St. Louis Children's Hospital, Respondent, v. Gail Brown and Ted Brown, a/k/a Theodis Brown, 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: St. Louis Children's Hospital, Respondent, v. Gail Brown and Ted Brown, a/k/a Theodis Brown, Appellants. Case Number: 72738 Handdown Date: 02/17/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. Barbara Ann Crancer Counsel for Appellant: Party acting pro se Counsel for Respondent: Nicholas Glen Higgins Opinion Summary: Appellants, Gail Brown and Ted Brown ("defendants"), appeal the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis entered in favor of respondent, St. Louis Children's Hospital ("Hospital"), on its petition on account. DISMISSED. Division One Holds : Defendants' appellate brief does not comply with Rule 84.04, and therefore the appeal is dismissed. Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Grimm, P.J., Pudlowski and Gaertner, J.J., concur. Opinion: Opinion modified by Court's own motion on February 24, 1998. This substitution does not constitute a new opinion. Appellants, Gail Brown and Ted Brown ("defendants"), appeal the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis entered in favor of respondent, St. Louis Children's Hospital ("Hospital"), on its petition on account. We dismiss. From Hospital's petition, it appears Hospital rendered medical services to defendants from October 29,

1994, to May 31, 1995, for which defendants owe Hospital $457.10. Defendants did not pay this charge, despite Hospital's demand. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Hospital, and defendants appeal. Rule 84.04 governs appellate briefs and their contents. A review of defendants' brief shows it to be woefully inadequate under our rules.(FN1) Accordingly, defendants' appeal is dismissed. Footnotes: FN1. The statement of facts and argument sections appear to discuss an issue of administrative law involving the Moline Fire Protection District, despite this being an appeal from a judgment entered on a petition on account. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.