# Brown v. City of St. Louis

> Missouri Court of Appeals · May 17, 1994 · 879 S.W.2d 651

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5086138

## Case

- **Full name:** Colonel Theodis BROWN v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Defendants/Respondents, and Treasurer of the State of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund
- **Court:** Missouri Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** May 17, 1994
- **Citations:** 879 S.W.2d 651; 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 786; 1994 WL 187035
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Ahrens, Gaertner, Grimm
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5086138

## Opinion text

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).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5086138. Public record. Not legal advice.