Legal Opinion

Breeden v. Hueser

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided June 30, 2008No. WD 68069PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HAROLD L. LOWENSTEIN, Judge.

INTRODUCTION

The question presented here is whether a claim against a doctor that arises out of unauthorized and duplicative billing practices falls within the range of actions subjected to the two-year statute of limitations applicable to certain actions brought against health care providers. See 516.105, RSMo Supp.2008. 1 Plaintiffs in this case appeal the circuit court’s judgment of dismissal based on the two-year filing timeframe. This court finds that the Plaintiffs’ claims are not subject to section 516.105 and reverses the circuit court’s dismissal.

Factual…

2Cases cited42 opinions

  1. Kircher v. Putnam Funds TrustSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
  2. Lukasik v. San Antonio Blue Haven Pools, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)2000
  3. Chmieleski v. City Products Corp.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1983
  4. State Ex Rel. Sisters of St. Mary v. CampbellMissouri Court of Appeals · 1974
  5. State Ex Rel. National Refining Co. v. SeehornSupreme Court of Missouri · 1939

37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. Western Blue Print Co. v. RobertsSupreme Court of Missouri · 2012
  2. Ellison v. FrySupreme Court of Missouri · 2014
  3. Eckel v. EckelMissouri Court of Appeals · 2018
  4. Hansen v. RitterMissouri Court of Appeals · 2012
  5. Kixmiller v. Board of Curators of Lincoln UniversityMissouri Court of Appeals · 2011

27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API