Case Name: Rhonda PARGO and Willie C. Watson, Jr. by and through his Next Friend and Natural Mother, Rhonda Pargo, Appellants, v. The WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, d/b/a Washington University School of Medicine, and St. Louis Children's Hospital, Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2006-10-10
Citations: 207 S.W.3d 178
Docket Number: No. ED 87499
Parties: Rhonda PARGO and Willie C. Watson, Jr. by and through his Next Friend and Natural Mother, Rhonda Pargo, Appellants, v. The WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, d/b/a Washington University School of Medicine, and St. Louis Children’s Hospital, Respondents.
Judges: Before ROY L. RICHTER, P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J., and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 207
Pages: 178–179

Head Matter:
Rhonda PARGO and Willie C. Watson, Jr. by and through his Next Friend and Natural Mother, Rhonda Pargo, Appellants, v. The WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, d/b/a Washington University School of Medicine, and St. Louis Children’s Hospital, Respondents.
No. ED 87499.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
Oct. 10, 2006.
Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Nov. 9, 2006.
Application for Transfer Denied Dec. 19, 2006.
Stephen F. Meyerkord, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Kenneth Bean, Alika Moitra, St. Louis, MO, for respondent St. Louis Children’s Hospital.
Robert S. Rosenthal, T. Michael Ward, St. Louis, MO, for respondent The Washington University.
Before ROY L. RICHTER, P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J., and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Rhonda Pargo and Willie C. Watson, Jr. appeal the trial court's dismissal of their First Amended Petition against Washington University School of Medicine and St. Louis Children's Hospital ("Defendants") in which they alleged that Defendants were medically negligent in failing to diagnose Tierra Pargo's sulfite oxidase deficiency. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).