Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Loring Helfrich, M.D. 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
loring-helfrich-md
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Loring Helfrich, M.D.

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Marilyn Hink appealed the dismissal of her medical malpractice case for failing to file an affidavit of merit as required by section 538.225, RSMo. She argued the statute violated Missouri's open courts provision, right to trial by jury, and separation of powers. The Missouri Supreme Court reaffirmed its prior decision in Mahoney v. Doerhoff Surgical Services, Inc., upholding the constitutionality of the affidavit requirement. The Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, declining to address Ms. Hink's more specific constitutional challenges to the statute's expert definition or single-expert interpretation because she failed to file any affidavit, thus lacking standing for those particular arguments.