Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Grippe v. Momtazee
Citations: 696 S.W.2d 797; 1985 Mo. LEXIS 345Docket: 66703
Court: Supreme Court of Missouri; September 10, 1985; Missouri; State Supreme Court
In the case of Joseph Grippe v. Dr. Sam Momtazee and St. Louis OB-GYN Group, Inc., the Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed a wrongful death action initiated by Joseph Grippe against the respondents for alleged malpractice due to a delayed breast cancer diagnosis. The jury ruled in favor of the defendants, and Grippe's motion for a new trial was denied. On appeal, Grippe raised four errors, but the court of appeals did not address these, focusing instead on the lack of evidence connecting the defendants' negligence to the cause of death. The Missouri Supreme Court determined that the court of appeals should have evaluated Grippe's allegations of error before addressing the issue of whether he established a submissible case. It clarified that the submissibility of a case and the sufficiency of pleadings are distinct issues, and the defense could not raise trial errors since they were not aggrieved parties after winning at trial. The court emphasized that all errors must be preserved by the aggrieved party for appeal consideration, and defendants, having won, could not complain about the trial court's decisions. The case was retransferred for further examination of the identified errors, indicating the appellate court's misstep in its previous handling of the appeal. The court of appeals dismissed the cross-appeal but indicated it could still review the issue of submissibility, which is relevant since the plaintiff had won at trial. The court was required to assess whether the trial court's order for a new trial was proper and whether the plaintiff had made a submissible case prior to reinstating the verdict. The issue of submissibility persists only when a trial court grants a post-trial motion. The appellate court should not adopt overly broad interpretations from other cases suggesting that submissibility can be routinely considered. The appellant could not challenge the issue of submissibility as it had been submitted per their request, and the defendants could not raise the issue due to their favorable jury verdict. Both parties lacked standing to contest submissibility since neither was aggrieved by the submission. The appellate court may only address the question of submissibility after finding in favor of the appellant on one or more alleged errors. Upon retransfer, the court of appeals should examine these errors and then, if necessary, address submissibility. Judge Blackmar concurred, emphasizing the need for careful review of the record and the presumption in favor of jury decisions. He noted that determining submissibility is complex and should only be approached if essential. He also stressed that the appellate court holds discretion to resolve appeals based on sufficient grounds without limiting the court of appeals' authority. The document highlights that a plaintiff cannot obtain a new trial without a submissible case, regardless of trial errors.