The commisison found PTD liaiblity against the second injury fund, reversing a finding of PTD against the employer. The SIF, and claimant, objected and argued the employers application for review was insufficient.
The court of appeals affirmed the Commission and found the employer provided sufficient detail of alleged error, despite criticism from the Commission that the notice "certainly could be specific" alleging broad error that the ALJ misapplied the law, the award was against the overwhelming evidence and there was error relying upon findings of impairment. It noted case history of the commisson rejecting deficient applications but no cases in which the court of appeals reversed a finding when the Commission found the applicaton was sufficient.
The court declined to address whether the AFR now required strict construction after reform, and found the notice sufficient even applying strict construction.
Emerson v Prestressed Casting Co., SD 38434 (Mo. App. 2024) ( decided Nov. 19, 2024)
