{"disclaimer":"This is a summary of public court records and is not legal advice. Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.","topic":{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","description":null,"totalCases":107,"relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"}]},"trend":[{"year":2018,"count":9},{"year":2019,"count":16},{"year":2020,"count":18},{"year":2021,"count":11},{"year":2022,"count":8},{"year":2023,"count":7},{"year":2024,"count":22},{"year":2025,"count":14},{"year":2026,"count":2}],"cases":[{"caseId":"mo:sc101091:2026-02-24","opinionId":"205e275f-5c24-5dfd-b38f-6c1079796a88","slug":"christopher-hanshaw-appellant-v-crown-equipment-corp-et-al-respondents-101091","caseName":"Christopher Hanshaw, Appellant, vs. Crown Equipment Corp., et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"SC101091","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2026-02-24","year":2026,"display_summary":"Christopher Hanshaw sued Crown Equipment Corporation, alleging a forklift was defectively designed and caused his injuries. The circuit court excluded Hanshaw's expert witness, finding his testimony lacked reliable methodology, and subsequently granted summary judgment for Crown Equipment. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the expert, and without that testimony, no genuine issue of material fact remained to preclude summary judgment.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","evidence","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=231455","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christopher-hanshaw-appellant-v-crown-equipment-corp-et-al-respondents-101091","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87521:2025-07-01","opinionId":"b6f38c8d-45f8-5d56-ac9c-be802e7efd5c","slug":"rose-howland-v-truman-medical-center-inc-dba-university-health-lakewood-m-d87521","caseName":"Rose Howland\nvs.\nTruman Medical Center, Inc., d/b/a University Health Lakewood Medical Center","caseNumber":"WD87521","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-07-01","year":2025,"display_summary":"Rose Howland sued Truman Medical Center, alleging co-workers improperly accessed her patient records, discovered her COVID-19 vaccination status, and subsequently harassed and demoted her, forcing her resignation. The trial court dismissed most claims for lack of standing and a negligence per se claim for failure to state a claim. The appellate court reversed the dismissal of Howland's claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, negligence, and negligent training and supervision, concluding she had sufficiently alleged standing. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the negligence per se claim, holding that HIPAA and HITECH do not provide a private right of action. The case was remanded for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","employment-law","negligence","contracts","personal-injury"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221675","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/rose-howland-v-truman-medical-center-inc-dba-university-health-lakewood-m-d87521","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112532:2025-06-24","opinionId":"1ceb1c58-5682-5f5c-841d-576eadb355a4","slug":"mark-mccostlin-and-karen-mccostlin-appellants-v-monsanto-company-responde-112532","caseName":"Mark McCostlin, and Karen McCostlin, Appellants, vs. Monsanto Company, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112532","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-24","year":2025,"display_summary":"Mark and Karen McCostlin appealed the trial court's grant of a directed verdict in favor of Monsanto Company in their strict liability and negligence action, alleging Mr. McCostlin's exposure to Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. The McCostlins contended their expert testimony established a submissible case on causation, the trial court misinterpreted evidence, and erred in denying a motion to recall an expert and sustaining an objection during redirect. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the McCostlins' causation expert failed to demonstrate a causal connection, and the trial court did not err in its procedural and evidentiary rulings.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","negligence","civil-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221535","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mark-mccostlin-and-karen-mccostlin-appellants-v-monsanto-company-responde-112532","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112874:2025-06-17","opinionId":"8bbdc57e-8ed8-59ee-bceb-5cc81e2533e2","slug":"kyle-d-becker-appellant-v-thomas-m-schenk-respondent-112874","caseName":"Kyle D. Becker, Appellant, vs. Thomas M. Schenk, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112874","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-17","year":2025,"display_summary":"Kyle D. Becker sued Thomas M. Schenk for personal injuries sustained during an amateur ice hockey game, specifically a broken wrist. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Schenk, concluding Becker had assumed the risk of injury. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, affirmed the judgment, holding that Becker expressly assumed the risk of breaking a bone by signing a clear and unambiguous liability waiver. The court also found that Becker impliedly assumed the inherent risks of playing ice hockey.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","summary-judgment","negligence","contracts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221418","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kyle-d-becker-appellant-v-thomas-m-schenk-respondent-112874","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86389:2025-04-01","opinionId":"1f1291d8-5dc8-5a49-b733-3e8a0411fafe","slug":"christopher-hanshaw-v-crown-equipment-corp-et-al-d86389","caseName":"Christopher Hanshaw\nvs.\nCrown Equipment Corp., Et Al.","caseNumber":"WD86389","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-04-01","year":2025,"display_summary":"Christopher Hanshaw sued Crown Equipment Corporation after a forklift accident resulted in the amputation of his leg, alleging defective design. The circuit court excluded Hanshaw's expert witness, finding him unqualified and his opinions unreliable, and subsequently granted summary judgment to Crown. The appellate court reversed, concluding that the expert was qualified and his opinions regarding the lack of a door as a design defect were reliable. The case was remanded for further proceedings on Hanshaw's product defect claims.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","evidence","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218953","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christopher-hanshaw-v-crown-equipment-corp-et-al-d86389","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100623:2025-03-18","opinionId":"a5c629a6-05d9-5b56-9a1f-75a778626e08","slug":"state-ex-rel-state-of-missouri-department-of-natural-resources-relator-v-100623","caseName":"State ex rel. State of Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Relator, vs. The Honorable Kevin Crane, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100623","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-03-18","year":2025,"display_summary":"The Department of Natural Resources sought a writ of prohibition to bar the circuit court from proceeding with a personal injury claim filed by Scott Frey, who was injured while biking on the Katy Trail. The circuit court had denied the department's motion for summary judgment, which asserted immunity under the Recreational Use Act. The Supreme Court of Missouri made its preliminary writ of prohibition permanent, holding that the Recreational Use Act protects the department from liability. The Court found that the department met the Act's immunity requirements and that no exceptions, including those for gross negligence or ultrahazardous conditions, applied. It also rejected the argument that the department could be held vicariously liable for its employees' actions, as employees acting on behalf of a landowner share the landowner's immunity regarding land conditions.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","personal-injury","premises-liability","civil-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218515","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-ex-rel-state-of-missouri-department-of-natural-resources-relator-v-100623","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112455:2025-03-04","opinionId":"076b9004-c1c5-5628-a02b-af954922a61d","slug":"rochelle-ameer-appellant-v-lyft-inc-respondent-and-christopher-d-morgan-a-112455","caseName":"Rochelle Ameer, Appellant, vs. Lyft, Inc., Respondent, and Christopher D. Morgan, and Ajane Barnes, Defendants.","caseNumber":"ED112455","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-03-04","year":2025,"display_summary":"Rochelle Ameer appealed the dismissal of her product liability and negligence claims against Lyft, Inc., after her son, a Lyft driver, was killed during a carjacking initiated through the Lyft App. The trial court had dismissed the claims for failure to state a cause of action, finding the App was not a product and no duty existed. The appellate court reversed, holding that a mobile ridesharing application can be considered a product for product liability purposes and that the petition adequately alleged Lyft's duty to protect against third-party criminal acts, remanding for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","negligence","wrongful-death","other","personal-injury"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218057","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/rochelle-ameer-appellant-v-lyft-inc-respondent-and-christopher-d-morgan-a-112455","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100702:2025-02-28","opinionId":"04e0f7af-12b4-5099-91e1-2c6ed68b5081","slug":"dj-by-and-through-his-next-friend-rj-respondent-v-first-student-inc-appel-100702","caseName":"D.J., by and through his Next Friend, R.J., Respondent, vs. First Student, Inc., Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC100702","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-02-28","year":2025,"display_summary":"D.J., a fourth-grader, was struck by a hit-and-run driver after being dropped off by a First Student, Inc. bus at an intersection. D.J. sued First Student, alleging negligence for failing to provide the substitute bus driver with the correct route information, which resulted in D.J. being dropped off at an unsafe location. The jury found in favor of D.J. on this claim, but the Supreme Court of Missouri vacated the judgment, holding that the criminal act of the third-party driver was an intervening and superseding cause, breaking the chain of proximate causation.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","personal-injury","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217973","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/dj-by-and-through-his-next-friend-rj-respondent-v-first-student-inc-appel-100702","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112826:2025-02-18","opinionId":"cf1b6a3e-fef0-5b9e-ac40-a45c93419c83","slug":"joanne-knight-appellant-v-huilin-li-md-sam-bishara-md-and-st-louis-cardio-112826","caseName":"Joanne Knight, Appellant, v. Huilin Li, M.D., Sam Bishara, M.D., and St. Louis Cardiology Consultants, Ltd., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112826","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-02-18","year":2025,"display_summary":"Appellant Joanne Knight filed a wrongful death claim against Dr. Huilin Li, Dr. Sam Bishara, and St. Louis Cardiology Consultants, Ltd. (SLCC) following her husband's death from cardiac arrest. The trial court granted summary judgment for all respondents, striking Knight's expert witness against Dr. Li and finding no physician-patient relationship with Dr. Bishara and SLCC. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in striking the expert and that material questions of fact remained regarding the physician-patient relationship.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","evidence","summary-judgment","wrongful-death","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217577","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/joanne-knight-appellant-v-huilin-li-md-sam-bishara-md-and-st-louis-cardio-112826","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112410:2025-02-11","opinionId":"118b8dac-96d4-52b1-88f9-32384b867427","slug":"john-l-durnell-respondent-v-monsanto-company-appellant-112410","caseName":"John L. Durnell, Respondent, vs. Monsanto Company, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112410","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-02-11","year":2025,"display_summary":"John L. Durnell sued Monsanto Company, alleging that exposure to Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, asserting claims including strict liability failure to warn. A jury found in favor of Durnell on the strict liability failure to warn claim, awarding $1.25 million in compensatory damages. Monsanto appealed, arguing that Durnell's claim was both expressly and impliedly preempted by federal law. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the state-law claim was not preempted by FIFRA.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","civil-procedure","other","negligence","summary-judgment"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217395","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/john-l-durnell-respondent-v-monsanto-company-appellant-112410","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112272:2024-12-10","opinionId":"e84df2dc-4862-538e-8c71-663dad7d5664","slug":"douglas-overfield-respondent-v-bnsf-railway-company-appellant-112272","caseName":"Douglas Overfield, Respondent, v. BNSF Railway Company, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112272","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-12-10","year":2024,"display_summary":"Douglas Overfield, a locomotive engineer, sued BNSF Railway Company under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) for injuries sustained when his reflective vest snagged on a door handle. A jury awarded Overfield $2.75 million. BNSF appealed, arguing the verdict director was improper due to disjunctive bases lacking substantial evidence and constituting a roving commission, and that the trial court erred in refusing a withdrawal instruction. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no instructional error as the verdict director was supported by substantial evidence and was not a roving commission, and the withdrawal instruction was properly refused.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","personal-injury","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215295","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/douglas-overfield-respondent-v-bnsf-railway-company-appellant-112272","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112075:2024-12-03","opinionId":"027173e4-26ee-52f5-bbca-aa0b400b6456","slug":"sharlean-gordon-appellant-v-monsanto-company-respondent-112075","caseName":"Sharlean Gordon, Appellant, vs. Monsanto Company, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112075","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-12-03","year":2024,"display_summary":"Sharlean Gordon sued Monsanto Company, alleging that her prolonged exposure to Roundup and its ingredient glyphosate caused her to develop non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, asserting claims of strict liability product defect, strict liability failure to warn, and negligence. Following a jury verdict in favor of Monsanto, and the trial court's denial of Gordon's motion for a new trial, Gordon appealed. The Eastern District of Missouri affirmed the judgment, finding no reversible error in the trial court's evidentiary rulings regarding the exclusion of a scientific publication, the restriction of expert testimony, or the admission of foreign regulatory documents.","primaryTopic":"evidence","topicSlugs":["evidence","personal-injury","negligence","other","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215135","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sharlean-gordon-appellant-v-monsanto-company-respondent-112075","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38189:2024-10-03","opinionId":"7bd98118-e362-5786-9c09-3e7b43c3e7ed","slug":"tyler-pendergraft-plaintiff-respondent-v-james-rhett-mason-and-jace-mason-d38189","caseName":"TYLER PENDERGRAFT, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nJAMES RHETT MASON and JACE MASON, Defendants-Appellants","caseNumber":"SD38189","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-10-03","year":2024,"display_summary":"Plaintiff Tyler Pendergraft sued James Rhett Mason and Jace Mason for assault and battery, alleging separate injuries caused by each defendant. The jury returned separate verdicts with different damage awards against each defendant. Defendants moved to amend the judgment to merge the verdicts, arguing a double recovery, but the trial court denied the motion. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the merger doctrine did not apply because the jury awarded damages for separate claims based on different conduct causing different injuries.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=213314","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/tyler-pendergraft-plaintiff-respondent-v-james-rhett-mason-and-jace-mason-d38189","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112004:2024-09-03","opinionId":"6cebc6ef-c357-5a50-8a40-972a976f463c","slug":"stacey-moore-appellant-v-monsanto-company-respondent-112004","caseName":"Stacey Moore, Appellant, v. Monsanto Company, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112004","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-09-03","year":2024,"display_summary":"Stacey Moore sued Monsanto Company, alleging that his exposure to Roundup caused non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. After a jury returned a verdict for Monsanto, Moore appealed, asserting the circuit court erred by excluding his expert witness, overruling his motion for a new trial based on Monsanto's opening statement, and failing to strike a venireperson for cause. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, affirmed the circuit court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in any of the challenged rulings.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions","personal-injury"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211075","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/stacey-moore-appellant-v-monsanto-company-respondent-112004","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112242:2024-08-20","opinionId":"f334b129-52b2-5103-a3d0-960e55cf8269","slug":"amy-winget-appellant-v-ks-associates-inc-dickinson-hussman-architects-pc-112242","caseName":"Amy Winget, Appellant, vs. K&S Associates, Inc., Dickinson Hussman Architects, P.C., Inside/Out Architecture, Inc., and Horner & Shifrin, Inc., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112242","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-20","year":2024,"display_summary":"Amy Winget appealed the dismissal of her personal injury claims against K&S Associates and Horner & Shifrin. The trial court dismissed her refiled petition, which alleged negligence in the design and construction of chemical storage facilities, on grounds including the statute of limitations and savings statute. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the one-year savings statute began to run when Winget filed her voluntary dismissal, not when the trial court entered its dismissal order, thus rendering her refiled suit time-barred.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","personal-injury"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210477","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/amy-winget-appellant-v-ks-associates-inc-dickinson-hussman-architects-pc-112242","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38169:2024-08-12","opinionId":"6f2345f5-e7f5-5f0b-9585-4a53b91c41fc","slug":"brantley-atchley-and-becky-tittle-as-survivors-of-deceased-kayla-atchley-d38169","caseName":"BRANTLEY ATCHLEY and BECKY TITTLE, as survivors of Deceased Kayla Atchley, Plaintiffs-Appellants\nv.\nMISSOURI HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, and APEX PAVING COMPANY, Respondents-Respondents","caseNumber":"SD38169","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-12","year":2024,"display_summary":"Appellants Brantley Atchley and Becky Jo Tittle, survivors of Kayla Atchley, appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Apex Paving Company. Their negligence claim alleged that a shoulder drop-off on Highway 153 caused their daughter's fatal car accident, and Apex owed a common law duty to keep the roadway safe. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Apex had no common law duty as it had not yet mobilized to the site or performed any work in the area of the alleged defect. The court also denied the argument that summary judgment improperly limited the Appellants' theory of the case.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","personal-injury"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210273","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/brantley-atchley-and-becky-tittle-as-survivors-of-deceased-kayla-atchley-d38169","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111901:2024-07-16","opinionId":"b4b12043-a0d1-5f7e-bacd-0f594351fd1a","slug":"andrew-wilkinson-respondent-v-stanley-fastening-systems-lp-appellant-111901","caseName":"Andrew Wilkinson, Respondent, vs. Stanley Fastening Systems, L.P., Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111901","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-07-16","year":2024,"display_summary":"Andrew Wilkinson sued Stanley Fastening Systems, L.P. for products liability after a pneumatic stapler manufactured by Stanley fired and struck him in the eye, leading to its surgical removal. The trial court entered judgment following a jury verdict for Wilkinson, awarding $11 million in noneconomic damages. Stanley appealed, arguing the trial court erred by not granting a mistrial after Wilkinson's counsel repeatedly referred to Stanley as a \"billion-dollar company\" in violation of an order in limine. The appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial, finding the trial court abused its discretion because the improper statements were not cured and prejudiced the outcome, as evidenced by the large verdict.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","negligence","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209775","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/andrew-wilkinson-respondent-v-stanley-fastening-systems-lp-appellant-111901","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37969:2024-07-10","opinionId":"76c53d8e-03f3-5ff1-9b2c-94a1e7857f43","slug":"gregory-frost-respondent-v-pcrmc-medical-group-inc-dba-phelps-health-medi-d37969","caseName":"GREGORY FROST, Respondent\nvs.\nPCRMC MEDICAL GROUP, INC., D/B/A PHELPS HEALTH MEDICAL GROUP, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37969","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-07-10","year":2024,"display_summary":"Gregory Frost sued PCRMC Medical Group, alleging negligence in his opioid treatment led to addiction. A jury awarded Frost compensatory and punitive damages. On appeal, Medical Group challenged the application of the statute of limitations, the admissibility of certain evidence, the negligence verdict director, and the sufficiency of evidence for punitive damages. The appellate court affirmed the judgment for actual damages but reversed the punitive damages award, remanding the case for an amended judgment.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","negligence","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209594","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/gregory-frost-respondent-v-pcrmc-medical-group-inc-dba-phelps-health-medi-d37969","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111487:2024-06-25","opinionId":"e0c98325-25a0-5ea3-91cd-58cf17df7e0f","slug":"dj-by-and-through-his-next-friend-rj-respondent-v-first-student-inc-appel-111487","caseName":"D.J., by and through his next friend, R.J., Respondent, vs. First Student, Inc., Appellant, and Tomika L. Richardson, Defendant.","caseNumber":"ED111487","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-06-25","year":2024,"display_summary":"D.J., a child, was struck by a passing car after exiting a school bus operated by First Student, Inc. The jury found First Student directly negligent for failing to provide its substitute driver with sufficient route information, awarding D.J. $1.3 million, but found for First Student and the driver on a claim regarding a reasonably safe drop-off location. First Student appealed the denial of its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that First Student owed an independent duty to provide route information, the passing car's actions were a foreseeable contributing cause, and neither the McGinnis doctrine nor the McHaffie rule precluded liability.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","personal-injury","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210479","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/dj-by-and-through-his-next-friend-rj-respondent-v-first-student-inc-appel-111487","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111786:2024-06-25","opinionId":"84ebd626-67cd-5e03-a2ca-b54f7c7ed4d8","slug":"melissa-moody-respondent-v-dynamic-fitness-management-ltd-appellant-111786","caseName":"Melissa Moody, Respondent, vs. Dynamic Fitness Management, Ltd., Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111786","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-06-25","year":2024,"display_summary":"Melissa Moody sued Dynamic Fitness Management, Ltd. (DFM) for negligence after she sustained a herniated disc while performing a push press during a group weightlifting class. A jury found DFM 30% at fault, awarding Moody $1 million in damages. DFM appealed, arguing that Moody's claim was barred by the doctrine of implied primary assumption of the risk. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that the risk of injury was inherent to the activity and known to Moody, and DFM did not increase that inherent risk.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","personal-injury","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209177","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/melissa-moody-respondent-v-dynamic-fitness-management-ltd-appellant-111786","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86040:2024-06-18","opinionId":"c41416dd-2165-53e2-80b8-acf75047503e","slug":"katherine-ohaver-v-3m-company-d86040","caseName":"Katherine O'Haver\nvs.\n3M Company","caseNumber":"WD86040","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-06-18","year":2024,"display_summary":"Katherine O'Haver sued 3M Company, alleging negligent and defective design, manufacturing, and marketing of its Bair Hugger patient warming system, which she claimed caused a periprosthetic joint infection after knee surgery. Following a jury verdict for 3M, O'Haver appealed, raising nine points concerning evidentiary and discovery rulings. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error, primarily due to O'Haver's failure to preserve issues through offers of proof or demonstrate prejudice, and upholding the trial court's discretion regarding discovery and expert testimony limitations.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","personal-injury"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208996","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/katherine-ohaver-v-3m-company-d86040","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111450:2024-05-21","opinionId":"0a0d958e-d15d-5a46-b603-147280890982","slug":"cherise-brock-and-anthony-brock-appellants-v-dr-rishad-shaikh-respondent-111450","caseName":"Cherise Brock and Anthony Brock, Appellants, vs. Dr. Rishad Shaikh, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111450","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-05-21","year":2024,"display_summary":"Cherise Brock sued Dr. Rishad Shaikh for negligence after sustaining a permanent lingual nerve injury following a wisdom tooth extraction. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Dr. Shaikh. On appeal, Brock argued the trial court erred by allowing Dr. Shaikh's expert to testify on redirect regarding a post-operative X-ray and by denying cross-examination of Dr. Shaikh with a previous patient's medical records. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion on either point.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","negligence","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208217","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/cherise-brock-and-anthony-brock-appellants-v-dr-rishad-shaikh-respondent-111450","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111973:2024-05-14","opinionId":"19a5aea3-c43e-5d73-8603-33adddcc38aa","slug":"phyllis-ragsdale-and-larry-ragsdale-appellants-v-chris-d-charlton-dc-and-111973","caseName":"Phyllis Ragsdale and Larry Ragsdale, Appellants, v. Chris D. Charlton, D.C. and Charlton Chiropractic, LLC, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED111973","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-05-14","year":2024,"display_summary":"Phyllis Ragsdale and Larry Ragsdale sued Chris D. Charlton, D.C. and Charlton Chiropractic, LLC, alleging medical malpractice after Phyllis suffered three broken ribs during a spinal adjustment. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Charlton, finding Ragsdale failed to demonstrate negligence or causation. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether Charlton's treatment was negligent and caused Ragsdale's injuries, based on expert testimony.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","personal-injury","summary-judgment","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208117","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/phyllis-ragsdale-and-larry-ragsdale-appellants-v-chris-d-charlton-dc-and-111973","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111426:2024-04-30","opinionId":"a5214828-caab-5ec6-a4af-5f7875d923f7","slug":"jimmie-sue-marchbank-and-john-marchbank-appellants-v-amit-chakrabarty-md-111426","caseName":"Jimmie Sue Marchbank and John Marchbank, Appellants, v. Amit Chakrabarty, M.D., and Urology Clinics of North Alabama, P.C., d/b/a Poplar Bluff Urology, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED111426","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-04-30","year":2024,"display_summary":"Jimmie Sue and John Marchbank sued Dr. Amit Chakrabarty for medical negligence after Jimmie Sue suffered a permanent colostomy following a vaginal prolapse repair surgery. The jury returned a verdict for Dr. Chakrabarty, and the circuit court entered judgment. On appeal, the Marchbanks argued the circuit court erred by excluding evidence of Dr. Chakrabarty's prior disciplinary record, which they sought to use for impeachment when he testified as a non-retained expert. The appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded the case, holding that the exclusion of this impeachment evidence was an abuse of discretion and prejudicial error.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","evidence","civil-procedure","personal-injury","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207654","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jimmie-sue-marchbank-and-john-marchbank-appellants-v-amit-chakrabarty-md-111426","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111905:2024-04-16","opinionId":"47eb59f4-8b91-5e13-a888-4aa6790f5f5a","slug":"candace-love-as-personal-representative-of-the-estate-of-casey-redmond-pl-111905","caseName":"Candace Love, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Casey Redmond, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Osage Marine Services, Inc., Defendant/Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111905","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-04-16","year":2024,"display_summary":"Candace Love, as personal representative of her deceased son Casey Redmond's estate, sued Osage Marine Services, Inc. under the Jones Act for Redmond's death while working on a tugboat. Osage Marine admitted liability, and a jury awarded Love $15 million in damages. On appeal, Osage Marine challenged the submissibility of damages for conscious pain and suffering and loss of support, the denial of remittitur, the admission of certain evidence, a jury instruction, and the entry of judgment despite a federal injunction. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence for the damages claims and denying the remaining points on procedural grounds.","primaryTopic":"wrongful-death","topicSlugs":["wrongful-death","civil-procedure","personal-injury","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208213","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/candace-love-as-personal-representative-of-the-estate-of-casey-redmond-pl-111905","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111805:2024-02-20","opinionId":"17fd9fc2-b22e-5c15-86d0-abd4ad7d7eae","slug":"michael-megown-et-al-appellants-v-auto-club-family-ins-co-respondent-111805","caseName":"Michael Megown, et al., Appellants, v. Auto Club Family Ins. Co., Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111805","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-02-20","year":2024,"display_summary":"Michael and Jane Megown appealed the trial court's allocation of settlement funds to their insurer, Auto Club Family Insurance Company, as subrogee, from a settlement with a third-party tortfeasor. The Megowns argued that subrogation of personal injury claims is prohibited, and their settlement included such claims. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the trial court properly allocated the settlement funds, respecting the ban on personal injury subrogation while allowing the property damage subrogation.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","civil-procedure","property-real-estate","personal-injury","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=205678","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/michael-megown-et-al-appellants-v-auto-club-family-ins-co-respondent-111805","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100089:2024-01-30","opinionId":"a2e81732-b981-5ae9-b5aa-06dccb60fdf8","slug":"dane-templeton-appellant-v-charles-orth-do-and-orthopedic-surgeons-inc-re-100089","caseName":"Dane Templeton, Appellant, vs. Charles Orth, D.O., and Orthopedic Surgeons, Inc., Respondents.","caseNumber":"SC100089","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2024-01-30","year":2024,"display_summary":"Dane Templeton sued Dr. Charles Orth and Orthopedic Surgeons Inc. for medical malpractice, alleging negligence in treatment. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Dr. Orth, finding Templeton's action was time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Templeton's actions of seeking an alternative treatment plan and discontinuing Dr. Orth's prescribed antibiotics without consultation terminated the physician-patient relationship, thus ending the continuing care tolling doctrine before the lawsuit was filed.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","personal-injury","summary-judgment"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=205114","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/dane-templeton-appellant-v-charles-orth-do-and-orthopedic-surgeons-inc-re-100089","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"medical-malpractice","label":"Medical Malpractice","href":"/practice-areas/medical-malpractice","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/medical-malpractice"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111387:2024-01-23","opinionId":"dc257fc5-d92b-5ebf-96ec-31c6846411f0","slug":"patricia-anslinger-respondent-v-christian-hospital-northeast-northwest-ap-111387","caseName":"Patricia Anslinger, Respondent, vs. Christian Hospital Northeast-Northwest, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111387","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-01-23","year":2024,"display_summary":"Patricia Anslinger sued Christian Hospital Northeast-Northwest for personal injuries sustained after she tripped on a rubber floor mat in the hospital's vestibule. A jury found the Hospital liable, and the trial court denied the Hospital's motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which argued the condition was open and obvious as a matter of law. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the floor mat's condition was not open and obvious as a matter of law and that the plaintiff presented a submissible case.","primaryTopic":"premises-liability","topicSlugs":["premises-liability","personal-injury","negligence","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=204814","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/patricia-anslinger-respondent-v-christian-hospital-northeast-northwest-ap-111387","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111416:2023-10-31","opinionId":"4d2bc69d-5866-53ed-820a-b5f4746f6746","slug":"daniel-crowder-respondent-v-ingram-barge-company-llc-appellant-111416","caseName":"Daniel Crowder, Respondent, vs. Ingram Barge Company, LLC, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111416","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-10-31","year":2023,"display_summary":"Daniel Crowder sued Ingram Barge Company, LLC, his employer, for negligence under the Jones Act, unseaworthiness, maintenance, and cure after sustaining a knee injury while working on a vessel. A jury awarded Crowder damages, which the trial court reduced based on assessed comparative fault. Ingram appealed, challenging the admissibility of Crowder's economic expert testimony and the denial of its motion for remittitur. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in admitting the expert testimony or denying remittitur.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","negligence","evidence","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=202396","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/daniel-crowder-respondent-v-ingram-barge-company-llc-appellant-111416","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111319:2023-09-19","opinionId":"87efd5ee-d11c-54dc-ab7e-ddce92311856","slug":"zs-by-and-through-his-next-friend-ps-appellant-v-rockwood-school-district-111319","caseName":"Z.S., By and Through His Next Friend, P.S., Appellant, v. Rockwood School District, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111319","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-09-19","year":2023,"display_summary":"Z.S., through his next friend, P.S., appealed the summary judgment granted in favor of Rockwood School District. Z.S. sought damages for personal injuries sustained when he collided with a gymnasium wall during a physical education class, alleging the wall was a dangerous condition. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that Z.S. failed to establish the gymnasium wall was in a dangerous condition sufficient to waive the District's sovereign immunity.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","summary-judgment","personal-injury","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=201222","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/zs-by-and-through-his-next-friend-ps-appellant-v-rockwood-school-district-111319","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111141:2023-07-25","opinionId":"5b1f2c25-4dd6-5cd9-965b-8c7e38c421e6","slug":"julius-copeland-appellant-v-wrbm-llc-dba-western-rivers-boat-management-i-111141","caseName":"Julius Copeland, Appellant, v. WRBM, LLC, d/b/a Western Rivers Boat Management, Inc., Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111141","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-07-25","year":2023,"display_summary":"Julius Copeland sued WRBM, LLC, d/b/a Western Rivers Boat Management, Inc. (Employer), alleging negligence under the Jones Act and unseaworthiness under general maritime law after suffering injuries on a vessel. The trial court dismissed Copeland's First Amended Petition without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, affirmed the dismissal, holding that Copeland failed to plead sufficient facts to establish specific personal jurisdiction under Missouri's long-arm statute.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","negligence","personal-injury","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=197857","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/julius-copeland-appellant-v-wrbm-llc-dba-western-rivers-boat-management-i-111141","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110991:2023-07-18","opinionId":"982739cb-08b9-5598-a47c-33c775e0b641","slug":"jessica-huett-appellant-v-kent-branson-md-et-al-respondents-110991","caseName":"Jessica Huett, Appellant, v. Kent Branson, M.D., et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED110991","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-07-18","year":2023,"display_summary":"Jessica Huett, as Next Friend of J.H., appealed a jury verdict finding Dr. Kent Branson and K.D.B. Enterprises, Inc. not liable for medical negligence during J.H.'s delivery, which resulted in a brachial plexus injury. Huett challenged the circuit court's decision to allow a biomechanical engineer to testify as an expert on the specific cause of J.H.'s injury and to limit evidence of past medical damages. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, agreeing that the circuit court erred in permitting the biomechanical engineer to testify regarding the specific cause of J.H.'s injury, finding her unqualified and her methods unreliable for specific causation.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=197617","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jessica-huett-appellant-v-kent-branson-md-et-al-respondents-110991","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85014:2023-06-27","opinionId":"5030bbe3-bd4a-592e-933d-3b49a4a28cb0","slug":"marlayna-kenney-v-kailey-k-myers-d85014","caseName":"Marlayna Kenney\nvs.\nKailey K. Myers","caseNumber":"WD85014","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-06-27","year":2023,"display_summary":"Kailey K. Myers appealed a judgment in favor of Marlayna Kenney and Jayden Morgan on their wrongful death and personal injury claims, which arose from a motor vehicle accident. Myers argued that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence related to her liability, as she had admitted fault for the accident. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that Myers' admission was not a clear and unequivocal admission of all specific allegations of negligence, and even with such an admission, plaintiffs retain the right to present relevant liability evidence. The court also found no outcome-determinative prejudice.","primaryTopic":"auto-accident","topicSlugs":["auto-accident","evidence","civil-procedure","personal-injury","wrongful-death"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=196856","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/marlayna-kenney-v-kailey-k-myers-d85014","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37445:2023-05-12","opinionId":"50452227-c4f7-5f9a-9dfd-617ae751a9e0","slug":"charlotte-wright-plaintiff-appellant-v-arturo-marrufo-armijo-defendant-re-d37445","caseName":"CHARLOTTE WRIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellant\nv\nARTURO MARRUFO ARMIJO, Defendant-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37445","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-05-12","year":2023,"display_summary":"Charlotte Wright sued Arturo Marrufo Armijo for negligence following a car accident, seeking damages for both personal injuries and property damage. The trial court found in Wright's favor on her negligence claim but awarded only property damages, declining to award damages for personal injuries. On appeal, Wright argued the judgment was inconsistent and against the weight of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court was not required to believe Wright's uncontradicted testimony regarding her personal injuries and that her failure to prove these damages made the judgment consistent.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","auto-accident","negligence","civil-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=195394","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/charlotte-wright-plaintiff-appellant-v-arturo-marrufo-armijo-defendant-re-d37445","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110514:2023-03-21","opinionId":"cb0de46d-35b5-5845-b5a3-52bbc513d253","slug":"debbie-m-earley-appellant-v-mary-v-dunn-respondent-110514","caseName":"Debbie M. Earley, Appellant, v. Mary V. Dunn, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED110514","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-03-21","year":2023,"display_summary":"Debbie Earley, an in-home caregiver, sued her employer, Mary Dunn, for negligence after being sexually assaulted by Dunn's grandson in Dunn's home. Earley argued that the employer-employee relationship created a duty for Dunn to protect her from third-party criminal acts. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Dunn, finding no such duty. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the employer-employee relationship alone does not constitute a special relationship giving rise to a duty to protect against unforeseeable third-party criminal acts, and that prior statements to the contrary were dictum.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","employment-law","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","personal-injury"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=193476","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/debbie-m-earley-appellant-v-mary-v-dunn-respondent-110514","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85170:2022-12-27","opinionId":"c5e1d938-4eaa-5c51-801a-92debbebb9aa","slug":"arlene-wickham-v-jean-hummel-d85170","caseName":"Arlene Wickham \nvs. \nJean Hummel","caseNumber":"WD85170","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-12-27","year":2022,"display_summary":"Arlene Wickham sued nurse Jean Hummel for medical malpractice after a knee replacement surgery led to a below-the-knee amputation. A jury found Hummel 100% at fault for failing to perform proper neurovascular assessments and notify the surgeon of Wickham's deteriorating condition. Hummel appealed the judgment and the denial of her motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Wickham presented a submissible case on both breach of the standard of care and causation, and that the trial court did not err in its handling of damages.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","negligence","civil-procedure","standard-of-review","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=191434","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/arlene-wickham-v-jean-hummel-d85170","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"medical-malpractice","label":"Medical Malpractice","href":"/practice-areas/medical-malpractice","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/medical-malpractice"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37181:2022-09-30","opinionId":"e733994d-d8ff-5c03-a247-6ce237bda0b5","slug":"daniel-woodgate-and-tanya-woodgate-respondents-v-st-james-winery-inc-and-d37181","caseName":"DANIEL WOODGATE and TANYA WOODGATE, Respondents\nvs.\nST. JAMES WINERY, INC. and RAUL R. ESPINOZA, Appellants","caseNumber":"SD37181","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-09-30","year":2022,"display_summary":"Daniel and Tanya Woodgate sued St. James Winery and its employee, Raul Espinoza, for injuries Mr. Woodgate sustained in a motorcycle accident caused by Espinoza. After a jury awarded the Woodgates $12.8 million, the defendants appealed, alleging errors in the admission of expert testimony and the denial of a mistrial. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in either ruling.","primaryTopic":"auto-accident","topicSlugs":["auto-accident","personal-injury","evidence","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=189553","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/daniel-woodgate-and-tanya-woodgate-respondents-v-st-james-winery-inc-and-d37181","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84990:2022-08-23","opinionId":"0eb63ba4-71a7-559f-ad73-5359ae02cdb5","slug":"katherine-harned-v-daniel-v-spurlock-do-et-al-d84990","caseName":"Katherine Harned\nvs. \nDaniel V. Spurlock, D.O., et al.","caseNumber":"WD84990","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-08-23","year":2022,"display_summary":"Katherine Harned sued Daniel V. Spurlock, D.O., and Meritas Health Corporation for medical malpractice after a suicide attempt resulted in severe burns, alleging negligent discharge and treatment. A jury found in favor of Harned, and the trial court denied the defendants' motions for new trial and remittitur. On appeal, the Western District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the denial of the motion for new trial, and concluding that the claims of instructional error and limitation of cross-examination were unpreserved. The court also found that the trial court properly applied the catastrophic personal injury cap for noneconomic damages.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","appellate-procedure","personal-injury","evidence","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=188635","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/katherine-harned-v-daniel-v-spurlock-do-et-al-d84990","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84881:2022-08-23","opinionId":"09f7c2f7-d0de-519d-b860-fa0b893aa268","slug":"farmers-insurance-company-inc-v-jill-mabie-et-al-d84881","caseName":"Farmers Insurance Company, Inc.\nvs. \nJill Mabie, et al.","caseNumber":"WD84881","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-08-23","year":2022,"display_summary":"Farmers Insurance Company appealed the trial court's dismissal of its amended petition for interpleader. The underlying dispute involved multiple claims against Farmers' insured arising from a car accident, where Farmers sought to resolve the distribution of its policy limits among the claimants. The trial court dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that Farmers had sufficiently pleaded the necessary elements for an interpleader action under Missouri law.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","insurance","appellate-procedure","personal-injury","wrongful-death"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=188634","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/farmers-insurance-company-inc-v-jill-mabie-et-al-d84881","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc99249:2022-06-14","opinionId":"ed46324f-bfd6-5654-bae0-7ff9e77f949c","slug":"alfred-j-aj-giudicy-appellant-v-mercy-hospitals-east-communities-fka-st-j-c99249","caseName":"Alfred J. (A.J.) Giudicy, Appellant, vs. Mercy Hospitals East Communities f/k/a St. John's Mercy Medical Center, and Michael J. Chehval, M.D., Respondents.","caseNumber":"SC99249","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2022-06-14","year":2022,"display_summary":"Alfred J. Giudicy appealed the circuit court's dismissal of his medical malpractice case without prejudice for failing to file an affidavit of merit within 180 days, as required by section 538.225. Giudicy argued the statute was unconstitutional, that the defense was waived, and that he substantially complied. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, rejecting all of Giudicy's arguments, finding the statute constitutional, the defense not waivable, and no substantial compliance with the filing deadline.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","personal-injury","other","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=187418","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/alfred-j-aj-giudicy-appellant-v-mercy-hospitals-east-communities-fka-st-j-c99249","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110232:2022-04-19","opinionId":"65eac281-7dde-5b36-9cc9-70475c8fee84","slug":"kristine-hill-and-dennis-hill-relators-v-honorable-stanley-j-wallach-resp-110232","caseName":"Kristine Hill and Dennis Hill, Relators, v. Honorable Stanley J. Wallach, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED110232","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2022-04-19","year":2022,"display_summary":"Kristine and Dennis Hill (Relators) sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the enforcement of a trial court order compelling them to produce settlement documents from a prior automobile accident. The Relators argued these documents were protected work product and that the opposing party, Mercy Rehabilitation Hospital, failed to show a substantial need for them. The appellate court agreed, finding that the settlement documents were tangible work product and Mercy failed to meet the burden of demonstrating substantial need and inability to obtain the substantial equivalent by other means. The court made its preliminary order in prohibition permanent, directing the trial court to vacate its order.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","evidence","personal-injury","auto-accident"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=186261","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kristine-hill-and-dennis-hill-relators-v-honorable-stanley-j-wallach-resp-110232","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc99024:2022-03-01","opinionId":"ef370f5d-da3d-5376-a0e1-03d588a5e07d","slug":"state-ex-rel-kimberly-barks-relator-v-the-honorable-daniel-pelikan-respon-c99024","caseName":"State ex rel. Kimberly Barks, Relator, vs. The Honorable Daniel Pelikan, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC99024","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2022-03-01","year":2022,"display_summary":"Kimberly Barks sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the disclosure of her medical records in a personal injury lawsuit where she was accused of negligent golf cart operation while intoxicated. The circuit court ordered the release of her medical records, finding she waived the physician-patient privilege by asserting affirmative defenses of comparative fault and assumption of risk. The Missouri Supreme Court made its preliminary writ of prohibition permanent, holding that Barks did not waive the privilege because her affirmative defenses were purely defensive and did not voluntarily place her medical condition at issue.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","personal-injury","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=184800","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-ex-rel-kimberly-barks-relator-v-the-honorable-daniel-pelikan-respon-c99024","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109560:2022-01-25","opinionId":"4915d34a-0aad-5e11-b42d-9be70a9a706a","slug":"nancy-payne-appellant-v-rehabilitation-institute-of-st-louis-llc-responde-109560","caseName":"Nancy Payne, Appellant, vs. Rehabilitation Institute of St. Louis, LLC, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED109560","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2022-01-25","year":2022,"display_summary":"Nancy Payne sued Rehabilitation Institute of St. Louis, LLC, alleging improper medical care and negligence after she fell from her bed while an inpatient. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Institute, finding Payne's claims were for medical malpractice and thus time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that Payne's claims were indeed related to health care services and therefore fell under the medical malpractice statute of limitations, despite her attempt to label them as ordinary negligence.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","personal-injury","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=184014","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/nancy-payne-appellant-v-rehabilitation-institute-of-st-louis-llc-responde-109560","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc99139:2021-12-21","opinionId":"00bbff18-4612-5fac-8961-78351a2126c0","slug":"state-ex-rel-darin-lutman-relator-v-the-honorable-m-brandon-baker-respond-c99139","caseName":"State ex rel. Darin Lutman, Relator, vs. The Honorable M. Brandon Baker, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC99139","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2021-12-21","year":2021,"display_summary":"Darin Lutman sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the release of his medical records from two health networks, arguing they were protected by physician-patient privilege. The circuit court had ordered the disclosure of these records in a wrongful death and personal injury suit filed against Lutman after a fatal auto accident. The Missouri Supreme Court made its preliminary writ of prohibition permanent, holding that Lutman's statements to police and in an apology letter did not constitute an implied waiver of the privilege, as they did not show a clear, unequivocal purpose to divulge confidential medical information. The Court also clarified that a writ of prohibition remains appropriate even if records have been disclosed, as a partial remedy can be ordered.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","evidence","personal-injury","wrongful-death","auto-accident"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=182828","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-ex-rel-darin-lutman-relator-v-the-honorable-m-brandon-baker-respond-c99139","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc98888:2021-11-23","opinionId":"4a76459a-fd38-5e7b-9968-abc87ecffa76","slug":"nicholas-linton-by-and-through-his-mother-and-next-friend-arica-linton-ap-c98888","caseName":"Nicholas Linton, by and through his mother and next friend, Arica Linton, Appellant, vs. Amy S. Carter, D.O., and Ferns, Matile, Perryman & Moore, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"SC98888","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2021-11-23","year":2021,"display_summary":"Nicholas Linton, by his mother, sued Dr. Amy S. Carter and others for medical malpractice, alleging negligent care led to his brain injury. The jury found for the defendants. On appeal, Linton argued the circuit court abused its discretion by allowing a defense expert to testify on alternative causes of injury without stating a specific cause to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed, holding that alternative causation testimony is admissible under section 490.065 and the expert's testimony met the required standard, and any alleged error was not prejudicial.","primaryTopic":"evidence","topicSlugs":["evidence","civil-procedure","personal-injury","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=182225","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/nicholas-linton-by-and-through-his-mother-and-next-friend-arica-linton-ap-c98888","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed108826:2021-11-16","opinionId":"f656db02-bd39-5c89-8eeb-8b8ee5970811","slug":"carol-lowe-respondent-v-mercy-clinic-east-communities-bryan-menges-do-jam-108826","caseName":"Carol Lowe, Respondent, vs. Mercy Clinic East Communities, Bryan Menges, D.O., James D. Cassat, M.D., and Mercy Hospitals East Communities, Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED108826","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-11-16","year":2021,"display_summary":"Carol Lowe, as personal representative of Vincent Lowe's estate, was involved in a medical negligence action against Mercy Clinic East Communities and other defendants. After a jury verdict for Mr. Lowe, a prior appeal (Lowe I) affirmed most of the damages but remanded for recalculation of future medical damages and an immediate lump sum for attorney's fees. Mr. Lowe died after Lowe I was issued but before its mandate. On remand, the trial court entered an amended judgment awarding attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and medical damages for the period Mr. Lowe lived. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's amended judgment, finding it conformed to the mandate in Lowe I and did not violate the American Rule or section 538.220.5.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","personal-injury","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=182014","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/carol-lowe-respondent-v-mercy-clinic-east-communities-bryan-menges-do-jam-108826","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed108858:2021-11-09","opinionId":"24d55477-573e-54b4-9af4-73fee8046236","slug":"kristine-hendrix-appellant-v-city-of-st-louis-et-al-respondent-108858","caseName":"Kristine Hendrix, Appellant, vs. City of St. Louis, et al., Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED108858","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-11-09","year":2021,"display_summary":"Kristine Hendrix appealed the circuit court's denial of her motion to recuse and its grant of summary judgment to the City of St. Louis on her negligent training and supervision claim. Officer Ogunjobi cross-appealed the denial of his motion for directed verdict on Hendrix's excessive force/battery claim, and Officer Wilson cross-appealed the denial of his request for attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment on all points, finding Hendrix waived her recusal argument, the City did not waive sovereign immunity, sufficient evidence supported the jury's excessive force verdict, and Officer Wilson failed to plead attorney's fees.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","personal-injury","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=181896","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kristine-hendrix-appellant-v-city-of-st-louis-et-al-respondent-108858","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36947:2021-09-21","opinionId":"8a7a38ae-3e43-50fa-bf38-dcc7e0c8b714","slug":"deborah-elkins-russell-hampton-and-sydney-crosby-as-next-friend-of-oh-a-m-d36947","caseName":"DEBORAH ELKINS, RUSSELL HAMPTON, and SYDNEY CROSBY as next friend of O.H., a minor, Appellants\nvs.\nACADEMY I, LP, JOHN DOE, and NYADIA BURDEN, Respondents","caseNumber":"SD36947","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2021-09-21","year":2021,"display_summary":"Appellants, the family of a man killed by Luis Perez, sued Academy I, LP, a gun store, and its employee John Doe, alleging negligent entrustment and negligence per se for selling ammunition to Perez. The circuit court dismissed the claims. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Appellants failed to allege facts showing Academy knew or should have known of Perez's incompetence or intent to harm for the negligent entrustment claim. The court further held that federal criminal statutes could not serve as the basis for a negligence per se claim in state court due to the express preclusion of private rights of action by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","personal-injury","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=180653","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/deborah-elkins-russell-hampton-and-sydney-crosby-as-next-friend-of-oh-a-m-d36947","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc98977:2021-07-22","opinionId":"c2b7c733-e4d1-5be4-8eb4-e08085a20a2f","slug":"maria-del-carmen-ordinola-velazquez-appellant-respondent-v-university-phy-c98977","caseName":"Maria del Carmen Ordinola Velazquez, Appellant-Respondent, vs. University Physician Associates, et al., Respondents-Appellants.","caseNumber":"SC98977","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2021-07-22","year":2021,"display_summary":"Maria del Carmen Ordinola Velazquez sued University Physician Associates and other physicians for medical negligence during childbirth and postpartum care, resulting in severe injuries. A jury awarded her damages, but the circuit court reduced the non-economic damages award by applying a statutory cap for catastrophic personal injury under § 538.210.2(2), RSMo. Ordinola appealed the constitutionality of the damage caps, and the Physicians cross-appealed several procedural rulings. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that the statutory damage caps are constitutional as medical negligence is now a statutorily created cause of action, and found no error in the circuit court's other rulings.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","personal-injury","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=178958","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/maria-del-carmen-ordinola-velazquez-appellant-respondent-v-university-phy-c98977","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"medical-malpractice","label":"Medical Malpractice","href":"/practice-areas/medical-malpractice","score":8,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/medical-malpractice"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109193:2021-06-29","opinionId":"9e97fdbf-573d-5611-a5b5-6e28248684d7","slug":"breanna-rose-respondent-v-santiago-e-sabala-jr-respondent-and-verizon-com-109193","caseName":"Breanna Rose, Respondent, vs. Santiago E. Sabala, Jr., Respondent, and Verizon Communications, Inc., Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED109193","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-06-29","year":2021,"display_summary":"Plaintiff Breanna Rose sued Verizon after a store employee allegedly transferred nude images from her phone to his email during an exchange. Verizon moved to compel arbitration based on a 2015 store receipt referencing an online Customer Agreement. The trial court denied the motion, finding the arbitration provision unconscionable and an unenforceable contract of adhesion. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the arbitration provision was an unenforceable contract of adhesion because it did not comport with the reasonable expectations of the parties, especially regarding personal matters and privacy claims arising years later from a separate transaction.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","other","personal-injury"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=178235","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/breanna-rose-respondent-v-santiago-e-sabala-jr-respondent-and-verizon-com-109193","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83806:2021-06-15","opinionId":"8952790c-76b3-5225-9cd3-8f0b8e40cf78","slug":"melissa-a-rasmussen-v-illinois-casualty-company-d83806","caseName":"Melissa A. Rasmussen\nvs.\nIllinois Casualty Company","caseNumber":"WD83806","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-06-15","year":2021,"display_summary":"Melissa A. Rasmussen sued SRJS, Inc., d/b/a BoJo's Bar & Grill, and its employee Tyler Rivera under Missouri's Dram Shop Act after Rebecca Milner, served by Rivera, caused a head-on collision that severely injured Rasmussen. SRJS's insurer, Illinois Casualty Company (ICC), intervened and appealed the trial court's judgment, challenging discovery restrictions and the award of punitive damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that while the discovery ruling was erroneous, ICC failed to demonstrate prejudice, and punitive damages are recoverable under the Dram Shop Act.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","insurance","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=177974","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/melissa-a-rasmussen-v-illinois-casualty-company-d83806","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109062:2021-04-27","opinionId":"897675a4-6a65-5e9b-b61f-64970df29c2c","slug":"kayla-hurley-appellant-v-karen-burton-respondent-109062","caseName":"Kayla Hurley, Appellant, v. Karen Burton, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED109062","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-04-27","year":2021,"display_summary":"Kayla Hurley appealed a jury verdict of $15,000 in damages from Karen Burton following a motor vehicle accident, arguing the trial court made several errors during the proceedings. Hurley claimed the trial court abused its discretion by denying a mistrial, refusing curative instructions, excluding rebuttal evidence, allowing certain medical treatment evidence, and excluding a prior abandoned pleading for impeachment. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in any of the challenged rulings.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","civil-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","auto-accident"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=177036","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kayla-hurley-appellant-v-karen-burton-respondent-109062","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83672:2021-04-13","opinionId":"1b7ef5e8-8898-57d7-84cf-298be5d6aa3b","slug":"lona-leann-grosshart-v-kansas-city-power-light-company-d83672","caseName":"Lona Leann Grosshart\nvs.\nKansas City Power & Light Company","caseNumber":"WD83672","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-04-13","year":2021,"display_summary":"Lona Grosshart appealed the dismissal of her claims for fraudulent concealment, strict liability, and negligence against Kansas City Power & Light Company, alleging heavy metal exposure from a power plant. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of claims related to Kansas exposure due to the Kansas statute of repose and the fraudulent concealment claim for failure to allege a duty to disclose. However, it reversed and remanded the strict liability and negligence claims concerning alleged 2016 Missouri exposure, finding they were not barred by the statute of repose and causation was adequately pleaded.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","standard-of-review","negligence","personal-injury","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=177374","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/lona-leann-grosshart-v-kansas-city-power-light-company-d83672","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83786:2021-03-09","opinionId":"8ffed8e2-9dd3-5398-bf4d-880b63720069","slug":"christopher-gebhardt-v-american-honda-motor-co-inc-et-al-d83786","caseName":"Christopher Gebhardt\nvs. \nAmerican Honda Motor Co., Inc, et al","caseNumber":"WD83786","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-03-09","year":2021,"display_summary":"Christopher Gebhardt sued American Honda Motor Company and Honda of South Carolina Manufacturing, alleging strict product liability and negligence after his ATV suddenly accelerated and flipped. The trial court excluded Gebhardt's expert witness, Dr. Kenneth Blundell, finding his opinions unreliable under section 490.065, RSMo, and subsequently granted summary judgment for Honda. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the expert testimony due to an analytical gap in his methodology and speculative foundation. Consequently, summary judgment was proper given the lack of sufficient evidence to support Gebhardt's claims.","primaryTopic":"evidence","topicSlugs":["evidence","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","personal-injury","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=174653","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christopher-gebhardt-v-american-honda-motor-co-inc-et-al-d83786","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36319:2020-12-29","opinionId":"b05f2d7b-ddf3-581a-af78-41a23a4fde74","slug":"pamela-s-allen-and-kelly-d-allen-plaintiffscross-appellants-v-state-of-mi-d36319","caseName":"PAMELA S. ALLEN and KELLY D. ALLEN, Plaintiffs/Cross-Appellants\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, 32nd JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, Defendant/Cross-Appellant\nCAPE GIRARDEAU COUNTY and CITY OF CAPE GIRARDEAU, MISSOURI, Defendants/Respondents","caseNumber":"SD36319","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-12-29","year":2020,"display_summary":"Pamela Allen sued the State of Missouri after falling down hazardous stairs in a courthouse basement, alleging personal injuries due to a dangerous condition of the State's property. The jury found the State 90% at fault, and the trial court entered judgment for Allen. On appeal, the State challenged the denial of its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a jury instruction regarding its control of the property. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding there was sufficient evidence of the State's knowledge of the dangerous condition and that the jury instruction was not erroneous.","primaryTopic":"premises-liability","topicSlugs":["premises-liability","governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","jury-instructions","personal-injury"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=171014","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/pamela-s-allen-and-kelly-d-allen-plaintiffscross-appellants-v-state-of-mi-d36319","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed108488:2020-12-22","opinionId":"27df7f3e-62ad-5f0c-b100-5e93dfe03991","slug":"donald-j-marcks-appellant-v-edward-w-wilson-respondent-108488","caseName":"Donald J. Marcks, Appellant, vs. Edward W. Wilson, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED108488","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2020-12-22","year":2020,"display_summary":"Donald J. Marcks appealed the denial of his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, for additur, or for a new trial following a jury verdict in his personal injury lawsuit against Edward W. Wilson. Marcks alleged juror misconduct and that the jury's $1.00 damage award was against the weight of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the motions.","primaryTopic":"auto-accident","topicSlugs":["auto-accident","personal-injury","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=170678","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/donald-j-marcks-appellant-v-edward-w-wilson-respondent-108488","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed108495:2020-12-15","opinionId":"8c76bfdd-50fa-52c0-95e5-6bae0f2097ac","slug":"douglas-e-ferbet-appellant-v-hidden-valley-golf-and-ski-inc-and-peak-reso-108495","caseName":"Douglas E. Ferbet, Appellant, vs. Hidden Valley Golf and Ski Inc. and Peak Resorts, Inc., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED108495","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2020-12-15","year":2020,"display_summary":"Douglas Ferbet sued Hidden Valley Golf and Ski, Inc. and Peak Resorts, Inc. for negligence after breaking his leg on their snow tubing hill. The trial court granted summary judgment for Hidden Valley based on a release-of-liability agreement Ferbet signed. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that the release was enforceable and that the uneven sliding surface was either an inherent risk of snow tubing for which no duty was owed, or a risk covered by the broad language of the release. The court also determined that snow tubing operators are not common carriers.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","contracts","personal-injury","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=170436","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/douglas-e-ferbet-appellant-v-hidden-valley-golf-and-ski-inc-and-peak-reso-108495","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36739:2020-12-07","opinionId":"09d36608-9da7-53e3-88f0-5433c2036ec5","slug":"george-j-buckles-plaintiff-appellant-v-the-skaggs-community-health-associ-d36739","caseName":"GEORGE J. BUCKLES, Plaintiff-Appellant\nvs.\nTHE SKAGGS COMMUNITY HEALTH ASSOCIATION D/B/A COX MEDICAL CENTER, BRANSON, \nand JOHN DOE and JOHN DOE CO., Defendants-Respondents","caseNumber":"SD36739","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-12-07","year":2020,"display_summary":"George J. Buckles sued The Skaggs Community Health Association d/b/a Cox Medical Center, Branson, alleging battery and false imprisonment after a security guard allegedly assaulted him when he attempted to leave without receiving medical care. The trial court dismissed his petition for failure to file a medical affidavit under section 538.225, RSMo. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that claims for intentional torts like battery and false imprisonment do not solely relate to the provision of health care services, and thus, the affidavit requirement does not apply.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","personal-injury","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=170233","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/george-j-buckles-plaintiff-appellant-v-the-skaggs-community-health-associ-d36739","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36576:2020-11-30","opinionId":"5238bfc3-0832-5e6d-a030-582fcfe02bed","slug":"larry-dwayne-ormsby-appellant-v-central-mine-equipment-co-respondent-d36576","caseName":"LARRY DWAYNE ORMSBY, Appellant\nvs.\nCENTRAL MINE EQUIPMENT CO., Respondent","caseNumber":"SD36576","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-11-30","year":2020,"display_summary":"Dewayne Ormsby sued Central Mine Equipment Co. for strict liability after sustaining a hand injury from a drill rig. The trial court entered judgment for CME after the jury found Ormsby 100% at fault and the court found no submissible punitive damages case. Ormsby appealed, arguing the trial court erred in admitting evidence related to the rig's 1976 sale and the absence of similar accidents. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the challenged evidence was relevant to Ormsby's punitive damages claim at the time it was offered and admitted.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=169934","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/larry-dwayne-ormsby-appellant-v-central-mine-equipment-co-respondent-d36576","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36747:2020-11-12","opinionId":"3134af69-29f9-5f32-a35c-960c97d07b38","slug":"state-of-missouri-ex-rel-seth-schermerhorn-relator-v-the-honorable-michae-d36747","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI EX REL. SETH SCHERMERHORN, Relator\nv.\nTHE HONORABLE MICHAEL CORDONNIER, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD36747","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-11-12","year":2020,"display_summary":"Seth Schermerhorn filed a personal injury lawsuit, which the circuit court stayed after compelling arbitration and delegating the issue of arbitrability to an arbitrator. Schermerhorn sought a writ of mandamus, arguing the circuit court erred in compelling arbitration. The appellate court quashed its preliminary writ, holding that the incorporation of AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules in the parties' agreement provided clear and unmistakable evidence of intent to delegate arbitrability. The court further ruled that general challenges to the arbitration agreement's validity were insufficient to prevent enforcement of the specific delegation provision.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","contracts","personal-injury"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=169136","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-ex-rel-seth-schermerhorn-relator-v-the-honorable-michae-d36747","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd82637:2020-11-10","opinionId":"9339df14-bd48-5f1e-b043-eb3f78678b50","slug":"nicholas-linton-by-and-through-his-mother-and-next-friend-arica-linton-v-d82637","caseName":"Nicholas Linton, by and through his Mother and Next Friend, Arica Linton\nvs. \nAmy S. Carter, D.O. and Ferns, Matile, Perryman & Moore, et al","caseNumber":"WD82637","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2020-11-10","year":2020,"display_summary":"Nicholas Linton, by and through his mother, sued Dr. Amy Carter and others for medical negligence, alleging a brain injury due to untimely delivery. The jury found for the defendants. On appeal, Linton argued the trial court erred by admitting expert testimony on alternative causes of the injury that was not stated to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that expert testimony on causation must meet the reasonable degree of medical certainty standard for all parties, and the admission of speculative testimony was prejudicial error.","primaryTopic":"evidence","topicSlugs":["evidence","civil-procedure","negligence","personal-injury","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=169008","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/nicholas-linton-by-and-through-his-mother-and-next-friend-arica-linton-v-d82637","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc97465:2020-10-13","opinionId":"5ca99638-0b60-56a7-9a59-89934aeee7e2","slug":"eve-sherrer-appellant-v-boston-scientific-corporation-and-cr-bard-inc-res-c97465","caseName":"Eve Sherrer, Appellant, vs. Boston Scientific Corporation and C.R. Bard, Inc., Respondents.","caseNumber":"SC97465","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2020-10-13","year":2020,"display_summary":"Eve Sherrer sued Boston Scientific Corporation and C.R. Bard Inc. for negligence, product defect, and failure to warn after polypropylene mesh slings were surgically implanted. Following a jury verdict for the defendants, Sherrer appealed, claiming errors in evidence exclusion and denial of a mistrial. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that corporate prior convictions are not admissible for impeachment under section 491.050, and while using abandoned pleadings as admissions is improper, the error was not prejudicial due to cumulative evidence. The Court also found no manifest abuse of discretion in denying a mistrial after settlement information was briefly displayed, as prejudice was not established.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","civil-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=167474","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/eve-sherrer-appellant-v-boston-scientific-corporation-and-cr-bard-inc-res-c97465","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83178:2020-09-29","opinionId":"64a9d562-e992-51d7-94e5-f08dc74625aa","slug":"scottsdale-insurance-company-v-maria-olivares-d83178","caseName":"Scottsdale Insurance Company\nvs. \nMaria Olivares","caseNumber":"WD83178","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2020-09-29","year":2020,"display_summary":"Maria Olivares appealed a summary judgment ruling that limited insurance coverage for her son's death to $25,000 under an assault and/or battery exclusion in a policy issued by Scottsdale Insurance Company. Her son was shot and killed after a fight at a bar insured by Scottsdale. Olivares argued the policy terms were ambiguous and that the facts did not establish the exclusion applied. The appellate court affirmed, finding the terms unambiguous and that the admitted facts demonstrated the shooting arose from an assault and/or battery, thus upholding the limited coverage.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","summary-judgment","contracts","personal-injury","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=166735","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/scottsdale-insurance-company-v-maria-olivares-d83178","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed108543:2020-09-22","opinionId":"95c415ba-2036-5939-98ac-459831b85cf2","slug":"joseph-zygler-appellant-v-hawkins-construction-et-al-respondent-108543","caseName":"Joseph Zygler, Appellant, vs. Hawkins Construction, et al., Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED108543","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2020-09-22","year":2020,"display_summary":"Joseph Zygler, an employee of a flooring subcontractor, sued Hawkins Construction and Deluca Plumbing for negligence after tripping on a plumbing cleanout at a construction site. The trial court granted summary judgment for the subcontractors, applying the acceptance doctrine. On appeal, Zygler argued the acceptance doctrine was inapplicable, that factual issues remained regarding acceptance, and that he was a third-party beneficiary of the contracts. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that the acceptance doctrine shielded the subcontractors from liability and that Zygler's third-party beneficiary claim was improperly raised and lacked merit.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","contracts","personal-injury"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=166356","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/joseph-zygler-appellant-v-hawkins-construction-et-al-respondent-108543","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc98169:2020-09-15","opinionId":"185ee15f-c80a-5336-9765-268a1f1be355","slug":"mary-j-moore-appellant-v-bi-state-development-agency-dba-metro-respondent-c98169","caseName":"Mary J. Moore, Appellant, vs. Bi-State Development Agency d/b/a Metro, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC98169","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2020-09-15","year":2020,"display_summary":"Mary J. Moore (Driver) appealed the circuit court's amended judgment, which reduced her personal injury award against Bi-State Development Agency d/b/a Metro (Metro) to comply with the statutory cap in section 537.610, RSMo. Driver argued that section 537.610 conflicts with section 70.429, which adopts federal regulations requiring Metro to maintain higher financial responsibility. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that there is no conflict between the statutes and that Metro's compliance with federal financial responsibility requirements does not waive the statutory damage cap.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","personal-injury"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=165933","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mary-j-moore-appellant-v-bi-state-development-agency-dba-metro-respondent-c98169","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd82785:2020-08-18","opinionId":"25df1c19-fa56-5202-8932-3b9009a02ed4","slug":"nicholas-demanule-daniels-v-officer-ryan-terranova-et-al-d82785","caseName":"Nicholas Demanule Daniels\nvs. \nOfficer Ryan Terranova, et al.","caseNumber":"WD82785","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2020-08-18","year":2020,"display_summary":"Nicholas Daniels appealed the grant of summary judgment to several Columbia Police Officers on his malicious prosecution claim. The underlying criminal charges against Daniels for trespassing, assault of a law enforcement officer, and resisting arrest were dismissed by nolle prosequi. The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for the officers on the resisting arrest charge and for Sergeant Cornman on all claims. However, it reversed summary judgment for the remaining officers on the trespass and assault charges, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding probable cause and the prosecutor's intent to abandon the case, and remanded for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=164175","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/nicholas-demanule-daniels-v-officer-ryan-terranova-et-al-d82785","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed107858:2020-07-07","opinionId":"a491ad88-beb4-55a1-9ffa-9b0dc5e41086","slug":"christina-bojorquez-respondent-v-thomas-e-okeeffe-dds-a-professional-corp-107858","caseName":"Christina Bojorquez, Respondent, v. Thomas E. O'Keeffe, D.D.S., A Professional Corporation, and Thomas E. O'Keeffe, D.D.S., Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED107858","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2020-07-07","year":2020,"display_summary":"Christina Bojorquez sued Dr. Thomas E. O'Keeffe for dental malpractice after he lacerated her tongue during a crown preparation, resulting in a voice disorder. A jury awarded Bojorquez $2.5 million in noneconomic damages. O'Keeffe appealed, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on causation, failing to apply statutory caps to noneconomic damages, and failing to remit the damages as excessive. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the trial court's rulings.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","negligence","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=161353","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christina-bojorquez-respondent-v-thomas-e-okeeffe-dds-a-professional-corp-107858","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed108179:2020-06-23","opinionId":"cb13d881-a501-5c95-87b8-0a3e0fea58b0","slug":"gary-veal-respondent-v-stacey-kelam-appellant-108179","caseName":"Gary Veal, Respondent, vs. Stacey Kelam, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED108179","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2020-06-23","year":2020,"display_summary":"Gary Veal sued Stacey Kelam for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, and a jury awarded Veal $2.5 million. Kelam appealed, arguing the trial court erred in denying her motion for new trial due to alleged bias during voir dire, that the verdict was excessive, and that her counsel was improperly restricted during closing arguments. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in any of Kelam's points on appeal.","primaryTopic":"auto-accident","topicSlugs":["auto-accident","appellate-procedure","personal-injury","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=162233","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/gary-veal-respondent-v-stacey-kelam-appellant-108179","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc97991:2020-06-02","opinionId":"b657bd25-aa49-5809-bc76-973114b95439","slug":"state-ex-rel-lg-chem-ltd-relator-v-the-honorable-nancy-watkins-mclaughlin-c97991","caseName":"State ex rel. LG Chem, LTD., Relator, vs. The Honorable Nancy Watkins McLaughlin, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC97991","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2020-06-02","year":2020,"display_summary":"LG Chem, Ltd., a Korean company, sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the St. Louis County circuit court from enforcing its order denying LG Chem's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The underlying action involved a products liability claim by Peter Bishop, who alleged injury from an LG Chem battery purchased from a third-party distributor in Missouri. The Missouri Supreme Court made its preliminary writ of prohibition permanent, holding that LG Chem lacked sufficient minimum contacts with Missouri to satisfy due process, as the product's entry into the state was due to the unilateral action of a third party, not LG Chem's targeted conduct.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","personal-injury"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=158894","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-ex-rel-lg-chem-ltd-relator-v-the-honorable-nancy-watkins-mclaughlin-c97991","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed108140:2020-03-31","opinionId":"c88f9c89-7a68-544c-9549-5d43f4d53a51","slug":"mary-callanan-et-al-appellant-v-aw-chesterton-et-al-respondent-108140","caseName":"Mary Callanan, et al., Appellant, vs. A.W. Chesterton, et al., Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED108140","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2020-03-31","year":2020,"display_summary":"Mary Callanan and Kelley Miller, on behalf of Ronald Callanan, sued Cleaver-Brooks, Inc. for strict liability, negligence, and willful misconduct, alleging asbestos exposure from the company's products caused Callanan's asbestosis and death. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Cleaver-Brooks, finding no evidence of causation. The appellate court reversed, holding that the record contained a genuine dispute of material fact regarding Callanan's exposure to asbestos from Cleaver-Brooks products and whether those products were a \"substantial factor\" in his illness and death. The case was remanded for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","negligence","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=153717","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mary-callanan-et-al-appellant-v-aw-chesterton-et-al-respondent-108140","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36351:2020-03-13","opinionId":"52e05658-b4f2-53db-a505-4ddf457578c7","slug":"minor-at-by-her-natural-father-and-next-friend-rt-plaintiff-appellant-v-r-d36351","caseName":"MINOR A.T., by her natural father, and Next Friend R.T., Plaintiff-Appellant\nv.\nROGER and KIMBERLY SATTERFIELD, Defendants-Respondents\nand\nSTACEY WYATT, Defendant","caseNumber":"SD36351","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-03-13","year":2020,"display_summary":"A minor child, A.T., through her father, sued Roger and Kimberly Satterfield for personal injuries from a dog bite. The Satterfields owned the property where the dog was kept by their tenant's roommate, Stacey Wyatt, who owned the dog. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Satterfields, finding insufficient evidence of vicious propensities or the Satterfields' knowledge thereof. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the Satterfields could not be held liable as harborers of the dog because they did not make the animal part of their household, consistent with Missouri law on landlord liability for animal-related injuries.","primaryTopic":"premises-liability","topicSlugs":["premises-liability","negligence","personal-injury","summary-judgment","landlord-tenant"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=151834","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/minor-at-by-her-natural-father-and-next-friend-rt-plaintiff-appellant-v-r-d36351","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36080:2020-02-19","opinionId":"1c8bd2f6-711d-5401-a7fe-f5e05d6abd5b","slug":"rose-ford-respondent-v-skaggs-chiropractic-llc-appellant-d36080","caseName":"ROSE FORD, Respondent \nvs.\nSKAGGS CHIROPRACTIC, LLC, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD36080","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-02-19","year":2020,"display_summary":"Rose Ford, injured in a car crash, received treatment from Skaggs Chiropractic, LLC, and signed an \"Assignment & UCC Lien\" purporting to waive statutory limits on medical liens. After Ford settled her personal injury claim, the trial court applied Missouri's medical lien statutes to determine the amount owed to Skaggs, limiting its recovery. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the medical lien statutes provide the exclusive remedy for healthcare providers seeking payment from personal injury settlements, superseding any contractual agreements. The court also found Skaggs failed to preserve its argument regarding insufficient evidence of attorney's fees.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","other","civil-procedure","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=150554","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/rose-ford-respondent-v-skaggs-chiropractic-llc-appellant-d36080","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed108444:2019-12-31","opinionId":"043ba408-551c-52a8-ab8e-578769e7ab21","slug":"state-ex-rel-brandt-headrick-relator-v-hon-benjamin-f-lewis-respondent-108444","caseName":"State ex rel. Brandt Headrick, Relator, vs. Hon. Benjamin F. Lewis, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED108444","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2019-12-31","year":2019,"display_summary":"Brandt Headrick, plaintiff in a medical negligence action, sought a writ of prohibition against Respondent Judge Benjamin F. Lewis, who ordered Headrick to undergo a physically invasive test to determine his alleged loss of smell and taste. Headrick contended the order failed to comply with Rule 60.01(a)(3)'s requirements for specifying test details. The appellate court granted the writ, holding that the judge exceeded his authority by failing to specify critical details of the ordered test, particularly by not identifying the \"dye-like fluid\" to be used. The preliminary writ of prohibition was made permanent, prohibiting the respondent from enforcing the order.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","negligence","personal-injury"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=147877","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-ex-rel-brandt-headrick-relator-v-hon-benjamin-f-lewis-respondent-108444","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:parent-147395","opinionId":"8af7d677-c901-50f2-9a4c-de5ed54092d8","slug":"erin-thompson-and-clarence-bell-xavior-dydell-a-minor-by-and-through-his-d82589","caseName":"Erin Thompson and Clarence Bell, Xavior Dydell, A Minor, by and Through His Mother and Next Friend, Amber Dydell, Carissa Wilson and Karlo Ginn, Sr.\nvs.\nCity of St. Joseph, Missouri","caseNumber":"WD82589","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2019-12-17","year":2019,"display_summary":"Appellants, including injured passenger Xavior Dydell and wrongful death claimants, sued the City of St. Joseph after a fatal car accident on Riverside Road, alleging a dangerous condition due to an unmarked edge and a nine-inch drop-off. The trial court granted summary judgment for the City, finding sovereign immunity was not waived. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the road's condition was a direct cause of the injuries and whether the driver's criminal acts constituted an intervening or superseding cause.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","auto-accident","personal-injury"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=147395","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/erin-thompson-and-clarence-bell-xavior-dydell-a-minor-by-and-through-his-d82589","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd82485:2019-11-26","opinionId":"8e113b2a-3600-5578-bc68-fd1791c67d0c","slug":"heather-rosales-v-benjamin-equestrian-center-llc-d82485","caseName":"Heather Rosales\nvs.\nBenjamin Equestrian Center, LLC","caseNumber":"WD82485","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2019-11-26","year":2019,"display_summary":"Heather Rosales was injured at Benjamin Equestrian Center's horserace track when a horse reared up and fell on her. She sued Benjamin for negligence, and a jury found in her favor. On appeal, Benjamin argued that it was immune under the Equine Activities Liability Act and that Rosales's claim was barred by the implied primary assumption of risk doctrine. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that Benjamin's negligence enhanced the inherent risks of equine activity, thus negating its statutory immunity and precluding the application of the assumption of risk doctrine.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","personal-injury","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=146715","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/heather-rosales-v-benjamin-equestrian-center-llc-d82485","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd81828:2019-10-29","opinionId":"1e8ee977-0055-56a8-90cb-c099ba8fa043","slug":"randall-e-burns-et-al-v-jason-taylor-et-al-d81828","caseName":"Randall E. Burns, et al\nvs.\nJason Taylor, et al","caseNumber":"WD81828","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2019-10-29","year":2019,"display_summary":"Randall Burns, Amanda Burns, and the Estate of Nicole Burns appealed a judgment against Randall for battery, awarding Jason Taylor $50,000 in actual and $50,000 in punitive damages, and the denial of their motion for new trial. The Burnses raised five points of error, including juror nondisclosure, witness exclusion as a discovery sanction, violation of the witness exclusionary rule, evidentiary errors regarding a redacted document, and excessive damages. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, affirmed the circuit court's judgment, finding no reversible error in any of the points raised.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","jury-instructions","personal-injury"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=145933","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/randall-e-burns-et-al-v-jason-taylor-et-al-d81828","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd82344:2019-10-29","opinionId":"68106b28-e53a-5cf7-8d5e-591a2fb4ef0c","slug":"marcia-green-v-mehrdad-fotoohighiam-d82344","caseName":"Marcia Green\nvs.\nMehrdad Fotoohighiam","caseNumber":"WD82344","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2019-10-29","year":2019,"display_summary":"Marcia Green sued Mehrdad Fotoohighiam, alleging he conspired to set her mobile home on fire, causing personal injury and property damage. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to Green on liability, and a jury later awarded damages. On appeal, Fotoohighiam argued the summary judgment was erroneous because deposition testimony controverted material facts and presented conflicting conspiracy theories. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Fotoohighiam's failure to timely respond to the summary judgment motion admitted the facts, and the alleged inconsistencies did not create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the civil conspiracy.","primaryTopic":"summary-judgment","topicSlugs":["summary-judgment","civil-procedure","personal-injury","property-real-estate","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=145934","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/marcia-green-v-mehrdad-fotoohighiam-d82344","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35791:2019-09-25","opinionId":"459c18d5-5a7c-5867-9040-68f5f4747193","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-daniel-r-carpenter-jr-defendant-d35791","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nDANIEL R. CARPENTER, JR., Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD35791","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2019-09-25","year":2019,"display_summary":"Daniel R. Carpenter, Jr. appealed his conviction for second-degree assault, arguing there was insufficient evidence to prove the victim suffered a \"serious physical injury\" in the form of a \"protracted impairment.\" The assault stemmed from an intentional head-on collision with the victim's vehicle, which caused whiplash and an L1 lumbar compression fracture. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, affirmed the conviction, finding sufficient evidence that the victim's daily back pain, use of a back brace for six to eight weeks, and difficulty getting out of bed constituted a protracted impairment of function.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","personal-injury"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=144673","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-daniel-r-carpenter-jr-defendant-d35791","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd82266:2019-09-03","opinionId":"46c9edae-635d-52c2-b7cc-d1bcf4f41b47","slug":"richard-a-aguilar-v-geico-casualty-co-d82266","caseName":"Richard A. Aguilar\nvs.\nGeico Casualty Co.","caseNumber":"WD82266","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2019-09-03","year":2019,"display_summary":"GEICO Casualty Co. appealed a circuit court judgment confirming a $35-million arbitration award stemming from a catastrophic motorcycle accident. GEICO challenged the denial of its motions to intervene in the arbitration confirmation proceeding. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that GEICO's motions to intervene were untimely under section 537.065.2 and that GEICO lacked a direct interest for intervention as of right under Rule 52.12(a)(2). The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying permissive intervention.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","insurance","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","personal-injury"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=143922","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/richard-a-aguilar-v-geico-casualty-co-d82266","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd82258:2019-09-03","opinionId":"3e90d66a-60c0-5ea6-8452-6b70039c2316","slug":"lucille-schoen-v-mid-missouri-mental-health-center-and-treasure-of-the-st-d82258","caseName":"Lucille Schoen\nvs.\nMid-Missouri Mental Health Center and Treasure of The State of Missouri-\nCustodian of The Second Injury Fund","caseNumber":"WD82258","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2019-09-03","year":2019,"display_summary":"Lucille Schoen appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's reversal of an ALJ's award of permanent total disability benefits. Schoen sustained additional injuries after being tripped by a doctor while receiving authorized medical treatment for a prior work-related chemical exposure. The appellate court reversed the Commission's finding that the subsequent injuries were not causally connected to the original work injury, holding that injuries sustained during authorized medical treatment are a natural and probable consequence of the original injury. The case was remanded for the Commission to reconsider the remaining issues consistent with this finding.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","appellate-procedure","personal-injury"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=143921","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/lucille-schoen-v-mid-missouri-mental-health-center-and-treasure-of-the-st-d82258","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35586:2019-06-25","opinionId":"6bfa2d6f-03d7-578b-a2c7-8bf89d9aeb99","slug":"james-t-mitchell-respondent-v-bnsf-railway-company-appellant-d35586","caseName":"JAMES T. MITCHELL, Respondent\nvs.\nBNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD35586","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2019-06-25","year":2019,"display_summary":"Plaintiff Jamie Mitchell was injured twice while switching railcars for BNSF Railway Company, leading to a FELA petition asserting strict liability under the Safety Appliance Act (SAA) and general negligence claims. The jury found for Mitchell on all counts, and the trial court entered judgment based on the SAA claims. On appeal, BNSF argued the SAA did not apply because the railcars were not \"in use\" at the time of injury and that other trial errors warranted a new trial. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that both railcars were \"in use\" under the SAA and that any alleged trial errors were non-prejudicial given the strict liability findings.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=141655","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/james-t-mitchell-respondent-v-bnsf-railway-company-appellant-d35586","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed106216:2019-05-28","opinionId":"50b0f21d-f995-57eb-9175-95e8124a63a5","slug":"denise-kappel-and-william-kappel-appellants-v-frederic-pratter-respondent-106216","caseName":"Denise Kappel and William Kappel, Appellants, vs. Frederic Pratter, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED106216","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2019-05-28","year":2019,"display_summary":"Denise Kappel sued Frederic Prater for negligence following a motor vehicle accident, with William Kappel joining for loss of consortium. The jury found Prater liable but awarded Mrs. Kappel reduced damages. On appeal, the Kappels argued the trial court erred by admitting irrelevant and prejudicial photographs of Mrs. Kappel's vehicle. The appellate court affirmed the finding of liability but reversed the damages award, remanding for a new trial solely on damages, finding the photographs were improperly admitted and influenced the jury's award.","primaryTopic":"auto-accident","topicSlugs":["auto-accident","evidence","personal-injury","negligence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=140674","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/denise-kappel-and-william-kappel-appellants-v-frederic-pratter-respondent-106216","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed106881:2019-05-14","opinionId":"371b2609-3f10-53a2-9754-e6bd93c84988","slug":"jeffery-pinnell-appellant-v-city-of-union-missouri-respondent-106881","caseName":"Jeffery Pinnell, Appellant, vs. City of Union, Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED106881","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2019-05-14","year":2019,"display_summary":"Jeffery Pinnell sued the City of Union for personal injuries sustained after falling from a bridge headwall, alleging the City maintained the bridge in a dangerous condition. The trial court granted the City's motion for a directed verdict, finding Pinnell failed to make a submissible case for waiver of sovereign immunity. The appellate court reversed and remanded, concluding that Pinnell presented substantial evidence that the City's property was in a dangerous condition, thus precluding a directed verdict.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","personal-injury","negligence","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=140198","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jeffery-pinnell-appellant-v-city-of-union-missouri-respondent-106881","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed106747:2019-04-23","opinionId":"f1c239fa-9932-50b0-9508-b65c5a22058a","slug":"john-patty-do-llc-plaintiff-and-tracy-renee-allbritton-et-al-plaintiffsap-106747","caseName":"John Patty, D.O., LLC, Plaintiff and Tracy Renee Allbritton, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, vs. Missouri Professionals Mutual Physicians Professional Indemnity Association, Defendant/Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED106747","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2019-04-23","year":2019,"display_summary":"Appellants, a mother and child, appealed from a trial court's summary judgment in favor of Missouri Professionals Mutual-Physicians Professional Indemnity Association (MPM-PPIA) in a declaratory judgment action. The dispute concerned the interpretation of a medical malpractice insurance policy's liability limit, specifically whether the mother's and child's claims against a doctor constituted one or two \"Medical Occurrences.\" The appellate court reversed, holding that the policy's definition of \"Medical Occurrence\" applied to \"any one person,\" and the child's post-delivery treatment constituted a separate occurrence, thus entitling Appellants to two liability limits.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","negligence","personal-injury"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=139476","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/john-patty-do-llc-plaintiff-and-tracy-renee-allbritton-et-al-plaintiffsap-106747","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd81329:2019-04-02","opinionId":"31ac093e-2eea-50ab-8a36-bda7941209d6","slug":"michael-ray-thomas-v-harley-davidson-motor-company-group-llc-d81329","caseName":"Michael Ray Thomas\nvs.\nHarley-Davidson Motor Company Group, LLC","caseNumber":"WD81329","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2019-04-02","year":2019,"display_summary":"Michael Thomas sued Harley-Davidson Motor Company Group, LLC, for personal injuries after a motorcycle accident, alleging product defects, negligence, and breach of warranty. The jury found in favor of Harley-Davidson. On appeal, Thomas challenged the admission of a defense expert's video, the exclusion of patent evidence, and the denial of his motion for new trial. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the evidentiary rulings and upholding the denial of the motion for new trial.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","evidence","appellate-procedure","negligence","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=138535","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/michael-ray-thomas-v-harley-davidson-motor-company-group-llc-d81329","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc96528:2019-02-26","opinionId":"a431d0ea-5449-5308-8462-6728b58c5167","slug":"thomas-e-tharp-et-al-appellantscross-respondents-v-st-lukes-surgicenter-l-c96528","caseName":"Thomas E. Tharp, et al., Appellants/Cross-Respondents, vs. St. Luke's Surgicenter-Lee's Summit, LLC, Respondent/Cross-Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC96528","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2019-02-26","year":2019,"display_summary":"Thomas and Paula Tharp sued St. Luke's Surgicenter-Lee's Summit, LLC, alleging negligent credentialing after Mr. Tharp suffered injuries during a laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed by a surgeon with staff privileges at St. Luke's. The jury found in favor of the Tharps, but St. Luke's appealed the denial of its motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's judgment, finding the Tharps failed to make a submissible case of negligent credentialing due to insufficient evidence of the surgeon's incompetence or general carelessness. However, the Court remanded the case for a new trial, concluding that justice required giving the Tharps another opportunity because they lacked clear guidance on the specific evidence required for a negligent credentialing claim.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","personal-injury","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=147178","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/thomas-e-tharp-et-al-appellantscross-respondents-v-st-lukes-surgicenter-l-c96528","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed106320:2019-02-26","opinionId":"c253a2b7-a704-5574-9c42-daa11991e3d3","slug":"benny-l-bell-respondent-v-hamid-r-redjal-md-defendant-and-orthopaedic-ass-106320","caseName":"Benny L. Bell, Respondent, vs. Hamid R. Redjal, M.D., Defendant, and Orthopaedic Associates of Southeast Missouri, P.C. d/b/a Advanced Orthopedic Specialists, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED106320","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2019-02-26","year":2019,"display_summary":"Benny L. Bell sued Orthopaedic Associates of Southeast Missouri, P.C. (Defendant AOS) for medical malpractice, alleging its employee, Dr. Hamid R. Redjal, performed unnecessary surgery, damaged his hip, and provided negligent post-operative care, leading to catastrophic injuries. A jury awarded Bell compensatory and punitive damages. On appeal, Defendant AOS raised six points of error, including evidentiary rulings, instructional errors, limitations on cross-examination, and denial of a statutory reduction. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment in its entirety.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","negligence","civil-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=137157","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/benny-l-bell-respondent-v-hamid-r-redjal-md-defendant-and-orthopaedic-ass-106320","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc96547:2019-01-15","opinionId":"c62d310f-6aa2-5415-adfd-fc7983c1bb31","slug":"emilee-williams-appellantcross-respondent-v-mercy-clinic-springfield-comm-c96547","caseName":"Emilee Williams, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, vs. Mercy Clinic Springfield Communities, f/k/a St. John's Clinic, Inc., Respondent/Cross-Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC96547","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2019-01-15","year":2019,"display_summary":"Emilee Williams brought a medical malpractice action against Mercy Clinic, alleging negligent failure to diagnose Wilson's disease, and a jury awarded her $28.9 million. On appeal, Williams challenged the application of section 538.220.2, which mandated periodic payments for future medical damages at a statutory interest rate, arguing it unconstitutionally deprived her of the full award. Mercy cross-appealed on several grounds, including the amount allocated to periodic payments and the inclusion of post-judgment interest. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the judgment regarding the unconstitutional application of the periodic payment statute and the circuit court's untimely removal of post-judgment interest, remanding for a new judgment, while affirming the judgment in all other aspects.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","personal-injury","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=135696","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/emilee-williams-appellantcross-respondent-v-mercy-clinic-springfield-comm-c96547","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed106359:2018-12-18","opinionId":"090c2ee1-a6a4-539e-8df0-72ef609c7c8d","slug":"dawn-brancati-respondent-v-bi-state-development-agency-dba-metro-and-cedr-106359","caseName":"Dawn Brancati, Respondent, vs. Bi-State Development Agency d/b/a Metro, and Cedric K. Allen, Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED106359","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2018-12-18","year":2018,"display_summary":"Dawn Brancati sued Bi-State Development Agency d/b/a Metro and its employee Cedric K. Allen for personal injuries sustained in a bicycle-vehicle collision. A jury awarded Brancati $625,000, and the trial court limited Bi-State's liability to the statutory cap but declined to limit Allen's. On appeal, Appellants challenged the admissibility of medical bill evidence, the application of the sovereign immunity cap to the employee, the trial court's handling of discovery sanctions, and the refusal of a comparative-fault jury instruction. The appellate court affirmed the judgment in its entirety.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","civil-procedure","governmental-immunity","evidence","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=140113","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/dawn-brancati-respondent-v-bi-state-development-agency-dba-metro-and-cedr-106359","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd81225:2018-12-04","opinionId":"7a71b100-5d24-532b-8e16-fd2e76ee9ed7","slug":"erik-fouts-v-regency-north-acquisition-llc-d81225","caseName":"Erik Fouts\nvs.\nRegency North Acquisition, LLC","caseNumber":"WD81225","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2018-12-04","year":2018,"display_summary":"Erik Fouts sued Regency North Acquisition, LLC, after falling on an exterior stairway in his apartment complex, alleging negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for Regency North based on an exculpatory clause in the lease. On appeal, Fouts argued the clause was ambiguous, unenforceable as a contract of adhesion, and against public policy. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding Fouts's first two arguments unpreserved and rejecting the remaining arguments regarding enforceability and public policy.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","landlord-tenant","summary-judgment","negligence","personal-injury"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=133954","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/erik-fouts-v-regency-north-acquisition-llc-d81225","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed106233:2018-09-25","opinionId":"d9d24294-2e02-56b8-a937-33cab0f8ca19","slug":"george-r-schoedinger-iii-md-appellant-v-john-f-beck-respondent-106233","caseName":"George R. Schoedinger, III, M.D., Appellant, vs. John F. Beck, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED106233","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2018-09-25","year":2018,"display_summary":"Dr. George R. Schoedinger, III, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of attorney John Beck. Schoedinger sought to recover medical fees from Beck, alleging a \"Guaranty\" agreement made Beck personally liable or created a lien on settlement proceeds from Beck's client's personal injury case. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that the Guaranty was preempted by Missouri's medical lien statutes and was not ambiguous as it clearly intended to create a lien on settlement proceeds, not personal liability for Beck.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","personal-injury","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=131035","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/george-r-schoedinger-iii-md-appellant-v-john-f-beck-respondent-106233","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed105839:2018-08-21","opinionId":"6ff4b50b-0287-59eb-97b3-6d4e3865417b","slug":"joan-koelling-appellant-v-mercy-hospitals-east-communities-dba-mercy-hosp-105839","caseName":"Joan Koelling, Appellant, vs. Mercy Hospitals East Communities d/b/a Mercy Hospital Washington, Mercy Clinic Surgical Specialists LLC, Thomas B. Riechers, M.D. and Mercy Clinic East Communities, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED105839","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2018-08-21","year":2018,"display_summary":"Joan Koelling sued Mercy Hospitals and Dr. Thomas Riechers for medical malpractice, alleging negligence in her post-operative care. A jury returned a verdict for the defendants. On appeal, Koelling argued the trial court abused its discretion by excluding evidence of the defense's expert witness, Dr. Kralovich's, prior involvement as a defendant in medical malpractice lawsuits, which Koelling sought to introduce to show bias. The Eastern District reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by entirely prohibiting inquiry into the expert's litigation history, as such evidence was relevant to demonstrate bias and its exclusion prejudiced Koelling.","primaryTopic":"evidence","topicSlugs":["evidence","civil-procedure","negligence","personal-injury","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=129410","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/joan-koelling-appellant-v-mercy-hospitals-east-communities-dba-mercy-hosp-105839","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"medical-malpractice","label":"Medical Malpractice","href":"/practice-areas/medical-malpractice","score":8,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/medical-malpractice"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd80010:2018-08-21","opinionId":"304f972e-cd30-542b-8b65-4215443db44b","slug":"eve-sherrer-v-boston-scientific-corporation-and-cr-bard-inc-d80010","caseName":"Eve Sherrer\nvs.\nBoston Scientific Corporation and C.R. Bard, Inc.","caseNumber":"WD80010","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2018-08-21","year":2018,"display_summary":"Eve Sherrer sued Boston Scientific Corporation and C.R. Bard, Inc. in a products liability action concerning mesh slings. The trial court entered judgment in favor of both defendants following jury verdicts. On appeal, the Western District reversed the judgment against Bard and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court committed reversible error by excluding evidence of Bard's prior felony convictions for impeachment purposes. The judgment in favor of Boston Scientific was affirmed.","primaryTopic":"evidence","topicSlugs":["evidence","civil-procedure","personal-injury","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=129393","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/eve-sherrer-v-boston-scientific-corporation-and-cr-bard-inc-d80010","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd81106:2018-08-07","opinionId":"7e9f89a1-8b2d-5d61-9c57-eda05d2f15cb","slug":"jeffery-harris-v-david-g-jungerman-d81106","caseName":"Jeffery Harris\nvs.\nDavid G. Jungerman","caseNumber":"WD81106","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2018-08-07","year":2018,"display_summary":"Jeffery Harris sued David G. Jungerman for battery after Jungerman shot him, leading to the amputation of Harris's leg. A jury awarded Harris $750,000 in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages. Jungerman appealed, challenging the pleading of punitive damages, a jury instruction on punitive damages, and two evidentiary rulings concerning drug use and other incidents. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment in its entirety.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","civil-procedure","evidence","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=131113","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jeffery-harris-v-david-g-jungerman-d81106","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35309:2018-07-05","opinionId":"ff4734d0-8c66-5dc3-9e61-9c9008dfa18a","slug":"state-of-missouri-ex-rel-amber-hale-fka-amber-koester-relator-v-the-honor-d35309","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI ex rel.\nAMBER HALE f/k/a AMBER KOESTER, Relator,\nvs.\nTHE HONORABLE MICHAEL O.\nHENDRICKSON, THIRTIETH JUDICIAL\nCIRCUIT, WEBSTER COUNTY,\nMISSOURI, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SD35309","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2018-07-05","year":2018,"display_summary":"Amber Hale, injured in a train collision, sought a writ of mandamus after the trial court denied her motion to amend her Fourth Amended Petition to include new factual allegations and a request for punitive damages. The trial court had excluded certain paragraphs from her proposed Fifth Amended Petition and prohibited related discovery. The appellate court made its preliminary writ of mandamus permanent, compelling the trial court to allow the filing of the full Fifth Amended Petition and permit discovery on the newly alleged facts, finding the trial court abused its discretion by acting arbitrarily and without demonstrating prejudice to the defendant.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","negligence","personal-injury"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=127415","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-ex-rel-amber-hale-fka-amber-koester-relator-v-the-honor-d35309","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed105809:2018-06-29","opinionId":"a6de569e-6dd5-5b29-b8d2-4aea87418134","slug":"karen-d-spencer-appellant-v-american-airlines-inc-et-al-respondents-105809","caseName":"Karen D. Spencer, Appellant, vs. American Airlines, Inc., et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED105809","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2018-06-29","year":2018,"display_summary":"Karen D. Spencer sued American Airlines (AA) and Jimmy Lee for negligence after Lee allegedly injured her knee by forcibly reclining his seat on an AA flight. The trial court granted summary judgment for both defendants. The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for AA, finding no foreseeable duty to protect Spencer from Lee's actions. However, the court reversed summary judgment for Lee, concluding that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding his duty of care and causation-in-fact, and remanded the cause for further proceedings against Lee.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","personal-injury","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=127099","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/karen-d-spencer-appellant-v-american-airlines-inc-et-al-respondents-105809","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd80981:2018-05-29","opinionId":"567c92e8-814c-542f-9cf3-79a0f4b86645","slug":"martin-griffin-v-dakota-minnesota-eastern-railroad-corporation-d80981","caseName":"Martin Griffin\nvs.\nDakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation","caseNumber":"WD80981","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2018-05-29","year":2018,"display_summary":"Martin Griffin appealed the trial court's entry of summary judgment on his Federal Employees Liability Act (FELA) claim for work-related injuries against Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation. The Railroad argued Griffin's claims were barred by the statute of limitations and a prior release. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment, holding that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the accrual date of Griffin's FELA claim, making it a question for the jury. The court declined to rule on the release issue, as its relevance was contingent on the accrual date.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","summary-judgment","personal-injury","workers-compensation","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=125799","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/martin-griffin-v-dakota-minnesota-eastern-railroad-corporation-d80981","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87011:undated","opinionId":"07d8671b-5ce6-56cd-8889-45490d956850","slug":"dr-david-eisenmenger-dc-and-injury-treatment-centers-of-kansas-city-llc-v-d87011","caseName":"Dr. David Eisenmenger, D.C., and Injury Treatment Centers of Kansas City, LLC.\nvs.\nNational Indemnity Company","caseNumber":"WD87011","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":null,"year":2024,"display_summary":"Dr. David Eisenmenger, D.C., and Injury Treatment Centers of Kansas City, LLC (Providers) sued National Indemnity Company (National) for breach of contract after National declined to reimburse them for chiropractic treatment provided to patients injured in an auto accident. The Providers relied on assignments from the patients, which broadly assigned rights to insurance payments. The motion court granted judgment on the pleadings for National, finding the assignments void under Missouri law for attempting to assign personal injury claims. The appellate court affirmed, agreeing that the broad language of the assignments violated public policy against assigning personal injury claims.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","insurance","personal-injury","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=213037","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/dr-david-eisenmenger-dc-and-injury-treatment-centers-of-kansas-city-llc-v-d87011","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:doc-229378:undated","opinionId":"918cefc6-c474-512a-905c-708c08afd80d","slug":"megan-jernigan-aka-megan-krause-appellant-v-mercy-hospital-east-communiti-229378","caseName":"Megan Jernigan a/k/a Megan Krause, Appellant, v. Mercy Hospital East Communities, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":null,"court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":null,"year":2025,"display_summary":"Megan Jernigan appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Mercy Hospital East Communities and other respondents in a medical malpractice action. Jernigan argued that she timely disclosed her expert and that genuine issues of material fact existed. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that Jernigan failed to timely disclose her expert, which was necessary to establish a prima facie case of medical malpractice, and also failed to timely respond to the summary judgment motion, resulting in the admission of the respondents' uncontroverted facts.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229378","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/megan-jernigan-aka-megan-krause-appellant-v-mercy-hospital-east-communiti-229378","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"medical-malpractice","label":"Medical Malpractice","href":"/practice-areas/medical-malpractice","score":8,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/medical-malpractice"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86911:undated","opinionId":"48856cb1-a7d7-58e2-a4da-d82f496b7c43","slug":"jody-hendrick-et-al-v-academy-i-lp-dba-academy-sports-outdoors-et-al-d86911","caseName":"Jody Hendrick, Et Al.\nvs.\nAcademy I, LP, D/B/A Academy Sports + Outdoors, Et Al.","caseNumber":"WD86911","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":null,"year":2024,"display_summary":"Jody and Jessica Hendrick appealed the dismissal of their negligence and loss of consortium action against Academy Sports + Outdoors and an employee. The Hendricks alleged negligence after a firearm and ammunition were stolen from the store and used to shoot Jody Hendrick. The trial court dismissed the case based on the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). The appellate court affirmed, holding that the PLCAA bars general negligence claims resulting from the criminal misuse of firearms, regardless of whether a sale occurred, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the petition to allege negligent entrustment, as the facts did not support that exception.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","other","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","personal-injury"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214000","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jody-hendrick-et-al-v-academy-i-lp-dba-academy-sports-outdoors-et-al-d86911","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]}]}