AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

James WOOD, Respondent, v. MEHLVILLE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, Appellant, and Di

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission.
Matthew E. Hoffman, St. Louis, MO, for appellant. James Wood, O'Fallon, MO, Pro Se.
Bart A. Matanic, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR. P.J. and ROY L. RICHTER and ANGELA T. QUIGLESS, JJ.



ORDER


PER CURIAM.


Mehlville Fire Protection District (“Employer”) appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“the Commission”) finding James Wood (“Claimant”) qualified for unemployment benefits. The Commission determined that Employer had failed to provide evidence that the drug test of Claimant was performed, recorded, or reported in accordance with 49 C.F.R., Part 40 as required by Section 288.045.6, RSMo 2000. Employer argues it satisfied every relevant provision of Section 288.045.

All further statutory references are to RSMo 2000.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. We find no error of law. The Commission's determination was supported by sufficient competent evidence and was not procured by fraud. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
-------- Notes:

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

Wood v. Mehlville Fire Prot. Dist.
(May 28, 2013)