Case Name: Ursula DAEHNICK and Division of Employment Security, Respondents, v. Melanie R. NEWBILL, Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1999-05-04
Citations: 989 S.W.2d 954
Docket Number: No. 74473
Parties: Ursula DAEHNICK and Division of Employment Security, Respondents, v. Melanie R. NEWBILL, Appellant.
Judges: Before PAUL J. SIMON, P. J., and KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 989
Pages: 954–954

Head Matter:
Ursula DAEHNICK and Division of Employment Security, Respondents, v. Melanie R. NEWBILL, Appellant.
No. 74473.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
May 4, 1999.
William E. McCurdy, St. Louis, for Appellant.
James P. Krupp, Alan J. Downs, Cynthia A Quetsch, St. Louis, for Respondent.
Before PAUL J. SIMON, P. J., and KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Melanie R. Newbill, D.D.S. (employer) appeals from three orders of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) affirming and adopting three corresponding decisions of the Appeals Tribunal, which determined that Ursula Daehnick (claimant) was eligible for unemployment benefits and not disqualified following her discharge from work. After the Commission issued its orders, the Division of Employment Security was made a party on appeal, pursuant to section 288.210 RSMo 1994. We affirm.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that no error of law appears. Because an extended opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum solely for the use of the parties involved has been provided explaining the reasons for our decision.