Court Opinion

ID: 9645708
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:33:18.411483+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:30.632921
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER TO SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI
PER CURIAM.
In a motion for rehearing or, in the alternative, to transfer this ease to the Supreme Court of Missouri, Defendant asserts that this court erred in “holding that Missouri recognizes a theory of recovery against a physician for breach of warranty, i.e., breach of contract to cure-” This argument overlooks the recorded vote on this opinion. Of the three members of this court assigned to this case, only the writer of the opinion declared that Missouri recognizes a theory of recovery against a physician for breach of contract to cure. One judge concurred in the result, expressly declining to reach the breach of contract question and another dissented. As the opinion failed to receive a concurrence of a majority of the judges who voted except as to result, it does not decide the issue and will not be authoritative on this question as Defendant contends. See Williamson v. Cox, 844 S.W.2d 95, 98-99[4] (Mo. App.1992); State v. Bradshaw, 593 S.W.2d 562, 565[1] (Mo.App.1979). Consequently, we decline to grant a rehearing or transfer for this reason.
After considering Defendant’s additional reasons for rehearing or transfer, we deny his post-opinion motion.