Case Name: Larry GALKOWSKI, Respondent, v. BI-STATE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY and Bi-State Development Agency/Bi-State Claim Services, Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2007-03-27
Citations: 217 S.W.3d 910
Docket Number: No. ED 88634
Parties: Larry GALKOWSKI, Respondent, v. BI-STATE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY and Bi-State Development Agency/Bi-State Claim Services, Appellant.
Judges: Before CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and NANNETTE A. BAKER, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 217
Pages: 910–911

Head Matter:
Larry GALKOWSKI, Respondent, v. BI-STATE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY and Bi-State Development Agency/Bi-State Claim Services, Appellant.
No. ED 88634.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
March 27, 2007.
James A. Thoenen, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Jerry A. Klein, Clayton, MO, for respondent.
Before CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and NANNETTE A. BAKER, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Bi-State Development Agency ("Employer") and Bi-State Claim Services appeal a judgment of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission ("Commission") affirming the decision of the administrative law judge ("ALJ") in favor of Larry Galkowski ("Employee") on his claim for disability.
Employer asserts four points on appeal. Employer contends that the Commission erred in affirming the decision of the ALJ because: (1) the Commission's finding that Employee's psychological condition resulted from the accident, and not from Employee's termination, was against the weight of the evidence; (2) the Commission's finding that employee was permanently and totally disabled is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence; (3) the Commission's award of future psychological treatment and prescription medication is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence because Employee had reached the point of maximum medical improvement; (4) the Commission's award of disfigurement benefits is error as a matter of law because one cannot have an award of disfigurement benefits and an award of permanent total disability benefits and the award of disfigurement benefits was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
No jurisprudential pin-pose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.
We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).