Camille Bossaller and Daniel Bossaller, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Alan R. Doerhoff, M.D. and Doerhoff Surgical Services, P.C., Defendants-Appellants.

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Case Style: Camille Bossaller and Daniel Bossaller, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Alan R. Doerhoff, M.D. and Doerhoff Surgical Services, P.C., Defendants-Appellants. Case Number: 72695 Handdown Date: 03/17/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Osage County, Hon. Jeff W. Schaeperkoetter Counsel for Appellant: Hendren and Andrae, L.L.C. Counsel for Respondent: John D. Berger Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. R. Dowd, Jr., P.J., Simon and Hoff, J.J., concur. Opinion: Alan R. Doerhoff, M.D. (Doctor) and Doerhoff Surgical Services, P.C. (collectively referred to as Defendants) appeal from a $262,000 judgment entered against them upon a jury verdict in favor of Camille Bossaller (Patient) and Daniel Bossaller (Patient's Husband) (collectively referred to as Plaintiffs). Defendants contend the trial court erred in (1) overruling Defendants' motion for new trial as to counts III and IV of the petition because the damages awarded were excessive and not supported by the evidence; (2) packaging the instructions and failing to modify the phrase "occurrence mentioned in the evidence" in the damage instructions; (3) overruling Defendants' objections to and request for mistrial for Plaintiffs' question during voir dire asking panel members whether they were concerned about the impact of the verdict on medical costs; (4) overruling Defendants' objections to Plaintiffs' questions of two expert witnesses as to whether they agreed with two other experts' opinions; (5) allowing three experts to comment on certain interrogatory answers and deposition testimony provided by Doctor; and (6) overruling Defendants' objections to the admission of Doctor's

interrogatory answers and deposition testimony regarding how many laproscopic gallbladder, duct-to-duct anastomosis, and/or roux-en-Y procedures Doctor had performed before the January and March 1992 procedures. The evidence in support of the jury verdict is not insufficient. No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential or jurisprudential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion, for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b). Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.