32:T514,{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"Legislation","name":"Wilkins v. Mathews Roofing Co., 2005 WL 1155870","datePublished":"2005-05-17","legislationDate":"2005-05-17","citation":"Wilkins v. Mathews Roofing Co., 2005 WL 1155870 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005)","countryOfOrigin":"USA","jurisdiction":"Missouri Court of Appeals","description":"Read the full text of Wilkins v. Mathews Roofing Co. (Wilkins v. Mathews Roofing Co., 2005 WL 1155870 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005)). This legal opinion, filed in 2005-05-17, from the Missouri Court of Appeals discusses important legal matters. Access this case and related legal documents on Midpage, an AI-powered legal research platform.","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://app.midpage.ai/document/wilkins-v-mathews-roofing-co--5106197"},"author":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Midpage"},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Midpage"},"url":"https://app.midpage.ai/document/wilkins-v-mathews-roofing-co--5106197","isPartOf":{"@type":"WebSite","name":"Midpage","url":"https://app.midpage.ai"},"inLanguage":"en","keywords":"legal, opinion, document, research, midpage, Wilkins v. Mathews Roofing Co., Missouri Court of Appeals, Wilkins v. Mathews Roofing Co., 2005 WL 1155870 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005)","isAccessibleForFree":true,"isFamilyFriendly":true}34:T4e2,

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mathews Roofing Company (Employer) and the Second Injury Fund (Fund) appeal from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) awarding 40 percent permanent partial disability, temporary total disability benefits, and future medical benefits against Employer for injuries Mathew Wilkins (Claimant) sustained in the course of his employment with Employer, and finding the Fund liable for permanent total disability.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. After reviewing the whole record, we find the Commission’s award is supported by competent and substantial evidence and is not contrary the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.3d 220, 223 (Mo. banc 2003). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).