 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Missouri Forge10/30/2003
ourt. While this does not violate any rules or statutes, it is an imposition on the court that leaves us without the benefit of Claimant's research and insight. While we are required to decide the case regardless of whether Claimant prepares a brief, we are not to become an advocate for Claimant. Rhodes v. Blair, 919 S.W.2d 561, 563, 565 (Mo.App. S.D. 1996).
Appellant's first point on appeal states that the Commission erred in reversing the Tribunal because there was insufficient competent evidence in the record to find that Claimant quit his job for good cause. The standard of review when reviewing a decision by the Commission on unemployment benefits is contained in section 288.210, which provides that a court may reverse, modify, set aside, or remand a decision by the Commission on the following grounds and no other:
(1) That the ommission acted without or in excess of its powers;
(2) That the decision was procured by fraud;
(3) That the facts found by the ommission do not support the award; or
(4) That there was no sufficient competent evidence in the record to warrant the making of the award.
The factual findings of the Commission, if supported by competent and substantial evidence, in the absence of fraud, shall be conclusive and our review shall be limited to questions of law. Lashea v. Fin-Clair Corp., 30 S.W.3d 237, 240 (Mo.App. E.D. 2000).
It is uncontroverted that Claimant quit his job . The issue is whether Claimant quit his job for "good cause." Lashea defines "good cause" as an "objective standard of what a reasonable person would do in the same or similar circumstances." Id. at 241. Whether Claimant quit his job for good cause is a question of law that we review independently of the Commission's determination. Baker v. Midway Enterprises, Inc., 78 S.W.3d 188, 193 (Mo.App. W.D. 2002). Also it is an issue upon which Claimant bears the burden of proof. Id. at 192.
Claimant's back injury alone was not sufficient "good cause" to quit his job and receive unemployment benefits. "The good cause necessary to support an award of unemployment benefits where an employee voluntarily quits must be cause attributable to her work or her employment." Id., (quoting Quik 'N Tasty Foods, Inc. v. Division of Employment Sec., 17 S.W.3d 620, 626 (Mo.App. W.D. 2000)) (emphasis in original). To have good cause to quit his job and receive unemployment benefits, Claimant must have proved that his injury was causally linked to his employment at Missouri Forge.
For the purpose of receiving unemployment compensation benefits, where the causal connection between a claimant's work and the medical reason relied upon for establishing good cause for quitting is not within the common knowledge or experience of a layperson, expert medical evidence is required to establish the causal connection. Kansas City Power & Light v. Searcy, 28 S.W.3d 891, 895 (Mo.App. W.D. 2000). We are directed to no competent evidence in the record here establishing a causal relationship between Claimant's physical condition that caused him to quit, and his employment with Appellant. Our own review of the record likewise fails to disclose such evidence. The Commission's decision fails to provide any guidance as to how it reached the legal conclusion that the Claimant's back injury was causally related to his employment at Missouri Forge. Because of the lack of competent evidence in the record to warrant the Commission's award, the Commission's decision must, therefore, be, and is hereby, reversed, and the case is remanded with directions to reinstate the ruling of the Tribunal.
Page 1 2 Missouri Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|