Miller v. Awad

Missouri Court of Appeals

Miller v. Awad

516 S.W.3d 931, 2017 WL 1650031, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 365

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 2, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104826

StatusPublished

This text of 516 S.W.3d 931 (Miller v. Awad) 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

Miller v. Awad, 516 S.W.3d 931, 2017 WL 1650031, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 365 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Carol Miller (“Miller”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment dismissing her medical negligence action against Defendants Michael Awad, M.D., PhD and Barnes Jewish Hospital. The trial court dismissed Miller’s action without prejudice on the grounds that she failed to file a health care affidavit within 90 days or 180 days of filing her petition as required by section 538.225.5 RSMo (Cum. Supp. 2013).¹ On appeal, Miller asserts three points of error. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the trial court did not clearly err. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Mo. R. Civ. P. 84.16(b) (2015).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Carol Miller (“Miller”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment dismissing her medical negligence action against Defendants Michael Awad, M.D., PhD and Barnes Jewish Hospital. The trial court dismissed Miller’s action without prejudice on the grounds that she failed to file a health care affidavit within 90 days or 180 days of filing her petition as required by section 538.225.5 RSMo (Cum. Supp. 2013).¹ On appeal, Miller asserts three points of error. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the trial court did not clearly err. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Mo. R. Civ. P. 84.16(b) (2015).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

516 S.W.3d 931, 2017 WL 1650031, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-awad-moctapp-2017.