. Louis, for appellant.
Scott Annunziata, St. Louis, for American Standard.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Vicky L. Anthony, Laura Newberry, Karla 0. Boresi, Asst. Attys. Gen., St. Louis, for Treasurer of Missouri.
Before SMITH, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and RHODES RUSSELL, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Eva Spaete ("Claimant"), an employee of American Standard Printing ("Employer"), appeals from a decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission finding that the Second Injury fund was not liable to the claimant for permanent total disability. We affirm. Claimant's motion to strike a portion of Employer's brief is granted.
The decision of the Commission is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record. An extended opinion would serve no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their infor mation only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).