Case summaries for June 27-July 3, 2025

Appellate | Civil | Criminal | Evidence | Health | Orders of protection

Appellate

Judgment for intervenor not final 
The Missouri Commission on Human Rights declined to pursue an action against the employer and did not issue a right-to-sue letter based on the employer’s exempt status. The employee sought review of that decision and mandamus compelling the commission to act. The employer intervened to protect its status and gained judgment on the pleadings. Aggrieved parties could appeal judgments that were final, meaning that the judgment resolved all issues as to all parties, but the judgment did not resolve any matter between the employer and employee. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri Ex Rel. Dmitry Solenov, Ph.D. vs. Missouri Commission on Human Rights, et al. and Saint Louis University 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87263

Civil

Change of judge was timely in action to set aside default 
Motions to set aside default judgments constituted actions separate from underlying defaulted actions even though the motions to set aside were “filed under the same case number as the original action and no new process must be served[.]” In the underlying defaulted action, it was too late to file a motion for a change of judge, but in the newer action to set aside the default judgment, the motion was timely. A point relied on without supporting authority either required an explanation or was subject to deemed abandonment. 
(Overview summary) 
Larry Kinman, et al., Appellants, v. Christopher Donahoo, Respondent. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113380

Criminal

Expungement affirmed 
In actions to expunge criminal records, the elements included public welfare, including whether the petitioner remained a threat to public safety of the state. Such matter was for the circuit court to determine on the record and the circuit court’s factual findings were due deference on appellate review. The circuit court did not err in rejecting testimony when the state failed to make an adequate offer of proof. And the circuit court stated that, even if the answers to proffered questions favored the state, such testimony would not have changed the judgment. That finding negated prejudice. 
(Overview summary) 
M.T.M. and P.M., et al., Respondents, v. St. Louis City Circuit Court, et al., Appellants. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112834

Evidence

No instruction on interpreter required 
For testimony in Spanish, a translator to English was necessary, but a jury instruction on that testimony was not, so no error occurred when the circuit court failed “to sua sponte craft and submit an instruction to that effect prior to the admission of evidence.” The circuit court did not err in excluding an investigator’s decade-old tweet relating feelings about child sex crimes because the tweet was cumulative and because the defense’s cross-examination was effective without it. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri vs. Rosendo Palma 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD86735

Health

Allegations of records breach stated claims 
The plaintiff hospital employee alleged that, when the plaintiff became a patient, the hospital’s substandard confidentiality practices resulted in wrongful disclosures of personally identifiable health information. Those allegations described claims under neither the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) nor the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act because those Acts provided no private right of action. But the plaintiff’s allegations of injury — changed working conditions, embarrassment, and the lost benefit of a bargain for privacy — were sufficient to show standing. The plaintiff’s allegations also described negligence, a breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of implied contract, with damages both contractual and non-contractual. As to those claims, the circuit court erred in dismissing the action. 
(Overview summary) 
Rose Howland vs. Truman Medical Center, Inc., d/b/a University Health Lakewood Medical Center 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87521

Orders of protection

No default, no set-aside 
The circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it granted a motion for continuance. A delayed trial did not deprive the appellant of due process when the appellant contributed to the delay. Defaults only occurred when a responsive pleading was necessary so, when nothing required a responsive pleading, neither the failure to file a responsive pleading, nor a failure to appear, supported a default judgment. No default judgment was therefore possible in an action for an order of protection, because no responsive pleading was necessary, and no circuit court could grant a motion to set aside a default in such a case. Resulting judgments were on the merits with due process of law provided in the form of notice of a trial setting. A point relied on that did not specify which judgment it addressed constituted inadequate pleading and a multifarious point. A point unsupported by authority was deemed abandoned. Relief related to child custody was subject to a hearing scheduled in circuit court. 
(Overview summary) 
M.R.R. vs. K.W.C. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87076 consolidated with WD87077