Case Name: Anais Corathel WINKLER, by and through her Next Friend and Natural Mother, Nancy FOSTER, Plaintiff, and Nancy Foster, Individually, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Daniel J. SEMENOFF, M.D., Defendant, and Missouri Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association, Intervenor/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2003-05-27
Citations: 105 S.W.3d 869
Docket Number: No. ED 81677
Parties: Anais Corathel WINKLER, by and through her Next Friend and Natural Mother, Nancy FOSTER, Plaintiff, and Nancy Foster, Individually, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Daniel J. SEMENOFF, M.D., Defendant, and Missouri Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association, Intervenor/Appellant.
Judges: Before MARY R. RUSSELL, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J., and BOOKER T. SHAW, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 105
Pages: 869–869

Head Matter:
Anais Corathel WINKLER, by and through her Next Friend and Natural Mother, Nancy FOSTER, Plaintiff, and Nancy Foster, Individually, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Daniel J. SEMENOFF, M.D., Defendant, and Missouri Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association, Intervenor/Appellant.
No. ED 81677.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
May 27, 2003.
Kevin P. Schnurbusch, Heather J. Hays, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Robert H. Pedroli, Eric A. Ruttencutter, Clayton, MO, for respondent.
Before MARY R. RUSSELL, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J., and BOOKER T. SHAW, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
The Missouri Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association ("MIGA") appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion of Nancy Foster ("mother") to enforce a settlement agreement between Dr. Daniel Semenoff ("Dr.Semenoff"), MIGA, mother and Anais Corathel Winkler ("Winkler"), daughter of mother, on the claims of Winkler and mother ("plaintiffs") for medical malpractice by Dr. Semenoff. MIGA contends that Robert Seibel ("Seibel"), the attorney MIGA retained to represent Dr. Semenoff, lacked the authority to agree to the settlement.
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 opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).