Case Name: Earl RESINGER, Employee/Respondent, v. MISSISSIPPI LIME COMPANY, Employer/Appellant, and Ace American Ins. Co. c/o ESIS, Insurer/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2016-08-23
Citations: 504 S.W.3d 97
Docket Number: No. ED 103885
Parties: Earl RESINGER, Employee/Respondent, v. MISSISSIPPI LIME COMPANY, Employer/Appellant, and Ace American Ins. Co. c/o ESIS, Insurer/Appellant.
Judges: Before Robert M. Clayton III, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Lisa P. Page, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 504
Pages: 97–97

Head Matter:
Earl RESINGER, Employee/Respondent, v. MISSISSIPPI LIME COMPANY, Employer/Appellant, and Ace American Ins. Co. c/o ESIS, Insurer/Appellant.
No. ED 103885
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE
FILED: August 23, 2016
Matthew M. Mocherman, Amy Young, Cape Girardeau, MO, for Appellant.
Robert Watell Meyers, Becker & Galan-ti, Bridgeton, MO, for Respondent.
Before Robert M. Clayton III, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Lisa P. Page, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM
Mississippi Lime Company and ACE American Insurance Company appeal from a final award issued by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission finding Earl Resinger sustained 6 percent permanent partial disability due to tinnitus caused by his employment. Finding that the Commission's decision is supported by competent and substantial evidence, we affirm.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).