Legal Opinion

Sommer v. Sommer & Hartstein

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided December 6, 1994No. 65427PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PUDLOWSKI, Judge.

This is an appeal from a decision by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission of Missouri denying employee, an attorney, Workers’ Compensation benefits for an allegedly work related coronary artery disease. We affirm the Commission’s judgment in that the employee failed to prove that the condition was work related.

The relevant facts, according to the light most favorable to respondent, are as follows: Mr. Sommer is an attorney specializing in insurance subrogation litigation. He was a partner in the firm Sommer & Hartstein. He worked many hours and had a very busy trial…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Alexander v. D.L. Sitton Motor LinesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1993
  2. Katzenberger v. GillMissouri Court of Appeals · 1985
  3. Lashbrook v. Clipper Manufacturing Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1964
  4. Trammell v. S & K Industries, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1989
  5. Passe v. City of St. LouisMissouri Court of Appeals · 1987

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Hampton v. Big Boy Steel ErectionSupreme Court of Missouri · 2003
  2. Bruflat v. Mister Guy, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1996
  3. Armstrong v. Tetra Pak, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2012
  4. Lacy v. Federal MogulMissouri Court of Appeals · 2009
  5. McCormack v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1995

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API