Case Name: Thomas GRELLNER, Surviving, Husband of Laura Grellner, Deceased, Appellant, v. Roberto PACHECO-CORONADO and Metro Heart Group of St. Louis, Inc., Respondents.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2019-05-21
Citations: 577 S.W.3d 154
Docket Number: No. ED 106746
Parties: Thomas GRELLNER, Surviving, Husband of Laura Grellner, Deceased, Appellant,
v.
Roberto PACHECO-CORONADO and Metro Heart Group of St. Louis, Inc., Respondents.
Judges: Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., James M. Dowd, J., and Robin Ransom, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 577
Pages: 154–155

Head Matter:
Thomas GRELLNER, Surviving, Husband of Laura Grellner, Deceased, Appellant,
v.
Roberto PACHECO-CORONADO and Metro Heart Group of St. Louis, Inc., Respondents.
No. ED 106746
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.
Filed: May 21, 2019
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied June 24, 2019
FOR APPELLANT: Leonard P. Cervantes, Jennifer Suttmoeller, Michael T. Flachs, 1007 Olive Street, 4th Floor, St. Louis, Missouri 63101.
FOR RESPONDENTS: John T. Eckenrode, Lisa H. Howe, 11477 Olde Cabin Road, Suite 110, St. Louis, Missouri 63141.
Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., James M. Dowd, J., and Robin Ransom, J.
ORDER

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
This medical negligence-wrongful death case arose from an unfortunate incident that occurred during a cardiac catheterization procedure performed by Dr. Roberto Pacheco-Coronado on appellant Thomas Grellner's wife Laura in which her left main coronary artery became torn or dissected resulting in Laura Grellner's death. Thomas Grellner sued Dr. Pacheco-Coronado and Metro Heart Group of St. Louis, Inc., in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County claiming that Dr. Pacheco-Coronado negligently caused the death of his wife. A jury trial was held in the matter, and a verdict was reached in favor of the defendants. The court accepted the verdict and entered a judgment thereon. Grellner now appeals claiming the trial court erred twice with respect to the admission of evidence.
We affirm. Because an extended opinion would have no precedential value, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).