KLAHS v. Neilson

Missouri Court of Appeals

KLAHS v. Neilson

245 S.W.3d 896, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 41, 2008 WL 124005

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 15, 2008

DocketED 89882

StatusPublished

This text of 245 S.W.3d 896 (KLAHS v. Neilson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

KLAHS v. Neilson, 245 S.W.3d 896, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 41, 2008 WL 124005 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Gordon Neilson (“Neilson”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis City, the Honorable Dennis M. Schaumann presiding, after the *897 judge entered a judgment against Neilson for negligent infliction of emotional distress for his conduct toward Nancy Klahs (“Klahs”).

Neilson brings three claims of error. First, Neilson argues that the trial judge erred in allowing a clinical psychologist to testify as to Klahs’ post-traumatic stress disorder when the applicable law requires such mental distress to be medically diagnosable. Second, Neilson claims that the clinical psychologist’s testimony failed to adduce evidence of a causal connection between Klahs’ post-traumatic stress disorder and Neilson’s alleged conduct. Third, Neilson argues that Klahs failed to produce sufficient evidence to support a finding that Neilson’s conduct toward Klahs constituted negligence.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and no error of law appears. Therefore, an opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Gordon Neilson (“Neilson”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis City, the Honorable Dennis M. Schaumann presiding, after the *897 judge entered a judgment against Neilson for negligent infliction of emotional distress for his conduct toward Nancy Klahs (“Klahs”).

Neilson brings three claims of error. First, Neilson argues that the trial judge erred in allowing a clinical psychologist to testify as to Klahs’ post-traumatic stress disorder when the applicable law requires such mental distress to be medically diagnosable. Second, Neilson claims that the clinical psychologist’s testimony failed to adduce evidence of a causal connection between Klahs’ post-traumatic stress disorder and Neilson’s alleged conduct. Third, Neilson argues that Klahs failed to produce sufficient evidence to support a finding that Neilson’s conduct toward Klahs constituted negligence.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and no error of law appears. Therefore, an opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 S.W.3d 896, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 41, 2008 WL 124005, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klahs-v-neilson-moctapp-2008.