Consumers Beware | Misleading Advertising

---

With regard to the medical malpractice birth injury case of Remington, Blake, Sarah Anyan v Mercy Hospital et al. and Dr. Daniel McNeive that was litigated by The Simon Law Firm P.C. and the Gunn - Slater Law Firm consumers are strongly advised to look beyond the advertisements and press releases by Simon Law and Gunn Slater law firm of a 48.1 million dollar jury verdict for their client whereas the facts from the case prove that this result is misleading and is presented for the purpose of creating an "unjustified expectation" in consumers seeking legal representation for personal injury claims that they may realize similar results when in fact, the 48.1 million dollar award the the plaintiff client was never available to them as per a high /low agreement entered into by plaintiff and defense counsel before the verdict was even rendered. - It is the smoke and mirrors deceptions of the "Big Law Public Relations Industrial Complex" of which the Simon Law Firm P.C. are masters of manipulation. 

Do my claims as a consumer advocate , citizen journalist sound outrageous? Does it sound like hyperbole and that with regard to naming a specific case and that of the Simon Law Firm P.C.? Well I have the primary source documents and evidence that is the "smoking gun" that proves that what The Simon Law Firm P.C. the Gunn Slater Law Firm is advertising is in stark contrast to what they actually obtained for their client and that, ladies and gentlemen is the true metric for making an assessment of a law firms capacity and capabilities. That is, what in fact did they recover for their plaintiff client.

Below is the "smoking gun" evidence. I encourage any and all interested parties to examine the evidence and make your assessment.

Albert B. Pepper Jr.

Consumer Advocate, Citizen Journalist

Phoenix Rising Productions LLC

The personal injury claim and case was tried in the 21st. Judicial Circuit of St. Louis County Missouri and went to an 11 day jury trial in March of 2025 concluding with the jury rendering a verdict against Mercy Hospital and Dr. Daniel McNieve as defendants for the departure of the standard of care and as a result the infant sustained birth injury was which the parents Blake and Sarah Anyan sought compensation.

Furthermore, the jury verdict "awarded" the plaintiffs 28.1 million dollars in compensatory damages and 20 million dollars in punitive damages for a total of 48.1 million dollars. However, the plaintiffs will not realize anything close to that amount when the case is finally disposed of and the checks are cut whereas there are two issues that prohibit the plaintiff from realizing this "advertised" recovery. 

1) Before the jury even rendered their verdict plaintiff counsel and defense counsel entered into a high / low agreement of 8 and 18 million that capped, set a ceiling on the amount that the plaintiffs could recover. This agreement made the 48.1 million dollar jury verdict entirely irrelevant other than it triggered the 18 million dollar cap on the plaintiffs recovery.- 30.1 million dollars is no longer available to the plaintiff of which neither the Simon Law Firm P.C. nor Gunn Slater Law Firm revealed during their press releases of the trial disposition. 

2) The case is now on appeal and plaintiff counsel of The Simon Law Firm P.C. and Gunn Slater are struggling to even uphold the 18 million dollar cap whereas the defense counsel presents good arguments that the punitive award (which is now irrelevant) does not meet the threshold for imposition but even more relevant is that the compensatory damages, even capped at 18 million cannot be supported by the evidence and is subject to statutory caps. 

This entire time both The Simon Law Firm P.C. and Gunn Slater are aware of these issues that limit the recovery for their client yet they proceeded to do press releases of the 48.1 million dollar verdict omitting a "material fact" that the recovery was capped at 18 million and to this very day, as of the date of the composition of this article neither law firm has provided a correction, a cure, a remedy to correct that record and to present themselves and their result in truth and candor to the public and consumer. 

Herein is the HTML text rendering of the "plaintiff motion to enforce settlement" that factually proves that before the jury rendered their verdict that plaintiff counsel and defense counsel entered into a high / low agreement that capped the gross recovery for the plaintiff at 18 million dollars and that the 48.1 million dollar advertised recovery was not legally obtainable. - A 30.1 million dollar omission of fact that reduced the gross recovery by over 60 percent..!

MISSOURI CIRCUIT COURT TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ST. LOUIS COUNTY

R.A., a minor, by and through His Next Friends and Natural Parents, SARAH ANYAN and BLAKE ANYAN,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 21SL-CC03944 Div. 18

MERCY HOSPITALS EAST COMMUNITIES d/b/a MERCY HOSPITAL ST. LOUIS; MERCY CLINIC EAST COMMUNITIES d/b/a MERCY CLINIC MERCY OB/GYN, and DR. DANIEL McNEIVE,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

COMES NOW Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, and for his memorandum in support of his motion to enforce settlement, states as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

The facts and the law favor Plaintiff in the Court's determination of whether an enforceable settlement was reached. The settlement agreement was reached at 4:47 p.m. The unambiguous terms were reduced to writing. They are:

8 and 18

All the way to verdict

Confidentiality to high/low

No non disparagement

Despite the facts and the law, Mercy Hospital's counsel, on behalf of all Defendants, backed out of the settlement an hour and a half after it was reached by attempting to add

1

material terms that counsel admitted were never discussed. Mercy's counsel claimed the trigger for the high/low was based only on the compensatory damages after application of the statutory medical malpractice caps, not the verdict; yet, counsel admitted, "There was no discussion of caps, Your Honor."

Then, without evidence, Mercy's counsel alleged that Plaintiff inexplicably abandoned his claim for punitive damages after the jury asked a promising question about the punitive damages amount—an action against the weight of the evidence and Plaintiff's interests.

In contrast, Plaintiff's counsel and defense counsel jointly developed the unambiguous, written material terms of the high/low agreement. Plaintiff's counsel immediately transferred the written agreement to defense counsel by text message so there would be no misinterpretation. When Defendants constructively breached those terms post- verdict, Plaintiff immediately sought to preserve all parties' recollections of the negotiations on record. Meanwhile, Mercy's counsel declined to make a record at all and only did so in response to the Court's direct questions.

An hour after leaving court that evening, counsel for Mercy Clinic and Dr. McNeive, Mr. Willman, called Plaintiff's counsel and asked her to refrain from filing anything because he needed one day to confirm that the agreement above resulted in a settlement of $18 million. This is a curious action if Defendants really believed the settlement agreement meant anything other than what Plaintiff set forth in the post-verdict record.

The law states that counsel's actions, not their subjective assumptions or their

2

client's secret intent, give context to the terms of a written settlement. As a result, counsels' actions prove only one result: The parties agreed to a pre-verdict high/low settlement. The jury's verdict triggered the "high" resulting in an $18 million settlement.

II. FACTS

A. Settlement Reached

Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a high/low agreement of $8 million and $18 million on the verdict just prior to the jury announcing its verdict of $48.1 million. Ex. 3, Post-Verdict Record (Unsealed by Court Order April 9, 2025), 7:7-15.¹,²

B. At Sidebar, Defendants Backed Out of Settlement Claiming a Material Term Applied that They Admit Parties Did Not Discuss

After the jury was dismissed, Plaintiff's counsel approached the Court at sidebar to announce that the parties were settled at $18 million. Ex. 3, 7:7-15. For the first time, Ms. Kamykowski, on behalf of all Defendants, stated additional terms that were not part of the settlement agreement. Ex. 3, 7:16-22. Ms. Kamykowski admitted that the words "judgement" or "net verdict" were never used in the negotiations. Ex. 3, 7:23-8:4. In fact, there was never any suggestion by defense counsel that the trigger to the high/low was anything other than the words and phrases used in the written agreement: "all the way to

¹ Plaintiff's counsel, Ms. Slater, adopted her statements reflected on the record in Ex. 3 in an affidavit attached hereto as Ex. 5. All references to Ms. Slater's statements on the record in Ex. 3 should be taken as sworn testimony under oath by Ms. Slater and offered as evidence herein.

² The settlement agreement included a material term of limited confidentiality as to the high/low agreement. Plaintiff took steps to preserve this confidentiality in its filings before this Court, including initially sealing the post-verdict record that included the amounts and maintaining confidentiality of the high/low agreement in their filing of this motion on March 28, 2025. Defendants did not object to unsealing the post-verdict record and filed the complete details of the amounts at issue and fact of the high/low settlement in their filing dated April 18, 2025. Thus, Plaintiff discusses the facts of the high/low agreement, the negotiations, and the amounts involved herein based on Defendants' waiver of limited confidentiality.

3

verdict.” Ex. 3, 8:5-11.

Importantly, when asked to respond to Plaintiff's recitation of the negotiations and high/low agreement resulting in a settlement of $18 million, Ms. Kamykowski initially declined to make a record. Ex. 3, 9:1-11.

After Ms. Kamykowski stated to the Court that she believed the medical malpractice statutory caps on non-economic damages applied to trigger the high/low, the Court asked Ms. Kamykowski, “And ‘were’ discussions ‘with regards’ to the caps involved in this settlement agreement at all?” Ex. 3, 11:7-22. “There was no discussion of caps; Your Honor.” Ex. 3, 11:23-24.

C. After Sidebar, Plaintiff's Counsel Made the Post-Verdict Record Detailing the Settlement and Negotiations

Plaintiff's counsel detailed the course of the negotiations on the record. Trial of this matter began on March 11, 2025. On day one of trial, Mercy offered $10 million and an apology to the Anyan Family, which Plaintiff rejected. Ex. 5, Affidavit of Erica B. Slater, ¶ 4. The jury began deliberating on March 25, 2025 at 12:42 p.m. Ex. 6, Trial Proceedings March 25, 2025, 2:3-4. After nearly two and a half hours of deliberation, the Jury asked for the life care plans and expenses calculated by the experts and then asked for a calculator. Ex. 6, 2:7-5:20. Shortly thereafter and while the jury continued to deliberate, Defendants collectively offered a lump sum of $12 million which Plaintiff rejected. Ex. 3, 3:8-11.

i. High/low negotiations ensue; Defendants make a final offer of $8 million and $18 million.

Plaintiff then offered Defendants a high/low settlement agreement of $10 million and $20 million. Ex. 3, 3:11-14. Defendants rejected the amount and countered with a

4

high/low amount of $8 million and $15 million. Ex. 3, 3:13-22. Plaintiff rejected that amount and re-offered $10 million and $20 million as the high/low amount. Ex. 3, 4:2-6. Defendants then offered several other high/low amounts which Plaintiff rejected and instead, repeatedly renewed the $10 million and $20 million high/low offer. Ex. 3, 4:7-17. The jury then asked questions about suggested percentages of fault and whether the definition of punitive damages included or equaled all the monies awarded. Ex. 6, 5:22- 7:19; Ex. 3, 4:18-20. Defendants offered a high/low of $8 million and $18 million. Ex. 3, 4:24-5:3. Then the Court informed counsel there was a verdict. Ex. 3, 4:20-5:3. Plaintiff re-offered Defendants the high/low of $10 million and $20 million to which Ms. Kamykowski stated that a high/low of $8 million and $18 million was their top offer. Ex. 3, 5:4-18. ii. Plaintiff accepts amount of high/low and material terms are drafted jointly and accepted at 4:47 p.m. After Plaintiff's counsel and Mr. Anyan discussed the offer in the hallway, Ms. Slater informed Ms. Kamykowski that Plaintiff accepted the high/low amount of $8 million and $18 million. Ex. 3, 5:10-12. At that point, the only details of the communication were characterizing the settlement as a "high/low" on the "verdict" and negotiating the amount to $8 million and $18 million. Ex. 3, 5:19-22. Then, Ms. Slater and Ms. Kamykowski stepped out of the courtroom and jointly drafted the unambiguous, material terms of the settlement agreement on a Note in Ms. Slater's iPhone Notes app. Ex. 3, 5:22-6:1. The complete terms read:

5

8 and 18 All the way to verdict Confidentiality to high/low No non disparagement

Ex. 1, Agreement.

Immediately after drafting the settlement agreement, Ms. Slater texted the settlement agreement from the Notes app to Ms. Kamykowski's cell phone at 4:47 p.m.

Ex. 3, 6:2-5; Ex. 5, Affidavit of Erica B. Slater, ¶¶ 10, 10.a., and 10.b. Parties never changed or altered the four-line settlement agreement.

iii. Mr. Willman confirms details of settlement. Parties do not change any material terms.

Mr. Willman, on behalf of Mercy Clinic and Dr. McNeive, confirmed that the settlement resolved all claims as his clients were subject to punitive damages, Ex. 3, 6:10- 17. Ms. Slater agreed but reiterated that the settlement was still on the full verdict. Ex. 3, 6:10-17. Defendants never used the words “judgment,” or “net verdict,” nor communicated in any way that they disagreed that the high/low was based on the jury’s full verdict. Ex. 3, 6:19-25. To the contrary, the jointly drafted provision for the trigger for the $8 million and $18 million was “all the way to verdict,” which objectively includes both phases of trial should the second phase come to pass, otherwise the modification would be unnecessary. Ex. 1, Agreement.

Mr. Willman communicated the way in which Defendants preferred to pay the amount, which was not to construe the payment as paying for punitive damages because the insurance policies between $8 million and $18 million could not technically pay for punitive damages although they sought to buy all claims in the settlement. Plaintiff agreed.

6

Ex. 3, 7:1-6. It is typical and customary when punitive damages are alleged in a case that the settlement agreement releases all claims, including punitive damages, and that no payments are being made on behalf of the punitive damages claims. This alone was the impetus behind the clarification made after the material terms of the settlement agreement were reduced to writing. The parties' exchange as to punitives was a narrow, explicit conversation, not counsel's subjective understanding of the discussion. Ex. 3, 7:1-6.

iv. Verdict is read at 4:56 p.m. Punitive damage amount is read at 5:56 p.m. Defense counsel makes no record regarding settlement during stage two deliberations.

The jury then returned their verdict in open court at 4:56 p.m., nine minutes after parties reached the 4-line settlement agreement. Ex. 6, 8:2-9. The verdict totaled $28.1 million in compensatory damages and found Mercy Clinic and Dr. McNeive liable for punitive damages, signed by all twelve jurors. Ex. 6, 8:14-9:4. After hearing counsel's arguments, the jury deliberated as to the award for punitive damages. Ex. 6, 10:7-14:23. During this time, Defendants never approached the Court to announce the settlement or state that the second stage of trial was inconsequential to the settlement. See Ex. 6, 14:23- 16:1. At 5:59 p.m., the Court's verdict as to the amount of punitive damages which totaled $20 million and was signed by all twelve jurors. Ex. 6, 15:24-16:11.

v. Parties approach the Court to announce settlement. On behalf of all Defendants, Ms. Kamykowski attempts to add material terms and backs out of settlement.

At Ms. Slater's request, she and Ms. Kamykowski approached sidebar to announce the settlement. Ex. 3, 7:7-15. Ms. Kamykowski backed out of the settlement that was reached one and a half hours earlier. Ex. 3, 7:16-22. Plaintiff requested to make a record

7

immediately to preserve the facts and counsels' contemporaneous recollections of the negotiations.

vi. Plaintiff makes post-verdict record, moves to enforce settlement, and for sanctions.

At 6:15 p.m., Plaintiff made the post-verdict record providing context to the clear and unambiguous settlement agreement reached between all parties. Ex. 3. Ms. Kamykowski stated that one of her negotiation points was that by settling, Plaintiff avoided the defendant- favored periodic payment statute that applies in medical malpractice cases. Ex. 3, 12:5-14. Yet, inconsistently, she claimed that another defendant-favored medical malpractice statute, caps on non-economic damages, did apply. Ex. 3, 12:5-14.

Although his clients, Mercy Clinic and Dr. McNeive, had just incurred a punitive damage verdict of $20 million that presumably had been settled until counsel for Mercy Hospital backed out of the settlement on their behalf, Mr. Willman surprisingly did not make any record in defense of his clients. Ex. 3.

As a result of Ms. Kamykowski and Mercy's conduct and based on Ms. Kamykowski's repeated behavior known to Plaintiff's counsel of attempting to change settlement terms after the fact to the disadvantage of the plaintiff, Plaintiff moved for sanctions against Ms. Kamykowski and Mercy. Ex. 3, 15:16:19; see Docket, J.J. v. SSM Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital, 22nd Circuit Case No. 1722-CC11203, Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Settlement Reached Prior to Minor Decedent's Death dated June 27, 2024, Defendants' Joint Memorandum in Opposition filed July 19, 2024 signed by

8

Attorney Kamykowski, and Court's Order Enforcing Settlement dated December 2, 2024.³

D. Mr. Willman Calls Plaintiff's Counsel One Hour After Leaving the Courthouse and States He Anticipates Confirming $18 Million Settlement Tomorrow

The record concluded at 6:38 p.m. and the parties and their representatives exited the courtroom. Ex. 3, ¶ 17:24-25. One hour later, at 7:39 p.m., Mr. Willman called Ms. Slater. Ex. 4, 7:39 p.m. call from Phil Willman; Ex. 5, Affidavit of Erica B. Slater, ¶¶ 10.c. and 11. Mr. Willman stated that he was designated as the messenger for all Defendants. Ex. 5, ¶ 12. He asked Plaintiff to “hold on everything,” i.e. refrain from filing a judgment, motion to enforce settlement, or motions for sanctions, and stated that Defendants “need[ed] to talk to one more person tomorrow and then we can confirm the settlement at $18.” Ex. 5, ¶ 13.

Upon the Court's suggestion, to support his oral motions made during the post- verdict record on March 25, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant motion and written motions for sanctions against Mr. Kamykowski and her firm and Mercy Hospital on March 28, 2025, after waiting three days to hear back from Mr. Willman to no avail.

III. LAW AND ANALYSIS

“Settlements are favored in the law.” State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. MFA Mut. Ins. Co., 671 S.W.2d 276, 279 (Mo. banc 1984).

³ In J.I., Ms. Kamykowski and her firm took a similar position as they do in this matter: that material terms can be added post-settlement to change the terms of the settlement and lower the amount her client owed to plaintiff. Despite Ms. Kamykowski's argument in J.I. that past negotiations added additional terms to the settlement agreement, the Court's order in J.I. finds that a clear settlement was reached at mediation, without consideration of past negotiations or intent. There was an offer that was accepted and supported by consideration which was the dismissal of all claims in exchange for payment of a confidential sum. Any other terms were not material to the purpose of the agreement and could not be changed after the fact by counsel's subjective intent. Ms. Kamykowski's arguments did not prevail in J.I. and they should not here.

9

As an initial matter, it is important to understand how the Court determines a settlement is reached, the legal mechanism for enforcing a settlement, and how reviewing courts scrutinize the trial court's judgment.

This Court should find that Plaintiff and Defendants entered a clear, written, enforceable high/low settlement agreement triggered by the Jury's full verdict.

A. Framework of the Trial Court's Enforcement of a Settlement

i. Trial Courts May Determine a Settlement Was Reached on a Motion to Enforce Settlement Proven by the Evidence

Missouri lacks a specific process for enforcing settlement in a pending case. Eaton v. Mallinckrodt, Inc., 224 S.W.3d 596, 598 (Mo. 2007); citing Barton v. Snellson, 735 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Mo. App. 1987). Settlement may be raised by a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. Id. A motion to enforce a settlement adds a collateral action to the case seeking specific performance of the agreement. Id. The moving party must prove the fact of the agreement by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence. Id. Express authority to settle is presumed where the attorney of record asserts such authority. Id.; citing Leffler v. Bi-State Dev. Agency, 612 S.W.2d 835, 837 (Mo. App. 1981).

ii. The Preferred Approach to a Motion to Enforce Settlement is an Evidentiary Hearing

A trial court may take one of three possible approaches to decide a motion to enforce settlement. Eaton, 224 S.W.3d at 598. “By far the most desirable approach would be to hold an evidentiary hearing where the moving party proves the agreement and the non- moving party can then present evidence as to any defenses.” Id. The other two less desirable approaches are disposing of the motion on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 55.27 or treating

10

the motion like one for summary judgment under Rule 74.04. Id.

Within this document is a summary and commentary with regard to a Medical Malpractice complaint with regard to birth injury that was tried in the 21st Judicial Circuit of St.Louis County Missouri summarily entitled Anyan V. Mercy Hospital, et al and Dr. Danel McNeive with the full title of the pleading below. The case was tried by plaintiffs Counsel The Simon Law Firm P.C. and Gunn Slater Law Firm in March of 2025.

Case # 21SL-CC03944 l Div. 18 Hon. Ellen H. Ribaudo, presiding

R.A. a minor by and through His Next Friends and Natural Parents, Sarah Anyan and Blake Anyan - Plaintiffs

V.

Mercy Hospitals East Communities d.b.a. Mercy Hospital St. Louis, Mercy Clinic East Communities d.b.a. Mercy Clinic Mercy OB/GYN, Dr. Daniel McNeive - Defendants

This Medical Malpractice case is an example of “complex litigation” that was litigated from 8/26/2021 through trial to the rendering of a jury verdict on March 25, 2025. 

The nature and scope of this summary and commentary is with regard to the following points.

1. The jury verdict award amount
2. The high / low agreement that was agreed upon by the litigants and their counsel
3. The prolific and prodigious public relations advertisement of the jury verdict by plaintiff counsel post verdict.
4. The post trail motions for JNOV by defense counsel and the movement of the case to the appeals court.
5. The fact that at the time of the composition of this document February 20, 2026 that the case is yet in the appellate court and an adjudication by the appeals court has not been rendered. 
6. The primary focus is plausible outcomes and impact upon the plaintiff injured partie(s) and the disparity of the gross jury award amount and the net, net award to the plaintiffs with a particular focus on the lack of candor to the public and misleading presentation of plaintiff counsel capacity and competence of advertising the 48.1 million dollar jury verdict when the “Smoking Gun Evidence” reveals that a cap of 18 million dollars was agreed upon by counsel for plaintiff and defense prior to the jury returning from deliberations to render their verdict.
7. This incongruency between advertising 48.1 million dollar jury “award to the plaintiffs and the more plausible, in fact, quite assured real net award amount to the plaintiffs that is substantially less can be argued to be a violation of the Missouri Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule: 4-7.1, (Communication Concerning a Lawyers Services)
8. The following contents is not an academic scholarly debate on the subject but rather a comprehensive commentary treating the mechanics, metrics and dynamics of the case employing both a colloquial vernacular and high register academic diction and lexicon.

An original post and commentary was posted on various social media platforms such as Reddit, Substack, Facebook, etc. expressing the opinion in particular of Albert B. Pepper Jr. - litigant pro se, citizen journalist, consumer advocate using his personal name and certain pseudonyms. 

This “monologue” analysis and commentary is presented to engender discussion and debate and is not presented as legal commentary from a credential academic. However, Albert B. Pepper Jr. having himself been a plaintiff litigant in a medical malpractice complaint that was also represented and litigated by The Simon Law Firm P.C. has primary knowledge and has developed substantial insight into medical malpractice torts and civil procedure particularly with how The Simon Law Firm P.C. litigates such cases and the employment of case theory.

Original Substack, Reddit post February 18, 2026 

Substack: https://litigantproseadvocate.substack.com/p/poof-301-million-dollars-gone-the 

Reddit: 

https://www.reddit.com/r/Lawyer_Review_Organic/comments/1r8k7iw/poof_301_million_dollars_gone_the_simon_law_firm/  

Academia Edu

https://www.academia.edu/164924134/Legal_Ethics_Jury_Sophistication_The_Simon_Law_Firm_P_C_and_The_Smoking_Gun_of_Deceptive_Advertising_Media_Press_Release_Manipulation 

With Regard to The Simon Law Firm P.C. in St. Louis, Missouri Simon Law boasted prolifically and prodigiously about their 48.1 million dollar “nuclear verdict” in the medical malpractice Anyan v. Mercy Hospital et al. that was tried in the 21st Judicial Circuit of St. Louis County in March of 2025 Case # 21SL-CC03944

CaseNet: Missouri - https://www.courts.mo.gov/casenet/cases/newHeader.do?inputVO.caseNumber=21SL-CC03944&inputVO.courtId=CT21#header 

Now the reveal -

After taking this case to an eleven day trial before a sworn jury, right in the very midst of jury deliberations as the jury wrest with all of the evidence and testimony, plaintiff counsel and defense counsel were negotiating what is know as a “high / low” agreement. The terms were that if the jury came back with less than an 8 million dollar award that the defense agrees to a minimum of 8 million dollars. The high end was that if the jury came back with over an 18 million dollar award that the pay out by the defense would be capped at the 18 million dollars.

This is known as a “high / low” agreement and can be negotiated at any time during litigation up to and during trial as long as it is agreed upon “a meeting of the minds” before the jury returns from deliberations and presents to the trial court to render their verdict.

The jury found in favor of the plaintiff for the departure of the standard of care and awarded the plaintiff": 28.1 million dollars in compensatory damages and an additional 20 million dollars in punitive damages for a total of 48.1 million dollars. - Gunn | Slater and Simon Law Firm P.C, (whereas by now The Simon Law Firm is just a bit player) just minutes before the jury rendered their verdict agreed to the 8/18 high low settlement. Therefore, why is Simon Law boasting and advertising their 48.1 million dollar “nuclear verdict” to the public when these “power litigators” lost their nerve and gave up 30.1 million dollars? Ladies and gentlemen they gave up over 60 percent of the case value. “POOF”….it’s gone. Under stress, “Super Lawyer” cracked and gave up 30.1 million dollars. —- They would never tell YOU that. —- But I will.

The Smoking Gun - The 8 - 18 million high / low agreement that was agreed to before the jury returned from deliberations and rendered their verdict. Plaintiffs Memo in Support of Motion to Enforce Settlement.PDF

But wait, there’s more…!

With the grin of the Cheshire Cat the Simon Law Firm is all over the media being featured by KSDK channel five (the cozy relationship the Simon Law has with KSDK is another subject of controversy) KMOV, Missouri Lawyers Media (who seems to have a fetish for anything Simon Law) Legal Talk Network (Sponsored by Simon Law), all of them heralding the 48.1 million dollar verdict. And why do they do it? Because it is “bait and switch”. It is the Public Relations Industrial Complex of personal injury law firms whose sole purpose is to make merchandise of you, the consumer. The injured party who cannot navigate personal injury law and civil procedure. - In reality, by the time the checks are cut the plaintiff, injured party will receive a fraction of the amount they thought would be available to them.

They are trying to sell the public and potential clients a “lottery ticket” of which few people win. In fact, they will never tell you about the cases they lost. I know of several which they have lost. I have the testimony from within The Simon Law Firm itself. From current associate attorneys. Namely, Elizabeth S. Lenivy and Timothy M. Cronin. I have captured it in telephone audio recordings and have executed sworn affidavits to the truth thereof.

So where are they now?

The case is now on appeal and defense counsel is arguing that the high / low does not apply whereas it appears the defense counsel is confident that the punitive award will not be affirmed upon appeal and yet further, that the compensatory damages are arguably subject to remittitur based upon statutory caps. - The Gunn | Slater, Simon Law Firm team has potentially even more to lose than the 18 million dollar negotiated cap. As a consequence, plaintiff counsel is fighting aggressively at the appellate level to uphold and enforce the 8/18 high low agreement that was cut during jury deliberations at the trail court level. The 30.1 million dollars? - Fuddedaboutit.

Anyan v. Mercy Hospital - Appellate: Case # ED114232

Anyan v. Mercy Hospital - Appellate https://www.courts.mo.gov/casenet/cases/newHeader.do?inputVO.caseNumber=ED114232&inputVO.courtId=SMPDB0005_EAP#header 

In conclusion:

You never know what a case is worth until the checks are cut and the advertisements of personal injury law firms are an illusion and quite often the net result to the injured party is far less than what they had anticipated. - But they’ll never tell you that.

Opinion - Editorial

Albert B. Pepper Jr. - litigant pro se

consumer advocate - citizen journalist

Phoenix Rising Productions LLC