Case Name: Jane DOE, Appellant, v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Missouri Division of Family Support, Missouri Division of Medical Services, and Missouri Division of Legal Services, Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2009-02-03
Citations: 280 S.W.3d 110
Docket Number: No. ED 91283
Parties: Jane DOE, Appellant, v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Missouri Division of Family Support, Missouri Division of Medical Services, and Missouri Division of Legal Services, Respondents.
Judges: Before KURT S. ODENWALD, P.J., GLENN A. NORTON, J., and PATRICIA L. COHEN, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 280
Pages: 110–110

Head Matter:
Jane DOE, Appellant, v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Missouri Division of Family Support, Missouri Division of Medical Services, and Missouri Division of Legal Services, Respondents.
No. ED 91283.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Feb. 3, 2009.
Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 10, 2009.
Application for Transfer Denied May 5, 2009.
Charles A. Harter, Harter & Harter L.L.C., Fenton, MO, for Appellants.
Chris Koster, Attorney General, Sarah E. Ledgerwood, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondents.
Before KURT S. ODENWALD, P.J., GLENN A. NORTON, J., and PATRICIA L. COHEN, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff Jane Doe (Doe) filed a petition and class action petition for declaratory judgment and injunction in the Circuit Court for St. Louis County against the Missouri Department of Social Services, Deborah E. Scott, Director; the Missouri Division of Family Support, Janel R. Luck, Director; the Missouri Division of Medical Services, Michael Ditmore, Director; the Missouri Division of Legal Services, Harry Williams, Director (collectively referred to as the Department). Doe claims the Department failed to provide proper notice of an adverse action to a beneficiary of state services or benefits under Missouri's MC + health care insurance assistance program for low-income families. The trial court granted the Department's motion to dismiss Doe's Supplemental Petition and Doe appeals. 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 purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).