Case Name: Roy DuBOSE, Appellant, v. ST. LOUIS SURGICAL CONSULTANTS, St. Luke's Episcopal-Presbyterian Hospitals d/b/a St. Luke's Hospital, and Dr. Thomas Niesen, Respondents/Cross-Appellants
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2013-04-30
Citations: 397 S.W.3d 550
Docket Number: No. ED 98148
Parties: Roy DuBOSE, Appellant, v. ST. LOUIS SURGICAL CONSULTANTS, St. Luke’s Episcopal-Presbyterian Hospitals d/b/a St. Luke’s Hospital, and Dr. Thomas Niesen, Respondents/Cross-Appellants.
Judges: Before LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, P.J., PATRICIA L. COHEN, J., and KURT S. ODENWALD, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 397
Pages: 550–550

Head Matter:
Roy DuBOSE, Appellant, v. ST. LOUIS SURGICAL CONSULTANTS, St. Luke’s Episcopal-Presbyterian Hospitals d/b/a St. Luke’s Hospital, and Dr. Thomas Niesen, Respondents/Cross-Appellants.
No. ED 98148.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
April 30, 2013.
Aurora M. Fluhr, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Timothy J. Gearin, Clayton, MO, Kevin O’Malley, St. Louis, MO, for respondents/cross-appellants.
Before LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, P.J., PATRICIA L. COHEN, J., and KURT S. ODENWALD, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Roy DuBose (Plaintiff) appeals the judgment of the • Circuit Court of St. Louis County dismissing his medical malpractice action against St. Louis Surgical Consultants, Dr. Thomas Niesen (together, St. Louis Surgical Defendants), and St. Luke's Episcopal-Presbyterian Hospitals d/b/a St. Luke's Hospital (St. Luke's) (collectively, Defendants). Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his cause of action on the basis that he failed to comply with the requirement of section 538.225 to file an affidavit stating that he obtained the opinion of a "legally qualified health care provider." In their cross-appeals, Defendants assert that the trial court erred in denying their requests for attorneys' fees.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error in any of the respects alleged. 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).