Lenggenhager v. St. Anthony's Medical Center

Missouri Court of Appeals

Lenggenhager v. St. Anthony's Medical Center

258 S.W.3d 824, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 579, 2008 WL 1867121

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 29, 2008

DocketED 89360

StatusPublished

This text of 258 S.W.3d 824 (Lenggenhager v. St. Anthony's Medical Center) 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

Lenggenhager v. St. Anthony's Medical Center, 258 S.W.3d 824, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 579, 2008 WL 1867121 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

*825 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Ronald W. Lenggenhager (“Plaintiff’) appeals the judgment entered in favor of Sri D. Chadalawada, M.D. (“Primary Care Physician”), Joseph E. Graham, M.D. (“Surgeon”), Malkin H. Kol-din, M.D. (“Infectious Disease Specialist”), Kirk A. Nelson, D.O. (“Defendant Nelson”), James J. Spadaro, M.D. (“Cardiologist”), and St. Anthony’s Medical Center (collectively, “Defendants”) denying relief for his wrongful death claim.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

*825 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Ronald W. Lenggenhager (“Plaintiff’) appeals the judgment entered in favor of Sri D. Chadalawada, M.D. (“Primary Care Physician”), Joseph E. Graham, M.D. (“Surgeon”), Malkin H. Kol-din, M.D. (“Infectious Disease Specialist”), Kirk A. Nelson, D.O. (“Defendant Nelson”), James J. Spadaro, M.D. (“Cardiologist”), and St. Anthony’s Medical Center (collectively, “Defendants”) denying relief for his wrongful death claim.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 S.W.3d 824, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 579, 2008 WL 1867121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lenggenhager-v-st-anthonys-medical-center-moctapp-2008.