The $48.1m dollar birth injury verdict was a P.R. Stunt
The $48.1m dollar birth injury verdict was a P.R. Stunt | Analysis of Trial Court Transcript Vol. 2 of 2 Anyan v Mercy / Mcneive
The $48.1m dollar birth injury verdict that was rendered by a jury in the matter of R.A., Sarah and Blake Anyan v Mercy Hospital East / Dr. Daniel McNeiver and perpetuated through a multitude of press releases by The Simon Law Firm P.C. and Gunn Slater Law Firm was nothing more than a Public Relations Stunt and was never available to the Anyan family to collect upon.
Herein is more “smoking gun evidence” of the lack of transparency and candor of The Simon Law Firm P.C. and that of the Gunn Slater Law Firm. Yet further, all of the headlines with regard to the case that were published by the “legacy media” ie. KSDK, KMOV, FOX2, PRweb, Missouri Lawyers Media, Yahoo, StlToday, etc. is nothing but hearsay whereas they lacked the journalistic integrity to confirm the trial court conclusion and based their reporting solely upon the testimony of The Simon Law Firm P.C. and that of Gunn and Slater Law Firm who were not fourth coming with the whole, unadulterated truth. - A striking lack of professional integrity of “trusted” and objective news sources.
Herein is the irrefutable evidence for the allegations with regard to the plaintiff law firms and the legacy media who prolifically published the misleading trial court conclusion.
Analysis of the trial court transcript volume two of two that renders all of the details of the “high - Low” agreement controversy and it’s impact that was entered into by plaintiff and defense counsel just nine minutes before the jury came back from deliberations and rendered their $48.1 million dollar verdict. This “high - low” agreement neutralized the jury verdict and rendered it void and legally unenforceable. - The Simon Law Firm P.C. and that of Gunn Slater law Firm knew this before, they made their press releases.
Trial Transcript Analysis volume two of two
High-low agreement references appear extensively throughout the transcript (primarily in Volume 2, pages 1143–1530), almost entirely during post-trial motions hearings.
These hearings address enforcement of a high-low settlement agreement the parties reached on March 25, 2025 (during jury deliberations after closing arguments). The agreement capped the plaintiff's recovery between a low of $8 million and a high of $18 million, regardless of the jury's verdict. (The jury ultimately returned a verdict exceeding $48 million, per snippets on pages 1210 and others.)
Key Terms Negotiated and Disputed
The core terms, repeatedly referenced, are:
$8 million low / $18 million high
“All the way to verdict” (the main point of contention)
Confidentiality as to the high-low
Plaintiff’s position (led by Ms. Slater / plaintiffs’ counsel): The agreement was clear and enforceable as written. The high of $18M is triggered by the raw/unadjusted jury verdict (“all the way to verdict”), including any amounts above statutory caps on non-economic damages. Punitive damages were not extinguished. The agreement was orally confirmed in the hallway, memorialized by text from Ms. Slater at 4:47 p.m., and confirmed on the record before the Court. (See, e.g., pages 1146–1148, 1200, 1206–1207, 1210, 1224, 1413–1416, 1457–1458.)
Defendants’ position (Mercy defendants, Ms. Kamykowski, Mr. Willman, Mr. Perron, and claims specialists Ms. Rucker / Mr. Crawford): There was either no meeting of the minds or the high-low applied only to recoverable/compensatory damages after statutory caps, and it extinguished punitive exposure. They understood “all the way to verdict” to mean the final judgment amount after caps, not the raw verdict. (See, e.g., pages 1143, 1235–1240, 1256–1263, 1275–1277, 1282–1289, 1320–1324, 1335–1336, 1344–1345, 1379, 1383.)
Primary Locations and Key Excerpts
Here are the most significant references (all from post-trial motion arguments and witness testimony):
Pages 1143–1150: Initial discussion of the agreement’s formation. Defense counsel testifies about rejecting a lump-sum demand and countering with a 10/20 high-low, which evolved into 8/18. On-record clarification before the Court: “8 to 18, all the way to verdict, confidentiality to high-low, no nondisparagement.”
Pages 1200–1224: Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the high-low. Detailed argument that the agreement was unambiguous and reached on March 25 during deliberations.
Pages 1231–1240: Testimony of claims specialist (Ms. Rucker) on authority, negotiations, and defendants’ understanding that high-low applied only to recoverable compensatory damages (not punitives or amounts beyond caps).
Pages 1256–1263: Further testimony from defense-side witnesses confirming their interpretation and the 4:58 p.m. text attempting to clarify “high-low is for compensatory only, extinguishes punitive exposure.”
Pages 1275–1289: Additional defense testimony and Court questioning about when the agreement was believed formed and the meaning of “all the way to verdict.”
Pages 1320–1336: More testimony on negotiation sequence, authority, and defendants’ understanding that high-low was always based on final recoverable amounts.
Pages 1344–1362: Cross-examination of defense witnesses on whether they had authority for a high-low triggered by unadjusted verdict or punitives.
Pages 1404–1445: Plaintiffs’ counsel (Ms. Slater) testimony on how the offer was conveyed (“10 and 20 on the verdict”), the text memorializing terms, and why “all the way to verdict” was the trigger.
Pages 1457–1466: Closing arguments on the record made before the Court on March 25 and enforcement.
Pages 1490–1507: Additional witness testimony confirming the high-low was entered and the limited confidentiality (only as to the high-low details).
Page 1530: Final reference in the Court’s ruling/analysis section.
No other references to any high-low agreement appear earlier in the trial transcript (e.g., during the main trial testimony or evidence phase). All discussion is confined to the post-trial motions phase (May–December 2025 hearings).
The transcript shows a clear dispute over interpretation and enforceability, with both sides presenting extensive testimony and argument. The Court heard from multiple attorneys and claims representatives on the negotiations (texts, hallway discussions, and on-record statements).
The preceding is an analysis of the second of two volumes of the R.A., Sarah, Blake Anyan v Mercy Hospital East / Dr. Daniel McNeive birth injury case specifically for the evidence of the “high - low” agreement that plaintiff counsel and defense counsel entered into prior to the jury rendering their verdict in the amount of $48.1 million dollars capping the available recovery at $18.0 million dollars.
The entire trial court transcript in two volumes is available for review and download at the following website, url.
Trial Court Transcript Vol. 1 of 2 : https://jury-watch.org/simon-law-trial-transcrpt
Trial Court Transcript Vol. 2 of 2 : https://jury-watch.org/simon-law-transcript-pt-2
All the items contained within this document is the result of the consumer advocacy and investigative journalism of Albert B. Pepper Jr. d/b/a/ Phoenix Rising Productions LLC who is a member in good standing of The Society of Professional Journalists | 2026
