Case Name: Daymond HARNED, Claimant/Appellant, v. BEN HUR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Employer, National Union Fire Insurance Company, Insurer, and Treasurer of The State of Missouri as Custodian of The Second Injury Fund, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2000-01-25
Citations: 10 S.W.3d 583
Docket Number: No. ED 76480
Parties: Daymond HARNED, Claimant/Appellant, v. BEN HUR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Employer, National Union Fire Insurance Company, Insurer, and Treasurer of The State of Missouri as Custodian of The Second Injury Fund, Respondent.
Judges: Before KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, P.J., and ROBERT G. DOWD, Jr., and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 10
Pages: 583–583

Head Matter:
Daymond HARNED, Claimant/Appellant, v. BEN HUR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Employer, National Union Fire Insurance Company, Insurer, and Treasurer of The State of Missouri as Custodian of The Second Injury Fund, Respondent.
No. ED 76480.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
Jan. 25, 2000.
Robert G. Kister, Hillsboro, for appellant.
Robert M. Evans, St. Louis, for Second Injury Fund.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Elizabeth J. Ruarte, Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Louis, for National Union Fire Ins. Co.
Before KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, P.J., and ROBERT G. DOWD, Jr., and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Daymond Harned (Claimant) appeals from a final award of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) which affirmed the award of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denying Claimant's claim against the Second Injury Fund for permanent and total disability and for permanent partial disability. Claimant asserts the Commission erred in (1) admitting credibility evidence and (2) concluding Claimant is not permanently and totally disabled. We affirm.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file and the transcript. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).