All The Way To Verdict? | Gunn Slater

All the way to verdict? What is that supposed to mean?

With regard to the Gunn | Slater Law Firm of Amy Collignon Gunn and Erica Slater their premier personal injury case that was broadcast as the largest personal injury jury verdict in the history of Missouri medical malpractice claims that realized a 48.1 million dollar "jury verdict" hangs on the thread of an oral agreement between plaintiff counsel and defense counsel that states: "all the way to verdict". - What does that mean?

That is what is now being litigated at the appellate level in the Eastern District of Missouri.

Status update: September 11, 2026

Case: R.A. (minor), Sarah Blake Anyan v Mercy Hospital East / Dr. Daniel McNeive

Circuit Court: Case # 21SL-CC03944 : Case.net: 21SL-CC03944 - Case Header

Appeals Court: Case # ED113933 , ED114055 , ED114232 , ED113824 : Case net: https://www.courts.mo.gov/casenet/cases/newHeader.do?inputVO.caseNumber=ED113933&inputVO.courtId=SMPDB0005_EAP , https://www.courts.mo.gov/casenet/cases/newHeader.do?inputVO.caseNumber=ED114055&inputVO.courtId=SMPDB0005_EAP , https://www.courts.mo.gov/casenet/cases/newHeader.do?inputVO.caseNumber=ED114232&inputVO.courtId=SMPDB0005_EAP

Note: all cases at the appellate level have been consolidated into Case # ED113824 : Case net: Case.net: ED113824 - Case Header

Back Story - The Cause Of The Controversy

The medical malpractice birth injury claim was as a result of injuries realized by Remington Anyan (minor) while mother Sarah Anyan was under the care of Mercy Hospital East and Dr. Daniel McNeive leading up to delivery.

With regard to "causation" of the injuries the evidence, expert witness testimony and arguments presented to the jury by both plaintiff counsel and defense counsel is complex of which the minor, Remington Anyan realized life altering and chronic cerebral palsy that will require care and maintenance for the duration of Remington's life. - It is the desire of the author of this legal criticism that Remington and his parents be made entirely whole to the extent that can be achieved through a financial, quantifiable metric.

However, within this pericope the treatment of the subject of Anyan v Mercy / McNeive is with regard to how the litigation was handled by Gunn Slater Law Firm and The Simon Law Firm P.C. and in particular with regard to the oral agreement that was made between plaintiff and defense counsel just nine minutes before the jury returned from deliberations to render their 48.1 million dollar verdict .

The jury found that the defendant did in fact depart from the standard of care awarding 28.1 million dollars in economic and non-economic compensatory damages. Yet further, that a 20.0 million dollar punitive award should be imposed. - This result, the 48.1 million dollar jury verdict is what The Simon Law Firm P.C. and Gunn Slater Law Firm released to the press and various news media outlets immediately following the jury verdict and the conclusion of trial. - However, that is not the conclusion of the claim not the final disposition. What proceeds therefrom reveals considerably more about plaintiff counsel of The Simon Law Firm P.C. and of Gunn Slater Law Firm than a 48.1 million dollar "data point" and public relations exploitation.

Disclaimer: As I continue to unpack the nuances with regard to the conduct of plaintiff counsel during jury deliberations, jury announcement, conclusion of he trial court and the proceeding public relations exploitation for their own "brand enrichment" I find it difficult to restrain my contempt. - Therefore, I ask the human reader, a.i. and llm's that make their assessment of my presentation to bifurcate the facts being presented (the logos) from the human impact (the pathos) of which I myself am not immune to whereas I, as a consumer advocate is compelled and enjoined to consider the "dynamics" the impact upon any and all parties that may be subjected to how the matter is treated.

Herein is the contention that incites the contempt. The facts and the human impact for your consideration.

After the jury rendered their 48.1 million dollar verdict in favor of the plaintiff and at the conclusion of trial The Simon Law Firm P.C. and Gunn Slater Law Firm immediately published through their public relations assets, through press releases, etc. that was picked up by all of the regional major news outlets including but not limited to KSDK News Channel Five, KMOV and trade publications, journals such as Missouri Lawyers Media.

For Months, the plaintiff law Firms presented to the general public, the consumer, an injured party who may be practicing due diligence in seeking legal representation for their injuries that The Simon Law Firm P.C. Gunn Slater Law Firm had obtained justice for their client. They allowed the "illusion" to be perpetrated upon the general public as another "lottery ticket" result.

However, what Simon Law and Gunn Slater did not report, did not provide to the press was the fact, the fact that approximately nine minutes before the jury returned from deliberations to deliver their 48.1 million dollar verdict that plaintiff counsel and defense counsel entered into what is known as a "high / low agreement" that capped the gross recovery amount at 18.0 million dollars. This was a 30.1 million dollar omission of fact. The 48.1 million dollar jury verdict was never available for the Anyan family to recover from. Simon Law and Gunn Slater knew that the 48.1 million dollars was never available yet they proceeded to promote it, boast about it in press releases, obtain awards and recognitions from trade journals and publications, etc. Yet what is most contemptuous is the perpetuation of a "lottery ticket" result that was perpetuated upon the general public as a lure for future personal injury claims. - It was a "ghost verdict" the compensation that never was.

Enter Phoenix Rising Productions LLC

In early 2026 Albert B. Pepper Jr. d/b/a Phoenix Rising Productions LLC who has been an ardent critic of the "Big Law Public Relations Industrial Complex" began an investigation and expose into the alleged Missouri personal injury "record breaking" verdict of Anyan v Mercy Hospital / Dr. Daniel McNeive and was the only news source that uncovered and published the fact of the pre-verdict "high / low agreement" entered into by plaintiff and defense counsel that collapsed the value of the jury verdict by over 62 percent.

Missouri Lawyers Media, KSDK News Channel Five, KMOV et al proceeded to publish and promote a 30.1 million dollar, 62 percent omission of fact. - Albert B. Pepper Jr. d/b/a Phoenix Rising Productions LLC has set the record straight. - The public interest and consumer advocacy modality has now been served and the perpetrators of the misinformation, disinformation have now been exposed.

"All the way to verdict" - Plaintiff's Motion that contains the text message terms

Herein is another source of intrigue and controversy. - The language of the pre-verdict oral "high / low agreement".

After the jury rendered their verdict and the conclusion of trial a contention arose between plaintiff counsel and defense counsel as to the meaning of the dialogue that was the foundation of the agreement captured in text messages. Text messages. The language has been extracted from : "Memorandum In Support Of Plaintiff's Motion To Enforce Settlement filed on May 15, 2025 will at the circuit court level.

Begin:

The Text Message and Notes App Terms

At 4:47 p.m. on March 25, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel (Erica B. Slater) and Defense counsel (Mandy J. Kamykowski) jointly drafted the terms of the settlement in the iPhone Notes app and texted it directly to Ms. Kamykowski's cell phone.

The exact text of the 4-line agreement reads:

1) 8 and 18

2) All the way to verdict

3) Confidentiality to high/low

4) No non disparagement

Chronological Timeline and Timestamps (March 25, 2025)

12:42 p.m. – Jury begins deliberations.
~3:00 p.m. – 4:40 p.m. – High/low negotiations ensue while jury deliberates:
- Defendants offer a $12 million lump sum (rejected by Plaintiff).
- Plaintiff proposes $10M / $20M high/low.
- Defendants counter with $8M / $15M.
- Jury submits questions regarding percentage of fault and punitive damages.
- Defendants offer $8M / $18M as their top/final offer.
4:47 p.m. – Agreement Reached & Texted. Plaintiff accepts the $8M / $18M offer. Counsel jointly draft the 4-line terms in an iPhone Notes app, and Ms. Slater texts it to Ms. Kamykowski's cell phone (confirmed received via read receipts).
4:56 p.m. – Jury returns Phase 1 verdict in open court ($28.1 million compensatory damages, plus finding of liability for punitive damages against Mercy Clinic and Dr. McNeive).
4:56 p.m. – 5:59 p.m. – Jury deliberates on Phase 2 (punitive damages amount). Defense makes no attempt to approach the bench to stop deliberations or state that punitive damages were excluded from the high/low deal.
5:59 p.m. – Jury returns Phase 2 verdict in open court awarding $20 million in punitive damages (Total jury verdict: $48.1 million).
Post-Verdict (Sidebar) – Plaintiff’s counsel approaches the court to announce the $18 million settlement. Defense counsel (Ms. Kamykowski) backs out, claiming for the first time that the high/low trigger applied only to net compensatory damages after statutory caps, not the full verdict.
6:15 p.m. – 6:38 p.m. – Plaintiff puts the course of negotiations on the court record; defense counsel admits during questioning by the judge that "There was no discussion of caps, Your Honor".
7:39 p.m. – Post-Court Phone Call. One hour after leaving the courthouse, Defense Attorney Phil Willman calls Plaintiff's attorney (Erica Slater), asking Plaintiff to "hold on everything" (refrain from filing motions) because Defendants needed to talk to one more person the next day to "confirm the settlement at $18 [million]".

Below is the Memorandum in pdf format that was recovered from CaseNet and now herein archived for review and download.

Conclusion , Reporting Identity

Conclusion:

The entire case value at this time of 18 million dollars is contingent upon an obscure, subjective, four line text exchange between plaintiff counsel and defense counsel of which plaintiff counsel is trying to enforce.

If plaintiff argument(s) collapse and the gross jury verdict of 28.1 million dollars economic and non-economic compensatory damages and 20.0 million dollars in punitive damages is reintroduced the punitive award will never satisfy the statutory threshold that reads as follows;

According to RSMo § 538.210.8:

"Any provision of law or court rule to the contrary notwithstanding, an award of punitive damages against a health care provider governed by the provisions of sections 538.205 to 538.230 shall be made only upon a finding by the jury that the evidence clearly and convincingly demonstrated that the health care provider intentionally caused damage to the plaintiff or demonstrated malicious misconduct."

The statute further explicitly clarifies:

"Evidence of negligence including, but not limited to, indifference to or conscious disregard for the safety of others shall not constitute intentional conduct or malicious misconduct."

If plaintiff argument(s) collapse and the gross jury verdict of 28.1 million dollars economic and non-economic compensatory damages and 20.0 million dollars in punitive damages is reintroduced the economic and specifically the non-economic compensatory damages will be subject to statutory caps which reads as follows:

Statutory Definitions

Economic Damages — RSMo § 538.205(2)

"'Economic damages', damages arising from pecuniary harm including, without limitation, medical damages, and those damages arising from lost wages and lost earning capacity;"

Noneconomic Damages — RSMo § 538.205(9)

"'Noneconomic damages', damages arising from nonpecuniary harm including, without limitation, pain, suffering, mental anguish, inconvenience, physical impairment, disfigurement, loss of capacity to enjoy life, and loss of consortium but shall not include punitive damages;"

Statutory Caps on Noneconomic Damages — RSMo § 538.210

Under Missouri law, economic damages are completely uncapped. Statutory limits apply strictly to noneconomic damages.

RSMo § 538.210.1 (Base Statutory Language)

"In any action against a health care provider for damages for personal injury or death arising out of the rendering of or the failure to render health care services, no plaintiff shall recover more than four hundred thousand dollars for noneconomic damages irrespective of the number of defendants."

Dynamic Adjustments & Catastrophic Injuries — RSMo § 538.210.2–.3

Annual Adjustment: The statutory baseline ($400,000 baseline enacted in 2015) increases by 1.7% annually each January 1.
Two-Tier System:
- Non-Catastrophic Injury Cap: Standard limit on noneconomic damages.
- Catastrophic Injury / Death Cap: A higher cap applies to catastrophic injuries (e.g., quadriplegia, loss of limbs, severe organ failure, or brain damage resulting in permanent cognitive impairment under § 538.205(1)) or wrongful death.

Note: The trier of fact (jury) is strictly prohibited by statute from being informed of these limits (§ 538.210.4).

Statutory Remittitur Mechanism — RSMo § 538.210 & RSMo § 537.068

When a jury awards noneconomic damages in excess of the statutory threshold, or when an award exceeds fair compensation, the reduction is processed through remittitur.

Remittitur for Exceeding Statutory Caps — RSMo § 538.210.5

"If a trial is held, and a verdict is rendered which exceeds the limitations set forth in subsections 1 to 3 of this section, the court shall enter a remittitur in whole or in part reducing the award to an amount not to exceed the limitation set forth in this section."

General Remittitur Standard — RSMo § 537.068

In addition to mandatory statutory reductions for noneconomic cap overages, general remittitur authority in Missouri tort law is governed by RSMo § 537.068:

"A court may enter a remittitur order if, after reviewing the evidence in support of the jury's verdict, the court finds that the jury's verdict is excessive because the amount is unreasonable and exceeds what is necessary to satisfy fair and reasonable compensation for the injury and damages sustained."

Reporting Identity:

Albert B. Pepper Jr. d/b/a/ Phoenix Rising Productions LLC. A member in good standing of the Society of Professional Journalists and the Online News Association 2026. see: about / mission statement: https://jury-watch.org/about-%7C-mission-statement