GEORGE BROWN, JR., Appellant vs. MISSOURI DELTA MEDICAL CENTER, Respondent
Decision date: UnknownSD30578
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
GEORGE BROWN, JR., ) ) Appellant, ) ) vs. ) No. SD30578 ) MISSOURI DELTA MEDICAL CENTER, ) ) Respondent. )
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SCOTT COUNTY
Honorable Benjamin F. Lewis, Judge
AFFIRMED
Appellant Brown sued Respondent Medical Center in 2006, alleging medical negligence in the death of his son. He voluntarily dismissed his case on July 19,
- See Brown v. MO Delta Med. Ctr., 293 S.W.3d 28, 29 (Mo.App. 2009).
1
Brown filed a second wrongful death petition in 2009, which the trial court dismissed as time-barred for two reasons:
1 We held in Brown that the trial court's July 20, 2007 order granting Medical Center's motion to dismiss, Brown's February 2008 motion to reconsider that order and prior trial court rulings, the trial court's denial of said motion, and all other actions in Brown's first case, following his voluntary dismissal, were nullities.
2
- The trial court deemed Brown's claims subject to the two-year
limitations period for medical malpractice, under which even his first case would have been untimely. See § 516.105. 2
- Whether the initial filing was timely or not, Brown failed to file his
second case within the one-year savings period following his voluntary dismissal. See § 537.100; Rickner v. Golfinopoulos, 271 S.W.3d 32, 34 (Mo.App. 2008). Brown's pro se appeal challenges these findings, which we review de novo. Rickner, 271 S.W.3d at 34. Analysis Brown is correct that his limitations period was three years, not two. As we noted in Denton v. Soonattrukal, 149 S.W.3d 517, 519 n.4 (Mo.App. 2004): Section 516.105 provides for a two year statute of limitations in medical malpractice cases. Section 537.100 provides for a three year statute of limitations in wrongful death cases. "Where a wrongful death action is brought on the basis of alleged medical malpractice, the longer, three year statute of limitations applies." Wilson v. Jackson, 823 S.W.2d 512, 513 (Mo.App.1992).
The alternate basis for dismissal, however, was correct. Any wrongful death action accrued in 2003 when Brown's son died. Sennett v. Nat'l Healthcare Corp., 272 S.W.3d 237, 244-45 (Mo.App. 2008). Brown filed his second suit in 2009, two years after dismissing his first case, and thus missed both the three-year statute and its one-year savings period. § 537.100. Brown admits that his motion for reconsideration in the first case was "not titled a petition or suit," but asks us "[i]n fundamental fairness" to treat it as a new action filed within the savings period. We decline to do so for various legal and
2 Statutory citations are to Missouri Revised Statutes as amended through 2005. Rule references are to Missouri Court Rules (2010).
3
practical reasons, which are not limited to Brown's failure to cite supporting authority 3 or to provide relevant documents from his first case. 4 The law favors statutes of limitation; the application of exceptions is strictly construed. Mahn, 255 S.W.3d at 547. Conclusion The case was time-barred because Brown did not file it within one year of his prior dismissal or three years after his son's death. § 537.100. We affirm the judgment of dismissal.
Daniel E. Scott, Chief Judge Rahmeyer, P.J., and Francis, J., concur
Appellant's attorney: Pro se Respondent's attorney: No appearance
3 Although he did not raise the issue, we considered whether Brown's prior appeal tolled the savings period, but concluded otherwise. See State ex rel. Mahn v. J.H. Berra Const. Co., 255 S.W.3d 543, 547 (Mo.App. 2008). 4 Brown's duty as appellant was to submit "all of the record, proceedings and evidence necessary to the determination of all questions to be presented." Rule 81.12(a). He has not filed, for example, his motion for reconsideration in the first case; what we know of it is gleaned solely from the reported opinion in Brown.
Related Opinions
AIG Agency, Inc., d/b/a Associated Insurance Group, Appellant, vs. Missouri General Insurance Agency, Inc., Jim Baxendale and Mitch O'Brien, Respondents.(2015)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictNovember 3, 3015#ED102096
Christopher Hanshaw, Appellant, vs. Crown Equipment Corp., et al., Respondents.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101091
The court affirmed the circuit court's decision to exclude Hanshaw's expert witness testimony and grant summary judgment to Crown Equipment in a product liability case involving an allegedly defectively designed forklift. The expert's opinions were properly excluded because they were not supported by reliable methodology, as the expert performed no tests and failed to demonstrate how cited research and data supported his conclusions.
Mouna Apperson, f/k/a Nicholas Apperson, Appellant, vs. Natasha Kaminsky, et al., Respondents.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriJanuary 23, 2026#SC101020
The court affirmed the directed verdict as to four counts against Norman based on agency but vacated and remanded the defamation counts against Kaminsky and one count against Norman, finding that the circuit court erred in requiring independent evidence of reputational damage beyond the plaintiff's own testimony when the evidence of harm was substantial and directly resulted from the defendants' statements.
K.A.C. by and through, ASHLEY ACOSTA, NEXT FRIEND, and MICHAEL CRITES, JR., Appellants v. MISSOURI STATE HIGHWAY PATROL, ET AL., Respondents(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictJanuary 12, 2026#SD38943
Appellants sought damages for a wrongful death resulting from a motor vehicle collision involving a pursued driver, alleging the Missouri State Highway Patrol's pursuit was negligent and proximately caused the collision. The court affirmed summary judgment for MSHP, finding that Appellants failed to produce sufficient facts demonstrating that MSHP's actions were the proximate cause of the collision, which is a necessary element of their case.
Mark and Sherry Davis, and David and Denise Kamm; Kevin Laughlin vs. City of Kearney, Missouri(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictDecember 16, 2025#WD87389