Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Parkland Health Center, et al., Defendants, and Dr. Lawrence Brown, 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
parkland-health-center-et-al-defendants-and-dr-lawrence-brown-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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Parkland Health Center, et al., Defendants, and Dr. Lawrence Brown, et al.

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Jimmy D. Cook appealed the circuit court's dismissal of his medical malpractice claims against Dr. Lawrence R. Brown and Dr. Michael Clippard. The circuit court dismissed the claims because Cook failed to file a signed affidavit of merit as required by Section 538.225 RSMo. The appellate court affirmed, holding that an affidavit of merit must be signed to be effective, that a nunc pro tunc order could not correct the missing signature, and that the statutory requirement is constitutional.