Case Name: Colonel Theodis BROWN, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, et al., Defendants/Respondents, and Treasurer of the State of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1994-05-17
Citations: 879 S.W.2d 651
Docket Number: No. 65020
Parties: Colonel Theodis BROWN, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, et al., Defendants/Respondents, and Treasurer of the State of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund.
Judges: Before GRIMM, P.J., and CARL R. GAERTNER and AHRENS, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 879
Pages: 651–651

Head Matter:
Colonel Theodis BROWN, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, et al., Defendants/Respondents, and Treasurer of the State of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund.
No. 65020.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
May 17, 1994.
Application to Transfer Denied Aug. 15, 1994.
Theodis Brown, pro se.
Ronnie L. White, City Counselor, James F. Matchefts, Asst. City Counselor, St. Louis, for City of St. Louis, defendant-respondent.
Robert T. Hart, Susan M. Kelly, Kortenhof & Ely, St. Louis, for Bi-State Development Agency and City of Kinloch, defendants-respondents.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Cynthia A. Quetsch, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for Second Injury Fund.
Before GRIMM, P.J., and CARL R. GAERTNER and AHRENS, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Claimant appeals pro se from the denial of his workers' compensation claim. We affirm.
Claimant's brief does not comply with Rule 84.04. As stated in a previous workers' compensation case appealed by this claimant, claimant filed "an incomprehensible brief." Brown v. City of St. Louis, 842 S.W.2d 163, 165 (Mo.App.E.D.1992). We would be justified in dismissing his appeal for this failure. Nevertheless, we elected to review his claims and find that none have merit.
The decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record. No error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value. Rule 84.16(b).