Vanderschel v. Barnes-Jewish St. Peters Hospital, Inc.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Vanderschel v. Barnes-Jewish St. Peters Hospital, Inc.

195 S.W.3d 547, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1051, 2006 WL 1889938

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 11, 2006

DocketED 87060

StatusPublished

This text of 195 S.W.3d 547 (Vanderschel v. Barnes-Jewish St. Peters Hospital, Inc.) 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

Vanderschel v. Barnes-Jewish St. Peters Hospital, Inc., 195 S.W.3d 547, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1051, 2006 WL 1889938 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Gail VanderSchel appeals from a judgment entered by the Circuit Court of St. Charles County dismissing a medical negligence petition she filed as plaintiff ad li-tem on behalf of her deceased husband, Melvin VanderSchel. In her appeal, Mrs. VanderSchel also contends that the trial court erred when it denied her motion to amend the petition to reflect capacity as a personal representative rather than a plaintiff ad litem.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum 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.

Gail VanderSchel appeals from a judgment entered by the Circuit Court of St. Charles County dismissing a medical negligence petition she filed as plaintiff ad li-tem on behalf of her deceased husband, Melvin VanderSchel. In her appeal, Mrs. VanderSchel also contends that the trial court erred when it denied her motion to amend the petition to reflect capacity as a personal representative rather than a plaintiff ad litem.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

195 S.W.3d 547, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1051, 2006 WL 1889938, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vanderschel-v-barnes-jewish-st-peters-hospital-inc-moctapp-2006.