Breaking News: Anyan v Mercy / McNeive - 4/3/2026

---

Herein is a summary and a copy of the Appellant Opening Brief in the Matter of R.A., Sarah and Blake Anyan v Mercy Hospital East / Dr. Daniel McNeive  Case # ED113842 that was filed with the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District at 03:58 p.m. cst on April 3, 2026.

This filing was retrieved by Albert B. Pepper Jr. d/b/a Phoenix Rising Productions LLC from Mo. CaseNet at 04:43 p.m. cst on April 3, 2026 and now presents a summary of the opening brief and a copy of the brief for review and download.

  Case.net: ED113824 - Case Header  

This is a consolidation of case number(s): ED113933 and ED114232 into case number: ED113824. The trial court case number from the 21st Judicial Circuit of St. Louis County Missouri: 21SL-CC03944

Comprehensive Summary of Appellants’ Brief (Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District) Case No. ED113824 (consolidated with ED113933 and ED114232) Filed: April 3, 2026 Appellants: Mercy Hospitals East Communities d/b/a Mercy Hospital St. Louis, Mercy Clinic East Communities d/b/a Mercy Clinic Mercy OB/GYN, and Dr. Daniel McNeive Respondent: R.A., a minor, by and through his Next Friends and Natural Parents, S.A. and B.A. Appeal from: Circuit Court of St. Louis County (Hon. Ellen H. Ribaudo)

This is a consolidated appeal from post-judgment orders and judgments that enforced a purported high/low settlement agreement in a medical negligence (medical malpractice) action involving a minor plaintiff. The underlying case arose from injuries R.A. sustained during labor and delivery.

A jury returned a verdict in March 2025 awarding approximately $48.1 million ($28.1 million compensatory + $20 million punitive damages). The trial court entered judgment on the verdict on April 9, 2025, later amended it twice (May 6 and June 3, 2025) to apply the statutory noneconomic damages cap for catastrophic injuries (§ 538.210) and to schedule periodic payments for future economic damages (§ 538.220), resulting in the Second Amended Judgment on June 3, 2025.

During jury deliberations on March 25, 2025, the parties negotiated what they believed was a high/low settlement (low: $8 million guaranteed to plaintiff; high: $18 million cap on defendants’ liability). The agreement was memorialized in a brief four-line text message exchanged between counsel. After the verdict, the parties filed cross-motions to enforce their differing interpretations of the settlement. The trial court declined to enforce any settlement at that time and entered judgment on the jury verdict.

More than 30 days after the Second Amended Judgment (which became final on July 3, 2025), the trial court entered a series of orders and judgments granting Respondent’s motion to enforce the settlement at the $18 million “high” (based on Respondent’s interpretation of the gross, uncapped verdict amount):

• July 8, 2025 Order – enforced the settlement.
• July 15, 2025 Order and Decree – approved the minor settlement, incorporated the July 8 Order, and vacated all prior judgments on the verdict.
• September 17, 2025 Order – denied Appellants’ post-judgment motions and dismissed the underlying tort claims without prejudice.
• October 14, 2025 Judgment – amended the July 15 Order/Decree to add post-judgment interest and denied a stay.

Appellants timely appealed each of these orders/judgments. A separate appeal of the Second Amended Judgment (ED114055) has been stayed pending resolution of this consolidated appeal.

The appeal is properly before the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District. It does not involve Supreme Court exclusive jurisdiction under Mo. Const. art. V, § 3. Respondent’s constitutional challenge to the noneconomic damages cap (§ 538.210) is not at issue here.

The brief raises six points:

Points One through Four (Jurisdictional/Authority Issues – Primary Arguments)The trial court lacked jurisdiction or authority under Rules 75.01 and 81.05 to vacate the Second Amended Judgment or grant settlement relief after the 30-day period expired on July 3, 2025. No authorized after-trial motion extended the trial court’s control over the judgment under Rule 78.04.

• Appellants’ timely July 3, 2025 post-judgment motions (JNOV/new trial on punitive damages under Rules 72 and 78, and amendment of periodic-payment schedule) did not seek settlement relief.
• Respondent’s July 3, 2025 motion to replace the Second Amended Judgment with a settlement judgment was not an authorized after-trial motion.
• Therefore, the July 8 Order, July 15 Order/Decree, September Order, and October Judgment are all void. Citing State ex rel. AJKJ, Inc. v. Hellmann, 574 S.W.3d 239 (Mo. banc 2019) and Cole v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 713 S.W.3d 180 (Mo. banc 2025).

Point Five (Merits of Settlement Enforcement – In the Event Jurisdiction Existed)Even if the trial court had authority, the October Judgment (and incorporated orders) enforcing settlement at $18 million is not supported by substantial evidence. Respondent failed to prove by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence a meeting of the minds on the high/low agreement.

• The four-line text message was not sufficiently definite.
• It did not evidence a complete agreement.
• Timing evidence (negotiations during deliberations, post-verdict conduct) contradicts any meeting of the minds. Citing Sansone Law, LLC v. J&M Sec., LLC, 589 S.W.3d 74 (Mo. App. E.D. 2019); Stickler v. McGinnis, 649 S.W.3d 38 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022); Grant v. Sears, 379 S.W.3d 905 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012).

Point Six (Alternative – Post-Judgment Interest)The trial court erroneously declared the law by awarding post-judgment interest. Section 538.300 expressly exempts medical malpractice actions against healthcare providers from the post-judgment interest statute (§ 408.040). The trial court’s own July 15 Order and Decree identified the action as “a medical malpractice action arising out of injuries suffered by R.A., a minor, during his labor and delivery.” Citing Dieser v. St. Anthony’s Med. Ctr., 498 S.W.3d 419 (Mo. banc 2016).

• Jurisdictional/authority issues (Points 1–4): De novo review.
• Sufficiency of evidence for settlement (Point 5): Substantial evidence/clear-and-convincing standard.
• Post-judgment interest (Point 6): De novo (erroneous declaration of law). All issues were preserved through repeated objections, motions to amend, Rule 74.06(b)(4) relief requests, and timely notices of appeal.

Appellants respectfully request that the Court:

• Reverse the July 8 Order, July 15 Order and Decree, September Order, and October Judgment;
• Vacate all orders and judgments enforcing the purported settlement;
• Reinstate the Second Amended Judgment (or remand for further proceedings consistent with the opinion); and
• Grant any other relief the Court deems just and proper.

This brief is 66 pages long, supported by a detailed Table of Authorities (cases, statutes, rules), a chronology table, and extensive record citations from the Legal File and Appendix. The core thesis is that the trial court lost control over the case on July 3, 2025, rendering all subsequent settlement-related orders void, with alternative merits arguments if the Court reaches them.

This is just the beginning of the appeal process with regard to the R.A., Sarah, Blake Anyan v Mercy Hospital East / Dr. Daniel McNeive medical malpractice - birth injury claim. 

However, for over twelve months at the conclusion of the trial court in March 2025 both The Simon Law Firm P.C. and of Gunn Slater Law Firm made prolific press releases to the legacy media of the $48.1 million dollar jury verdict knowing, having full knowledge that the amount was 1) capped with a high / low agreement at $18 million dollars and within hours of the trial court being dismissed that this case would be contested at the trial court level through post trial motions and a likelihood of an appeal and in fact, that the status of this case as of  March 3, 2026

For over twelve months The Simon Law Firm P.C. and of Gunn Slater Law Firm were "enriched" in the public relations sphere by presenting a fictitious acquisition of "justice" for their plaintiff clients and perpetuated that narrative upon the public at large and perhaps violated the Missouri Model Rules of Professional Conduct specifically Rule 4-7.1 of creating an "unjustified expectation" by omitting  a fact(s) that is necessary to make the statement, as a whole, not materially misleading 

Furthermore, it can be argued that it is a violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. Chapter 407 of Missouri Revised Statutes RSMo 407.020. 

John G. Simon - Managing Partner, The Simon Law Firm P.C., Mo, Bar # 35213 - Allegation of the violation of Missouri Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 4-7.1.

Amy Collignon Gunn - Partner, Gunn Slater Law Firm, Mo. Bar # 45016 - Allegation of the violation of Missouri Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 4-7.1

Erica Blume Slater - Partner, The Simon Law Firm P.C., Mo. Bar # 63716 - Allegation of the violation of Missouri Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 4-7.1