Case Name: Mary Katherine ROTH, Widow of Luke Roth (Deceased), Respondent, v. J.J. BROUK & COMPANY and Amerisure Insurance Company, Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2005-08-30
Citations: 172 S.W.3d 871
Docket Number: No. ED 85540
Parties: Mary Katherine ROTH, Widow of Luke Roth (Deceased), Respondent, v. J.J. BROUK & COMPANY and Amerisure Insurance Company, Appellant.
Judges: Before GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., P.J., GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J., and KENNETH M. ROMINES, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 172
Pages: 871–872

Head Matter:
Mary Katherine ROTH, Widow of Luke Roth (Deceased), Respondent, v. J.J. BROUK & COMPANY and Amerisure Insurance Company, Appellant.
No. ED 85540.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
Aug. 30, 2005.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 3, 2005.
Application for Transfer Denied Nov. 1, 2005.
Edward M. Vokoun, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
Andrew A. O’Brien, Christine Jeanette Nielsen, St. Louis, MO, for Respondent.
Before GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., P.J., GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J., and KENNETH M. ROMINES, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
J.J. Brouk (hereinafter, "Employer") appeals from the judgment of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (hereinafter, "the Commission") granting an award of workers' compensation death benefits to Katherine Roth, widow of Luke Roth (hereinafter, "Roth"). Employer raises two points on appeal. First, Employer claims the Commission's award of death benefits was not supported by substantial and competent evidence because Roth's expert's testimony did not meet the burden of proof with respect to causation. Second, Employer disputes the Commission's calculation of the rate of compensation it used to determine the death benefits award.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and transcript on appeal. The Commission's decision is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the record. Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.3d 220, 222-23 (Mo. banc 2003). An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the Commission's decision pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).