Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

The Medical Protective Company 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
the-medical-protective-company
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Family Law
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 The Medical Protective Company

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Mar 12, 2019

Karen Peoples vs. The Medical Protective Company

Respondent

Karen Peoples sought to enforce a child support lien against personal injury settlement proceeds paid by The Medical Protective Company (MedPro) to her ex-husband. The trial court ruled in favor of Peoples, finding her notice of lien under § 454.519 RSMo was valid, even though the ex-husband's lawsuit had already been filed. On appeal, MedPro argued that Peoples was required to comply with § 454.518 RSMo, which mandates filing notice in the court where the suit is pending. The appellate court affirmed, holding that §§ 454.518 and 454.519 provide alternative, non-conflicting methods for perfecting a child support lien, and compliance with either is sufficient.