Court Opinion

ID: 9668463
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:15:51.050314+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:45.597840
License: Public Domain

DONNELLY, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
I have serious reservations as to whether the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s findings of fact are sufficient to support its conclusion that respondent was an “employee” under the Worker’s Compensation Act. In any event, I would reverse *211because I believe the principal opinion in this case represents another “farfetched” application of the term “appointment” found in § 287.020, RSMo 1978. See 1C Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 47.41(a), 8-261 (1980).