Case Name: Shirley L. STOKES, Appellant, v. The LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION of Missouri, and the Division of Employment Security of the State of Missouri, and Mid-American Food Service, Inc., Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1978-08-28
Citations: 570 S.W.2d 836
Docket Number: No. KCD 29737
Parties: Shirley L. STOKES, Appellant, v. The LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION of Missouri, and the Division of Employment Security of the State of Missouri, and Mid-American Food Service, Inc., Respondents.
Judges: Before SOMERVILLE, P. J., and DIXON and TURNAGE, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 570
Pages: 836–836

Head Matter:
Shirley L. STOKES, Appellant, v. The LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION of Missouri, and the Division of Employment Security of the State of Missouri, and Mid-American Food Service, Inc., Respondents.
No. KCD 29737.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Kansas City District.
Aug. 28, 1978.
Michael D. Hufft, Kansas City, for appellant.
Sharon A. Willis, Kansas City, John F. Gillespie, Rick V. Morris, Jefferson City, for respondent, Div. of Emp. Sec.
Charles B. Fain, Jefferson City, for respondent, Labor and Indus. Rel. Comm, of Missouri.
Before SOMERVILLE, P. J., and DIXON and TURNAGE, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Shirley Stokes filed a claim for unemployment compensation which was allowed by the deputy. On appeal by the employer, the award was reversed by the Appeals Tribunal of the Division of Employment Security. Stokes appealed to the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission which denied her application for review. On appeal to the circuit court the action of the Commission was affirmed.
On this appeal Stokes contends she was denied a fair hearing and the action of the Commission was not supported by substantial evidence. A thorough review of the record leaves no doubt Stokes was afforded a fair hearing and the action of the Commission is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record.
No error of law appears and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16.