Exposed - The 48.1 Million Dollar Personal Injury Verdict of The Simon Law Firm P.C. | Public Deception and Misrepresentation of the facts.
Exposed - The 48.1 Million Dollar Personal Injury Verdict of The Simon Law Firm P.C. | Public Deception and Misrepresentation of the facts.
In 2025 The Simon Law Firm P.C. and Gunn Slater Law Firm did press releases and prolific advertisements with regard to the R.A., Sarah, Blake Anyan v Mercy Hospital - Dr. Daniel McNeive birth injury jury verdict that rendered a 48.1 million dollar award. - However, what neither Simon Law nor Gunn Slater revealed to the public was that the total gross recovery amount was capped at 18 million dollars through a pre-verdict "high - low" agreement. - this was a 30.1 million dollar omission of fact perpetrated upon the public for over 12 months until Albert B. Pepper Jr. d/b/a Phoenix Rising Productions LLC exposed the deception.
R.A. Sarah, Blake Anyan v Mercy Hospital East | Dr. Daniel McNeive (Case #21SL-CC03944)
Case.net: 21SL-CC03944 - Case Header
The preceding was the summary. What proceeds is the details, the deep dive for those who may have interest.
The "exposed 48.1 million dollar case" refers to citizen journalist Albert B. Pepper Jr.’s investigation into the public marketing of a massive medical malpractice jury verdict by St. Louis law firms The Simon Law Firm P.C. and Gunn Slater Law Firm.
Pepper published a detailed critique revealing that while a St. Louis County jury awarded a historic $48.1 million in the birth injury case Sarah and Blake Anyan v. Mercy Hospital East, the law firms heavily advertised the number to the public despite knowing the actual recovery was capped at a fraction of that amount.
The Core of the "Expose"
The Nuclear Verdict: In March 2025, a jury awarded the Anyan family $48.1 million ($28.1 million in compensatory damages and $20 million in punitive damages). The lawsuit alleged medical negligence during labor that resulted in severe, permanent brain damage and cerebral palsy for the plaintiffs' newborn son.
The Secret Agreement: Just nine minutes before the jury returned to the courtroom to deliver the verdict, the plaintiffs' counsel and defense counsel signed a confidential "high-low agreement". This agreement set a guaranteed payout floor of $8 million and a gross payout ceiling of $18 million, regardless of what the jury decided.
The Omission: Immediately following the trial, the representing firms—The Simon Law Firm P.C. and Gunn Slater Law Firm—issued widespread public relations campaigns and news releases touting the historic $48.1 million victory. However, they did not disclose the existence of the high-low agreement or the fact that over 60% of the jury award ($30.1 million) had been legally eliminated before the verdict was even read.
Pepper's Advocacy and Impact
Albert B. Pepper Jr. published his findings under his media banner, Phoenix Rising Productions LLC, calling out the promotion as a "deception by omission perpetrated on the public and the consumer". He argued that marketing an unavailable $48.1 million recovery figure violates legal advertising ethics by creating "unjustified expectations" for regular consumers seeking legal representation.
As part of his ongoing campaign against the "Iron Dome" of St. Louis personal injury public relations, Pepper drafted a proposed piece of legislation called the Legal Advertising Transparency Act, which would mandate that personal injury firms explicitly disclose pre-verdict caps, statutory limits, and high-low settlements in any public advertisements.
But wait..! There's more....
As of July 2026 what is the current status of the Anyan v. Mercy Hospital - Dr. Daniel McNeive case?
The case is currently on appeal in the Eastern District of Missouri and the law Firms of Simon Law and Gunn Slater are fighting just to hold on to the 18 million dollar "high-low" agreement.
(Case #ED113824) Case.net: ED113824 - Case Header
Without making a statement of fact, plaintiff counsel of Simon Law / Gunn Slater may be able to secure an appellate ruling to uphold the "high-low" agreement that was made at the trial court level. However, if you investigate how this agreement was captured by the plaintiff and defense counsel that was approximately four lines of text messages (It wasn't a contract, it was a hasty text exchange) the language is obscure and subject to interpretation.
If defense for Mercy / McNeive is successful, the entire 18 million dollar agreement collapses and the award given by the jury would be subject to statutory caps on non-economic compensatory damages that may reduce the amount substantially. - Yet the 48.1 million dollar verdict is being presented to the public without any disclaimers by The Simon Law Firm P.C. nor of Gunn Slater Law Firm.
Furthermore, the imposition of a punitive award on a defendant like Dr. Daniel McNeive that was rendered by a jury would most likely not survive. Dr. Daniel McNeive is a good doctor (I have done due diligence in investigating Dr. McNeive) who may have made "errors and omissions" in this particular case. However, "errors and omissions" are not the threshold for the imposition of a punitive damages award. Both Simon Law and Gunn Slater are aware of this fact. The jury erred.
The Ultimate Irony: Profits Over Public Safety
During closing arguments, plaintiff's counsel invariably relies on a canned, theatrical mantra. They plead with the jury to render a massive punitive damages award to "send a message" to doctors and "protect the public" from egregious misconduct.
But here is the smoking gun that exposes the theater of the St. Louis personal injury PR machine: Upon an exhaustive investigation of public records, absolutely no one—not the plaintiffs, not The Simon Law Firm P.C., and not Gunn Slater Law Firm—ever filed a formal complaint against Dr. Daniel McNeive with the Missouri Board of Registration for the Healing Arts.
Think about the profound contradiction:
The Healing Arts Board is the actual legal mechanism designed to protect the medical industry and the public. If a physician's misconduct is so egregious that it warrants a multi-million dollar punitive punishment, the appropriate step to protect the community is to file a state complaint so the Board can investigate, impose a remedy, or revoke their license.
A Punitive Jury Award, by contrast, does absolutely nothing to a medical license. The cost is simply absorbed by malpractice insurance underwriters and corporate hospital systems, while the doctor retains their full license to practice medicine exactly as before. (In fact, independent due diligence shows Dr. McNeive is a good doctor who may have made clinical errors/omissions in this specific case, but errors do not meet the legal threshold for punitive malice. The jury simply erred).
If the primary motivation of these law firms was genuine concern for public welfare, it would take a paralegal less than two hours to file a state licensing complaint on behalf of their client. They didn't do it. Why?
Because a complaint with the Board of Healing Arts doesn't generate a contingency fee. The true purpose of a punitive damages campaign isn't to protect the public—it is a tool used in the courtroom to artificially inflate numbers, manipulate public perception, dominate online marketing, and ultimately, enrich the lawyers and law firms.
In conclusion: This type of deception is not entirely unique to The Simon Law Firm P.C. nor that of Gunn Slater Law Firm. It is endemic of the personal injury industry. However, The Simon Law Firm P.C. and the "Public Relations Industrial Complex" that they employ prodigiously to create the illusion of "lottery verdicts" was caught red handed. The allegation: Public Deception. The adjudication: Guilty.
Therefore, I would ask rhetorically. When a personal injury client first begins to practice due diligence to choose an attorney, lawyer, law firm for legal representation would a client want to retain a law firm that has a proven track record of misrepresentation?
There are many competent attorneys, lawyers and law firms in St. Louis and Missouri to choose from who, until an audit of their marketing practices should reveal the same misrepresentation have "clean hands" in this matter. - Choose a law firm that presents with the greatest integrity and not that of a "Side Show Barker" promising the moon.
"The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements." Missouri Supreme Court Rule: 4-7.2(f)
The entire trial court transcript in pdf format comprising over 3,000 pages has been recovered and is now being archived in two parts at the following Academia Edu url's:
Albert B. Pepper Jr. d/b/a Phoenix Rising Productions LLC - A member in good standing of the Society of Professional Journalists (Member #100088792)
Comments
Post a Comment