Elmer Doelling, Appellant, v. Department of Social Services, Division of Family Services, Respondent.
Decision date: Unknown
Slip Opinion Notice
This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.
Opinion
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: Elmer Doelling, Appellant, v. Department of Social Services, Division of Family Services, Respondent. Case Number: 72934 Handdown Date: 03/24/1998 Appeal From: Department of Social Services, Division of Family Services Counsel for Appellant: David G. Lupo Counsel for Respondent: Jeff Childress Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Crahan , C.J., Teitelman, J., and Crist, Sr.J., concur. Opinion: ORDER Elmer Doelling, Claimant, appeals from the decision of the Division of Family Services (DFS) that assessed a transfer of assets penalty of 4.67 months before Claimant became eligible for Medical Assistance benefits. Initially, a DFS caseworker assessed a penalty period of 4.67 weeks due to a transfer of assets based on an annuity purchased by Claimant's wife before her death. Claimant appealed that decision to the Director of Family Services who found the caseworker had correctly determined Claimant's penalty period pursuant to the regulations and federal law. Claimant appealed this decision to the St. Louis County Circuit Court, which affirmed the decision of DFS. Claimant now appeals to the Court of Appeals. We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and conclude the order of DFS is supported by competent and substantial evidence and no error of law appears. Section 536.140, RSMo 1994. Further, a published
opinion would have no precedential value and we affirm by written order. Rule 84.16(b). The judgment is affirmed pursuant to 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.
Related Opinions
John Doe, Jane Doe, Jan Doe, Janet Doe, and Judy Doe, Individually and On Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated vs. Meritas Health Corporation and Board of Trustees of North Kansas City Hospital(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictMarch 3, 2026#WD87830
The court reversed the circuit court's grant of sovereign immunity dismissal, finding that plaintiffs' common-law claims against the hospital board could proceed. However, the court affirmed dismissal of statutory claims for computer tampering and identity theft, and remanded the case for further proceedings on the remaining claims.
Samantha Bordas, Appellant, vs. FedEx Freight, Inc. and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictSeptember 30, 2025#ED113329
Jayla Chairse, Appellant, vs. Division of Employment Security, Respondent.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictSeptember 16, 2025#ED113189
Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, Appellant, vs. Missouri Charter Public School Commission and Missouri State Board of Education, Respondents.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictApril 22, 2025#ED112985
MARK EDWARD HOOD, Petitioner-Appellant v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent(2024)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictDecember 17, 2024#SD38450