Robertson v. ST. JOHN'S MERCY HEALTH CARE

Missouri Court of Appeals

Robertson v. ST. JOHN'S MERCY HEALTH CARE

248 S.W.3d 90, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 172, 2008 WL 304783

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 5, 2008·No. ED 89858·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Joel W. Robertson (hereinafter, “Appellant”) brought suit against St. John’s Mercy Health Care (hereinafter, “Hospital”) for failure to comply with the Missouri Human Rights Act. Section 213.010-213.137 RSMo (2000), et seq. Appellant claims Hospital failed to provide him a private bathroom for his use during his 2004 hospitalization. The trial court granted Hospital’s motion for summary judgment finding there were no genuine issues of material fact and Hospital was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Appellant brings this appeal.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. There is no genuine issue of material fact which would preclude entry of summary judgment. Rule 74.04(c)(3). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Joel W. Robertson (hereinafter, “Appellant”) brought suit against St. John’s Mercy Health Care (hereinafter, “Hospital”) for failure to comply with the Missouri Human Rights Act. Section 213.010-213.137 RSMo (2000), et seq. Appellant claims Hospital failed to provide him a private bathroom for his use during his 2004 hospitalization. The trial court granted Hospital’s motion for summary judgment finding there were no genuine issues of material fact and Hospital was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Appellant brings this appeal.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. There is no genuine issue of material fact which would preclude entry of summary judgment. Rule 74.04(c)(3). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Robertson v. ST. JOHN'S MERCY HEALTH CARE, 248 S.W.3d 90, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 172, 2008 WL 304783 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

248 S.W.3d 90 (Robertson v. ST. JOHN'S MERCY HEALTH CARE) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.