Case Name: Richard LEONARD, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, v. NOVACARE, INC., Employer/Cross-Respondent, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Insurer/Cross Respondent, and Treasurer, as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2007-11-06
Citations: 243 S.W.3d 413
Docket Number: No. ED 89426
Parties: Richard LEONARD, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, v. NOVACARE, INC., Employer/Cross-Respondent, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Insurer/Cross Respondent, and Treasurer, as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Respondent.
Judges: Before ROY L. RICHTER, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J„ and GLENN A. NORTON, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 243
Pages: 413–414

Head Matter:
Richard LEONARD, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, v. NOVACARE, INC., Employer/Cross-Respondent, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Insurer/Cross Respondent, and Treasurer, as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Respondent.
No. ED 89426.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
Nov. 6, 2007.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Jan. 7, 2008.
Application for Transfer Denied Feb. 19, 2008.
John F. Sander, O’Connor & Rouse, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Michael T. Finneran, Assistant Attorney General, St. Louis, MO, for Respondent Treasurer, Custodian of the Second Injury Fund.
John D. Schneider, St. Louis, MO, for RespondenVCross Appellant.
Before ROY L. RICHTER, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J„ and GLENN A. NORTON, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Novacare Inc. ("Employer") and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Employer's insurer, appeal from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission ("Commission") awarding Richard Leonard ("Claimant") workers' compensation benefits. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.
The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).