Case Name: Edward CRAWFORD, Appellant, v. ARCHWAY BUILDING MAINTENANCE, INC. and Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company, Respondents.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2019-03-05
Citations: 571 S.W.3d 206
Docket Number: No. ED 107039
Parties: Edward CRAWFORD, Appellant,
v.
ARCHWAY BUILDING MAINTENANCE, INC.
and
Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company, Respondents.
Judges: Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Robert G. Dowd, Jr., J., and Mary K. Hoff, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 571
Pages: 206–206

Head Matter:
Edward CRAWFORD, Appellant,
v.
ARCHWAY BUILDING MAINTENANCE, INC.
and
Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company, Respondents.
No. ED 107039
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.
FILED: March 5, 2019
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 11, 2019
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: Brian Stokes, 133 South 11th Street, Suite 350, St. Louis, MO 63102, THE STOKES LAW FIRM.
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT: William Eugene Paasch, Jr. for Archway Building Maintenance, Inc., 1010 Market Street, Suite 1510, St. Louis, MO 63101, LAW OFFICES OF LUCY T. UNGER, Lynn Ann Fischer for Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company, 200 S. Hanley, Suite 1106, Clayton, MO 63105, FISCHER LAW FIRM.
Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Robert G. Dowd, Jr., J., and Mary K. Hoff, J.
ORDER

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Edward Crawford ("Crawford") appeals from the Final Award of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission denying benefits following Crawford's Hardship Petition seeking a resumption of benefits. 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 or precedential 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).