Case Name: Tomislav BOSNJAK, Respondent/Claimant, v. KIRCHNER BLOCK AND BRICK, INC., Appellant/Employer, and TIG-Premier c/o Uhlemyer Services Administrators, Appellant/Insurer, and General Casualty Company of Wisconsin, Respondent/Insurer
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2007-04-03
Citations: 237 S.W.3d 592
Docket Number: No. ED 88391
Parties: Tomislav BOSNJAK, Respondent/Claimant, v. KIRCHNER BLOCK AND BRICK, INC., Appellant/Employer, and TIG-Premier c/o Uhlemyer Services Administrators, Appellant/Insurer, and General Casualty Company of Wisconsin, Respondent/Insurer.
Judges: Before GEORGE W. DRAPER III, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 237
Pages: 592–593

Head Matter:
Tomislav BOSNJAK, Respondent/Claimant, v. KIRCHNER BLOCK AND BRICK, INC., Appellant/Employer, and TIG-Premier c/o Uhlemyer Services Administrators, Appellant/Insurer, and General Casualty Company of Wisconsin, Respondent/Insurer.
No. ED 88391.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
April 3, 2007.
Rehearing Denied May 16, 2007.
Robert L. Hinson, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Ray A. Gerritzen, Carol L. Barnard, Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Louis, MO, Thomas H. Kuergeleis, Fairview Heights, IL, for respondent.
Before GEORGE W. DRAPER III, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Kircher Block and Brick, Inc. ("Employer") and TIG-Premier ("TIG") appeal from the decision of Labor and Industrial Relations and Commission ("Commission") awarding Tomislav Bosnjak ("Employee") future medical benefits related to two back injuries. On appeal, Employer and TIG argue the Commission erred in not (1) factoring the impact of a third low back injury into its award for future medical care in Employee's first two low back injuries, and (2) remanding the matter to the Division of Workers' Compensation ("Division") to receive medical evidence of Employee's third low back injury. We affirm.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. 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 the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).