Skip to content
Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Infertility Center of Saint Louis, et al. 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
infertility-center-of-saint-louis-et-al
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Infertility Center of Saint Louis, et al.

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Sep 26, 2023

C.H., and S.S., Appellants, v. Infertility Center of Saint Louis, et al., Respondents.

Respondent

C.H. and S.S. sued Dr. Sherman J. Silber and St. Luke's Infertility Center for medical malpractice, alleging negligent failure to inform C.H. of his 2010 sperm motility test result, which led them to believe the child conceived via IVF was genetically C.H.'s. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding the claims time-barred. On appeal, the Eastern District affirmed, concluding that even if the claims were timely under a statutory exception, the uncontroverted facts negated the causation element of the damages claim, as C.H. had multiple opportunities to realize the sperm used was not his.