Case Name: Betty CROGHAN, Claimant/Appellant, v. ARCH COAL, INC., and Division of Employment Security, Respondents/Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2010-05-11
Citations: 309 S.W.3d 871
Docket Number: No. ED 94018
Parties: Betty CROGHAN, Claimant/Appellant, v. ARCH COAL, INC., and Division of Employment Security, Respondents/Respondents.
Judges: Before SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, P.J., ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J., and PATRICIA L. COHEN, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 309
Pages: 871–872

Head Matter:
Betty CROGHAN, Claimant/Appellant, v. ARCH COAL, INC., and Division of Employment Security, Respondents/Respondents.
No. ED 94018.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
May 11, 2010.
Betty Croghan, O’Fallon, MO, Acting pro se.
Arch Coal, Inc., St. Louis, MO, Acting pro se.
Rachel M. Lewis, Division of Employment Security, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
Before SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, P.J., ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J., and PATRICIA L. COHEN, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Betty Croghan appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) denying her claim for unemployment benefits. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the Commission, based upon the whole record, could have reasonably made its findings and reached its result. Shields v. P & G Paper Prods. Co., 164 S.W.3d 540, 543 (Mo.App. E.D.2005). We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).