It provided mere conclusions that Employee suffered work-related stress. Nothing in the letter showed a foundation for the doctor’s opinion or diagnosis, i.e., the doctor’s report was devoid of any history given him by Employee regarding work conditions. There was no evidence the doctor had training or experience as a mental health professional. Moreover, Employee admitted that, as late as June 2000, her doctor had not diagnosed her as “depressed,” nor had he prescribed medication for depression. In summary, this letter simply was not sufficient competent and substantial medical evidence to show the necessary relationship between the conditions of employment and the medical reasons for unemployment. Reed v. Labor and Indus. Relations Comm’n, 664 S.W.2d 650, 653[8] (Mo.App.1984) (<HOLDING>); see also Searcy, 28 S.W.3d at 896[6].
holding law court will not overturn conclusions supported by competent and substantial evidence holding review of whether evidence is competent and substantial tests only its legal sufficiency and not its weight holding that attorneys affidavit was not competent evidence of his clients agreement or communications with the defendants because it was not based on personal knowledge holding that the evidence that the defendant violated a probation condition was not competent and substantial because the state presented only hearsay evidence holding conclusory affidavit by doctor regarding alleged workrelated depression and anxiety was not substantial and competent evidence