Case Name: Nancy KLAHS, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Gordon NEILSON, Defendant/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2008-01-15
Citations: 245 S.W.3d 896
Docket Number: No. ED 89882
Parties: Nancy KLAHS, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Gordon NEILSON, Defendant/Appellant.
Judges: Before KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, P.J., ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J., and KENNETH M. ROMINES, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 245
Pages: 896–897

Head Matter:
Nancy KLAHS, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Gordon NEILSON, Defendant/Appellant.
No. ED 89882.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Jan. 15, 2008.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Feb. 19, 2008.
Application for Transfer Denied March 18, 2008.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Cause No. 042-1546, Dennis M. Schaumann, Judge.
Lawrence 0. Willbrand, P.C., St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Andrew D. Sandroni, O’Gorman & San-droni P.C., St. Louis, MO, for respondent.
Before KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, P.J., ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J., and KENNETH M. ROMINES, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Gordon Neilson ("Neilson") appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis City, the Honorable Dennis M. Schaumann presiding, after the judge entered a judgment against Neilson for negligent infliction of emotional distress for his conduct toward Nancy Klahs ("Klahs").
Neilson brings three claims of error. First, Neilson argues that the trial judge erred in allowing a clinical psychologist to testify as to Klahs' post-traumatic stress disorder when the applicable law requires such mental distress to be medically diagnosable. Second, Neilson claims that the clinical psychologist's testimony failed to adduce evidence of a causal connection between Klahs' post-traumatic stress disorder and Neilson's alleged conduct. Third, Neilson argues that Klahs failed to produce sufficient evidence to support a finding that Neilson's conduct toward Klahs constituted negligence.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and no error of law appears. Therefore, an opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
AFFIRMED.