Case Name: HEALTH CARE MARKETING ASSOCIATES, INC., Respondent, v. MANAGED CARE PROFESSIONALS, INC., Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2004-05-04
Citations: 139 S.W.3d 591
Docket Number: No. ED 82959
Parties: HEALTH CARE MARKETING ASSOCIATES, INC., Respondent, v. MANAGED CARE PROFESSIONALS, INC., Appellant.
Judges: Before BOOKER T. SHAW, P.J., LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, J., PATRICIA L. COHEN, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 139
Pages: 591–592

Head Matter:
HEALTH CARE MARKETING ASSOCIATES, INC., Respondent, v. MANAGED CARE PROFESSIONALS, INC., Appellant.
No. ED 82959.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
May 4, 2004.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 8, 2004.
Application for Transfer Denied Aug. 24, 2004.
John Gianoulakis, Robert F. Murray, Jeremy D. Shook, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Timothy E. Hayes, Douglas S. Dove, Richard B. Maltby, St. Louis, MO, for respondent.
Before BOOKER T. SHAW, P.J., LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, J., PATRICIA L. COHEN, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Managed Care Professionals, Inc. ("MCP") appeals from the trial court's judgment in favor of Health Care Marketing Associates, Inc. ("HMA") on HMA's breach of contract claim and MCP's breach of contract counterclaim. MCP argues the trial court erred in awarding HMA $2,136,408.15, plus post-judgment interest and costs, because: (1) the agreement between MCP and HMA unambiguously provided that it expired on February 9, 2000 and the finder-representative distinction was inapplicable such that HMA was not entitled to post-expiration commissions; and (2) HMA's breach of contract was material as it constituted a repudiation of HMA's remaining obligations under the agreement.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties 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 would have no prece-dential value. Judgment affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).