Case Name: APPLIANCE SOLUTIONS, Employer/Appellant, v. Rose CRAWFORD, Claimant/Respondent, and Division of Employment Security, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2008-03-18
Citations: 247 S.W.3d 589
Docket Number: No. ED 90389
Parties: APPLIANCE SOLUTIONS, Employer/Appellant, v. Rose CRAWFORD, Claimant/Respondent, and Division of Employment Security, Respondent.
Judges: Before MARY K. HOFF, P.J., ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J., and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 247
Pages: 589–590

Head Matter:
APPLIANCE SOLUTIONS, Employer/Appellant, v. Rose CRAWFORD, Claimant/Respondent, and Division of Employment Security, Respondent.
No. ED 90389.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
March 18, 2008.
Robert Thomeczek, Thomeczek Law Firm, LLC, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
Marilyn Green, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
Before MARY K. HOFF, P.J., ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J., and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Appliance Solutions appeals from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's (Commission) decision finding Rose Crawford was not disqualified for unemployment benefits. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the Commission's decision is supported by competent and substantial evidence. Section 288.210 RSMo 2006. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).