Case Name: Pamela JACKSON, Appellant, v. ST. ELIZABETH'S ADULT DAY CARE CENTER, INC., and Division of Employment Security, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2013-12-17
Citations: 416 S.W.3d 348
Docket Number: No. ED 99762
Parties: Pamela JACKSON, Appellant, v. ST. ELIZABETH’S ADULT DAY CARE CENTER, INC., and Division of Employment Security, Respondent.
Judges: Before: MARY K. HOFF, P.J., KURT S. ODENWALD, J., and ANGELA T. QUIGLESS, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 416
Pages: 348–348

Head Matter:
Pamela JACKSON, Appellant, v. ST. ELIZABETH’S ADULT DAY CARE CENTER, INC., and Division of Employment Security, Respondent.
No. ED 99762.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
Dec. 17, 2013.
Pamela Jackson, St. Louis, MO, pro se for appellant.
St. Elizabeth’s Adult Day Care Center, Inc., St. Louis, MO, pro se for respondent St. Elizabeth’s Adult Day Care Center, Inc.
Larry R. Ruhmann, - Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, Division of Employment Security, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent Division of Employment Security.
Before: MARY K. HOFF, P.J., KURT S. ODENWALD, J., and ANGELA T. QUIGLESS, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Pamela Jackson ("Jackson") appeals from the order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission ("Commission") affirming the decision of the Division of Employment Security Appeals Tribunal ("Appeals Tribunal") denying Jackson unemployment compensation benefits. The Commission found Jackson disqualified from benefits because she was terminated from St. Elizabeth's Adult Day Care Center for misconduct connected with work.
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. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b)(4).