Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Frank Wolfe and Karen Wolfe Missouri Cases

This party appears in the Ott Law Firm Missouri court opinion archive. The cases below connect legal research paths to related practice pages when the opinions map to practical client issues.

Party ID
frank-wolfe-and-karen-wolfe
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Personal Injury
Archive note: 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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source. 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.

Related Practice Pages

Practical guidance connected to this party profile

These links route party-name research from the court archive into Ott Law Firm practice pages when the associated opinions map to a practical client issue.

Legal Help From The Archive

Need help turning court research into a case plan?

If a party-profile research path points to a current injury, employment, insurance, or litigation issue, Ott Law Firm can review the facts and explain practical next steps.

Cases Involving Frank Wolfe and Karen Wolfe

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Date unavailable

Frank Wolfe and Karen Wolfe vs. Courtnye Allyson Walker, M.D., et al.

Appellant

Frank and Karen Wolfe appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Dr. Courtnye Allyson Walker and SSM Regional Health Services on their medical negligence claims. The trial court found the claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations, rejecting the "continuing care" exception. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the physician-patient relationship for the initial surgery ended on March 13, 2019, and subsequent care for new complaints did not constitute continuing care to toll the statute of limitations.