Case Name: Bevis SCHOCK, Trustee of the Dominic Stephen Ernst Special Needs Trust as Next Friend of Dominic Ernst, a Minor, Appellant, v. Mona YASSIN, M.D., Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2016-05-17
Citations: 496 S.W.3d 598
Docket Number: No. ED 103055
Parties: Bevis SCHOCK, Trustee of the Dominic Stephen Ernst Special Needs Trust as Next Friend of Dominic Ernst, a Minor, Appellant, v. Mona YASSIN, M.D., Respondent.
Judges: Before Robert G. Dowd, Jr., P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Roy L. Richter, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 496
Pages: 598–598

Head Matter:
Bevis SCHOCK, Trustee of the Dominic Stephen Ernst Special Needs Trust as Next Friend of Dominic Ernst, a Minor, Appellant, v. Mona YASSIN, M.D., Respondent.
No. ED 103055
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.
FILED: May 17, 2016
Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied June 30, 2016
Application for Transfer Denied September 20, 2016
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT(s) Dominic Ernst and Bevis Schock: Mark T. McCloskey, The Nieman Mansion, 4472 Lindell Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63108, MCCLOSKEY, P.C.
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT: Ryan Gavin, 287 N. Lindbergh Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63141, KAMYKOWSKI, GAVIN & SMITH, P.C.
Before Robert G. Dowd, Jr., P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Roy L. Richter, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM
Bevis Shock, Trustee of the Dominic Stephen Ernst Special Needs Trust as Next Friend of Dominic Ernst, a Minor (Trustee) appeals from the judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of Mona Yassin, M.D. on Trustee's medical negligence action. We affirm.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).