Mo. Rev. Stat. § 287.490
§ 287.490, RSMo
(1960) Where commission affirmed award of referee that claimant had not sustained accidental injury and claimant appealed to circuit court and procured the judgment he sought, namely remand of the claim with directions to dismiss for want of jurisdiction because of no accident, the employer and insurer were thereby "aggrieved" within meaning of § 512.020 but on the record the appellate court would not review question of whether an accident existed. Harger v. Acme Fast Freight Inc. (Mo.), 336 S.W.2d 109. (1963) Industrial commission was not required to set out specific findings of facts as to each individual injury and the resultant percent of disability attributed to each, and ultimate findings of commission that claimant sustained 40% permanent partial disability to body as a whole was sufficient and award was properly based thereon. Carenza v. Vulcan-Cincinnati, Inc. (A.), 368 S.W.2d 507. (1963) Workmen's compensation commission had implied authority to enter order vacating award prior to expiration of thirty-day appeal period. Fisher v. City of Independence (Mo.), 370 S.W.2d 310. (1963) Commission's finding that janitor's activity amounted to "an unusual or abnormal strain" which constituted an accident because he exerted himself beyond his usual routine in clearing snow from extensive area of employer's sidewalk was a legal conclusion and, therefore, award was subject to review. Flippin v. First National Bank of Joplin (A.), 372 S.W.2d 273. (1965) Finding of fact held sufficient to sustain order denying compensation. Dixon v. Art Bunker Motors, Inc. (A.), 387 S.W.2d 199. (1965) In workmen's compensation case the reviewing court cannot substitute its own judgment on the evidence for that of the industrial commission, but is empowered to determine whether the award of the commission is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record. Jacobs v. Eldridge Construction Co. (A.), 393 S.W.2d 33. (1967) Decisions of the industrial commission which are clearly the interpretation or application of law, rather than a determination of facts, are not binding upon appeals court. Saxton v. St. Louis Stair Company (A.), 410 S.W.2d 369. (1967) Where there is no material conflict in, or dispute concerning, the facts bearing upon a claimant's status as an employee vel non, the resolution of that issue becomes a question of law and the industrial commission's determination is not binding on the reviewing court. Lawson v. Lawson (A.), 415 S.W.2d 313. (1969) Decisions of the industrial commission which are clearly the interpretations or applications of the law, as distinguished from a determination of facts, are not binding upon the court and are within the province of review and correction. Weilert v. Fruin-Colnon Corp. (A.), 447 S.W.2d 781. (1970) Notice of Appeal to Industrial Commission affirmation of a Workman's Compensation Award must be received within 30 days. Holmes v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. (A.), 488 S.W.2d 311. (1971) The findings of a referee are not binding on the commission but a reviewing court must affirm an award by the commission if it is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record thus though the evidence was conflicting and some of claimant's testimony was contradictory, but not to sufficient degree to destroy essential elements of his case, the court affirmed the award. Deatherage v. Churchill Truck Lines, Inc. (A.), 469 S.W.2d 660. (1975) "Last known address" is that place where mail would be most likely to reach a person, that would be their residence. Failure of commission to send notice of award to residence prevented loss of jurisdiction because of 30 day rule in section 287.490. Cagle v. Regal Plastics Company (A.), 522 S.W.2d 7. (1980) A circuit court in reviewing the decision of the commission cannot simply agree with a dissenting member of the commission that the evidence was not believable. Johnson v. General Motors Assembly Division G.M.C. (A.), 605 S.W.2d 511.