Missouri
Medical Malpractice Laws in Missouri (2026): Deadlines & Caps
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 17, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 17, 2026. · 6 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Missouri medical malpractice claims run on a strict two-year deadline, require an affidavit from a qualified health care provider, and are subject to noneconomic damage caps that were struck down in 2012 and then reinstated by statute in 2015. This page explains the current law for 2026, with each key figure traced to Missouri statutes and the state's official figures. It is general legal information, not legal advice.
The Deadline to Sue (Statute of Limitations)
Under Missouri Revised Statutes section 516.105, an action for damages for malpractice, negligence, error, or mistake related to health care must be brought within two years from the date of the occurrence of the act of neglect complained of. Missouri is an occurrence state, which means the clock generally starts on the date of the negligent act itself rather than when the patient later discovers the harm.
Because there is no broad discovery rule, the two-year period can expire before a patient realizes anything went wrong. That makes early review of the timeline important.
There are narrow exceptions. When the negligence involves a foreign object negligently left in the body, or a failure to inform a patient of test results, the two-year period runs from the date the negligence is discovered or reasonably should have been discovered, whichever is first.
Deadlines for Minors
Section 516.105 sets a separate rule for children. A minor who is less than eighteen years old has until his or her twentieth birthday to bring a medical malpractice action. Parents and guardians should confirm the specific deadline with counsel, because the rule is narrower than the general tolling that applies to other claims by minors.
Statute of Repose
Missouri's malpractice statute does include a distinct statute of repose. Under section 516.105, no action for malpractice, error, or mistake may be commenced after the expiration of ten years from the date of the act of neglect complained of, or for two years from a minor's eighteenth birthday, whichever is later.
The statute's two discovery-based exceptions, for a foreign object left in the body and a failure to inform a patient of test results, run two years from discovery, but they are not open-ended. The ten-year repose deadline described above is what caps them, since it applies to any action for malpractice, error, or mistake. For most adult patients the two-year occurrence rule expires well before the ten-year mark and controls in practice. Minors are treated differently. Section 516.105 affirmatively gives a patient who is less than eighteen years old until his or her twentieth birthday to bring the action. The repose sentence sets an outer ceiling; it does not grant extra time. Its alternative measure of two years from a minor's eighteenth birthday, whichever is later, exists so that the ten-year bar cannot cut the twentieth-birthday window short, which is what would otherwise happen with an injury at or near birth. It does not push a minor's deadline past the twentieth birthday, so the parent of a teenager injured at seventeen should plan on the twentieth birthday rather than on ten years from the act.
Damage Caps and the Watts Decision
Missouri caps noneconomic damages, meaning pain, suffering, and similar nonmonetary losses. The history here matters. A 2005 cap of $350,000 was held unconstitutional in Watts v. Lester E. Cox Medical Centers, 376 S.W.3d 633 (Mo. banc 2012), because it violated the right to trial by jury for common-law claims under the Missouri Constitution.
The legislature responded in 2015 with Senate Bill 239, which created a new statutory cause of action for personal injury or death against a health care provider and reinstated the cap in that statutory form (RSMo 538.210). Because the reinstated cap applies to a statutory rather than a common-law claim, it has been upheld since. The cap is in force in 2026.
The reinstated cap has two tiers and increases by 1.7 percent every January 1, with figures published by the Missouri Department of Commerce and Insurance. For 2026 the cap is $481,493 for non-catastrophic personal injury and $842,614 for catastrophic injury or wrongful death. Because the amounts change each January, confirm the figure for the year in question.
What the Cap Does and Does Not Limit
The cap applies only to noneconomic damages. Economic damages, including past and future medical expenses, lost wages, and lost earning capacity, are not capped. Whether the higher catastrophic tier applies depends on the statutory definition in RSMo 538.205, which covers conditions such as quadriplegia, paraplegia, loss of two or more limbs, significant and permanent cognitive impairment, irreversible failure of a major organ, or significant loss of vision.
Affidavit of Merit
Missouri requires a screening affidavit after suit is filed. Under RSMo 538.225, the plaintiff or the plaintiff's attorney must file an affidavit stating that they have obtained the written opinion of a legally qualified health care provider who believes the defendant failed to use the care a reasonably prudent and careful provider would have used under similar circumstances, and that this failure caused the damages.
The affidavit must be filed within ninety days after the petition is filed, and the court may extend that period for good cause by up to an additional ninety days. A legally qualified health care provider is one licensed in the same profession as the defendant and actively practicing substantially in the same specialty. Failing to file the affidavit can lead to dismissal without prejudice.
Pre-Suit Notice
Missouri does not require a separate pre-suit notice of intent to sue and does not use a mandatory medical-review or screening panel. The gatekeeping step is the affidavit of merit under section 538.225, which is filed after the petition rather than before. This distinguishes Missouri from several neighboring states that require pre-suit notice.
Standard of Care and Who May Be Liable
A Missouri medical malpractice claim turns on whether the provider used the degree of skill and care that a reasonably prudent and careful health care provider would have used under the same or similar circumstances. Section 516.105 lists the covered providers, including physicians, hospitals, dentists, nurses, optometrists, podiatrists, pharmacists, chiropractors, physical therapists, and other entities providing health care, along with their employees. Hospitals may also be vicariously liable for staff.
Expert testimony is generally required to establish the standard of care, the breach, and causation, because these are matters beyond a lay jury's knowledge. Expert admissibility is governed by RSMo 490.065, which since 2017 follows the federal Daubert standard.
Comparative Fault
Missouri follows pure comparative fault, adopted by the Missouri Supreme Court in Gustafson v. Benda, 661 S.W.2d 11 (Mo. banc 1983). A patient who is partly at fault can still recover, but the award is reduced in proportion to the patient's share of fault. Even a plaintiff found mostly responsible may recover the remaining percentage, which distinguishes Missouri from states that bar recovery at 50 percent fault.
Wrongful-Death Medical Malpractice
When malpractice causes death, the wrongful-death claim is governed by RSMo 537.080 and 537.100. The deadline is generally three years from when the cause of action accrues, which is typically the date of death. The statute sets a tiered list of who may sue, beginning with the spouse, children or their descendants, and parents, then siblings or their descendants, and finally a court-appointed plaintiff ad litem if no closer relatives survive. The noneconomic cap on death cases follows the higher catastrophic tier, which is $842,614 in 2026.
How to Evaluate and Preserve a Possible Claim
If you believe medical care caused harm, request complete medical records promptly and write down the timeline while details are fresh, because the two-year occurrence deadline can run quickly. Most Missouri medical malpractice attorneys offer a free initial consultation and work on a contingency fee, meaning the fee comes from any recovery. No attorney can guarantee an outcome or a dollar amount, and every case depends on its specific facts and the governing deadlines.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the deadline to sue for medical malpractice in Missouri?
Generally two years from the date the negligent act occurred, under RSMo 516.105, because Missouri runs the clock from the occurrence rather than from discovery. Narrow exceptions apply to foreign objects left in the body and a failure to inform of test results, which run from discovery. Missouri also has a separate ten-year statute of repose: no action can be commenced more than ten years after the act, or more than two years after a minor's eighteenth birthday, whichever is later. Deadlines are strict, so confirm yours with a Missouri-licensed attorney.
Does Missouri cap medical malpractice damages?
Yes, but only noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering, under RSMo 538.210. The cap was struck down in Watts v. Lester E. Cox Medical Centers (2012) and then reinstated by statute in 2015. For 2026 it is $481,493 for non-catastrophic injuries and $842,614 for catastrophic injuries or death, and it rises 1.7 percent each January 1. Economic damages like medical bills and lost wages are not capped.
Do I need an expert affidavit to file in Missouri?
Yes. Under RSMo 538.225, you or your attorney must file an affidavit within 90 days of filing the petition stating that a legally qualified health care provider reviewed the case and believes the defendant was negligent and caused the damages. The court may extend that period by up to another 90 days for good cause. Missing it can lead to dismissal without prejudice.
Was the Missouri damage cap struck down?
The earlier cap was struck down in Watts v. Lester E. Cox Medical Centers (2012) as a violation of the right to a jury trial. The legislature reinstated the cap in 2015 by creating a statutory cause of action (RSMo 538.210), and that reinstated cap is in force in 2026. It is not accurate to say Missouri currently has no cap.
How much is a Missouri medical malpractice case worth?
There is no standard value. Economic damages such as medical costs and lost income are not capped, while noneconomic damages are limited by the cap for the relevant year. The value of any case depends on the specific injuries, evidence, liability, and fault allocation. No attorney can promise an outcome or amount.
What happens if I was partly at fault for my injury?
Missouri uses pure comparative fault (Gustafson v. Benda). Your recovery is reduced by your percentage of fault, but you are not barred from recovering even if you were mostly at fault. For example, a plaintiff found 30 percent at fault could recover 70 percent of proven damages.
Can I sue for a family member's death from malpractice in Missouri?
Eligible survivors may bring a wrongful-death claim under RSMo 537.080 and 537.100, generally within three years of the death. The statute sets a tiered list of who may sue, and the noneconomic cap follows the higher catastrophic tier ($842,614 in 2026). Consult a Missouri-licensed attorney about the deadline and who may file.
Is there a special deadline for children in Missouri?
Yes. Under RSMo 516.105, a minor who is less than eighteen years old has until his or her twentieth birthday to bring a medical malpractice action. The statute's separate ten-year repose sentence is an outer bar rather than a grant of extra time; its whichever-is-later wording exists so the ten-year mark cannot cut the twentieth-birthday window short, which matters for injuries at or near birth. It does not extend a child's deadline beyond the twentieth birthday, so do not count on ten years from the act for a teenager injured close to age eighteen. Confirm the specific deadline with a Missouri-licensed attorney.
Harmed by medical care in Missouri? Get a free case review
If a medical provider's negligence caused a serious injury, you may be owed compensation, but medical malpractice cases have strict deadlines and special filing rules that vary by state. Get a free, confidential review from a Missouri medical malpractice attorney. Most work on contingency, so there is no upfront cost.
Updates
Corrected the deadline for minors: Missouri gives a child under eighteen until the twentieth birthday to sue, and the ten-year statute of repose caps that window rather than extending it.
Corrected a repeated statement that Missouri has no statute of repose for medical malpractice: RSMo 516.105 sets a 10-year outer deadline (or 2 years past a minor's 18th birthday, whichever is later), which was fixed in KeyTakeaways, the relevant section, and two FAQ answers.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Removed a fabricated 10-year statute of repose that was not in RSMo 516.105 -- the statute's only outer limits are the 2-year occurrence rule, two narrow 2-year-from-discovery exceptions (foreign object; failure to inform of test results), and the minors' rule (until the 20th birthday). Fixed in KeyTakeaways, the dedicated H2 section (retitled), and both FAQ answers that restated it.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Revised Statutes of Missouri, Title XXXVI (STATUTORY ACTIONS AND TORTS), Chapter 538
§ 538.210No common law cause of action — limitation on noneconomic damages — jury not to be informed of limit — limit — punitive damages, requirements — annual increase on damages limit, amount — nonseverability clause.In force
1. A statutory cause of action for damages against a health care provider for personal injury or death arising out of the rendering of or failure to render health care services is hereby created, replacing any such common law cause of action. The elements of such cause of action are that the health care provider failed to use that degree of skill and learning ordinarily used under the same or similar circumstances by members of the defendant's profession and that such failure directly caused or contributed to cause the plaintiff's injury or death. 2. (1) In any action against a health care provider for damages for personal injury arising out of the rendering of or the failure to render health care services, no plaintiff shall recover more than four hundred thousand dollars for noneconomic damages irrespective of the number of defendants.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-07 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov
Cited in 34 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Klotz v. St. Anthony's Medical Center (Supreme Court of Missouri 2010, 311 S.W.3d 752)“…ro and Metro Heart Group (MHG). After the verdict, based on § 538.210, RSMo Supp.2008, the trial court reduced the…”
- Jason D. Dodson and Jason D. Dodson, Jr., a Minor, and Eva Raine Dodson-Lohse, a Minor, and August William Davis Dodson, a Minor, said Minors appearing by the duly appointed Next Friend Jason D. Dodson, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Robert P. Ferrara, M.D., and Mercy Clinic Heart and Vascular, LLC, Appellants/Cross-Respondents. (Supreme Court of Missouri 2016, 491 S.W.3d 542)“…whether the legislature’s imposition of the damages cap in section 538.210, RSMo 1986, was rationally related to its int…”
- Christina Bojorquez v. Thomas E. O'Keeffe, D.D.S., A Professional Corporation, and Thomas E. O'Keeffe, D.D.S. (Missouri Court of Appeals 2020)“…6 should be reduced pursuant to section 538.210 RSMo 2016, and the jury’s verdict awarding…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 538.225Affidavit by a health care provider certifying merit of case — legally qualified health care provider, defined — content filed, when — failure to file, effect — in camera review, when.In force
1. In any action against a health care provider for damages for personal injury or death on account of the rendering of or failure to render health care services, the plaintiff or the plaintiff's attorney shall file an affidavit with the court stating that he or she has obtained the written opinion of a legally qualified health care provider which states that the defendant health care provider failed to use such care as a reasonably prudent and careful health care provider would have under similar circumstances and that such failure to use such reasonable care directly caused or directly contributed to cause the damages claimed in the petition. 2. As used in this section, the term "legally qualified health care provider" shall mean a health care provider licensed in this state or any other state in the same profession as the defendant and either actively practicing or within five years of retirement from actively practicing substantially the same specialty as the defendant. 3. The affidavit shall state the name, address, and qualifications of such health care providers to offer such opinion. 4. A separate affidavit shall be filed for each defendant named in the petition.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov
Cited in 87 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Doe v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc. (Supreme Court of Missouri 2013, 395 S.W.3d 8)“…file an affidavit of merit as required by section 538.225, RSMo. Section 538.225 states, in relevant part: In any acti…”
- St. John's Regional Health Center, Inc. v. Windler (Missouri Court of Appeals 1993, 847 S.W.2d 168)“…relates to wrongful acts of a health care provider, we find § 538.225 RSMo 1986 applies regardless of the characte…”
- Hink v. Helfrich (Supreme Court of Missouri 2018, 545 S.W.3d 335)“…ismiss for Failure to File Healthcare Affidavit pursuant to RSMo. § 538.225 because RSMo. § 538.225 is unconstituti…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 538.205Definitions.In force
As used in sections 538.205 to 538.230*, the following terms shall mean: (1) "Catastrophic personal injury", a physical injury resulting in: (a) Quadriplegia defined as the permanent loss of functional use of all four limbs; (b) Paraplegia defined as the permanent loss of functional use of two limbs; (c) Loss of two or more limbs; (d) An injury to the brain that results in permanent cognitive impairment resulting in the permanent inability to make independent decisions or engage in one or more of the following activities of daily living: eating, dressing, bathing, toileting, transferring, and walking; (e) An injury that causes irreversible failure of one or more major organ systems; or (f) Vision loss such that the patient's central visual acuity is no more than twenty/two-hundred in the better eye with the best correction or whose field of vision in the better eye is restricted to a degree that its widest diameter subtends an angle no greater than twenty degrees; (2) "Economic damages", damages arising from pecuniary harm including, without limitation, medical damages, and those damages arising from lost wages and lost earning capacity; (3) "Employee", any…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov
Cited in 16 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Meekins v. St. John's Regional Health Center, Inc. (Missouri Court of Appeals 2004, 149 S.W.3d 525)“…however, that St. John's was a health care provider under § 538.205, RSMo 2000, that the drug screen test was a h…”
- Dibrill ex rel. Wheeler v. Normandy Associates, Inc. (Missouri Court of Appeals 2012, 383 S.W.3d 77)“…services under the authority of a license or certificate. Mo.Rev.Stat. § 538.205(4). "Health care services” are defined…”
- Betts-Lucas v. Hartmann (Missouri Court of Appeals 2002, 87 S.W.3d 310)“…ation for the covenant. 4 .Pursuant to RSMo § 538.205(4) governing actions against health car…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Revised Statutes of Missouri, Title XXXV (CIVIL PROCEDURE AND LIMITATIONS), Chapter 516
§ 516.105Actions against health care and mental health providers (medical malpractice).In forcecited in 4 of our articles
1. All actions against physicians, hospitals, dentists, registered or licensed practical nurses, optometrists, podiatrists, pharmacists, chiropractors, professional physical therapists, mental health professionals licensed under chapter 337, and any other entity providing health care services and all employees of any of the foregoing acting in the course and scope of their employment, for damages for malpractice, negligence, error or mistake related to health care shall be brought within two years from the date of occurrence of the act of neglect complained of, except that: (1) In cases in which the act of neglect complained of is introducing and negligently permitting any foreign object to remain within the body of a living person, the action shall be brought within two years from the date of the discovery of such alleged negligence, or from the date on which the patient in the exercise of ordinary care should have discovered such alleged negligence, whichever date first occurs; and (2) In cases in which the act of neglect complained of is the negligent failure to inform the patient of the results of medical tests, the action for failure to inform shall be brought within two…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov
Cited in 106 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Strahler v. St. Luke's Hospital (Supreme Court of Missouri 1986, 706 S.W.2d 7)“…y of Missouri's medical malpractice statute of limitations, § 516.105, RSMo 1978, as it applies to minors. We order…”
- State Ex Rel. Linthicum v. Calvin (Supreme Court of Missouri 2001, 57 S.W.3d 855)“…less commenced within the time prescribed...."). See also sec. 516.105, RSMo 2000 (all actions for medical malpracti…”
- Rowland v. Skaggs Companies, Inc. (Supreme Court of Missouri 1984, 666 S.W.2d 770)“…cable to actions for damages against health care providers, § 516.105, RSMo 1978 [1] , barred Skaggs' suit for cont…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Missouri Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and Consent (2026), Missouri Statute of Limitations: Filing Deadlines by Case Type, Motorcycle Accident Laws in Missouri (2026): Helmets
Revised Statutes of Missouri, Title XXXVI (STATUTORY ACTIONS AND TORTS), Chapter 537
§ 537.080Action for wrongful death — who may sue — limitation.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
1. Whenever the death of a person results from any act, conduct, occurrence, transaction, or circumstance which, if death had not ensued, would have entitled such person to recover damages in respect thereof, the person or party who, or the corporation which, would have been liable if death had not ensued shall be liable in an action for damages, notwithstanding the death of the person injured, which damages may be sued for: (1) By the spouse or children or the surviving lineal descendants of any deceased children, natural or adopted, legitimate or illegitimate, or by the father or mother of the deceased, natural or adoptive; (2) If there be no persons in class (1) entitled to bring the action, then by the brother or sister of the deceased, or their descendants, who can establish his or her right to those damages set out in section 537.090 because of the death; (3) If there be no persons in class (1) or (2) entitled to bring the action, then by a plaintiff ad litem. Such plaintiff ad litem shall be appointed by the court having jurisdiction over the action for damages provided in this section upon application of some person entitled to share in the proceeds of such…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-06 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov
Cited in 246 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Stiffelman v. Abrams (Supreme Court of Missouri 1983, 655 S.W.2d 522)“…f injury and time of death. Laws of 1979, S.B. 368, p. 630 (§ 537.080, RSMo 1982 Supp.). In the case at bar, privat…”
- Connor v. Monkem Co., Inc. (Supreme Court of Missouri 1995, 898 S.W.2d 89)“…eks to bring a wrongful death claim as a father pursuant to section 537.080, RSMo 1994 [1] , for the death of an unborn c…”
- State Ex Rel. Kansas City Stock Yards Co. of Maine v. Clark (Supreme Court of Missouri 1976, 536 S.W.2d 142)“…eld sec. 1.010, as amended, applicable to a construction of sec. 537.080, RSMo 1969 (wrongful death statute) and held…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Missouri Wrongful Death Laws (2026): Deadlines
§ 537.100Limitation of action — effect of absence of defendant and nonsuit.In forcecited in 7 of our articles
1. Every action instituted under section 537.080 shall be commenced within three years after the cause of action shall accrue; provided, that if any defendant, whether a resident or nonresident of the state at the time any such cause of action accrues, shall then or thereafter be absent or depart from the state, so that personal service cannot be had upon such defendant in the state in any such action heretofore or hereafter accruing, the time during which such defendant is so absent from the state shall not be deemed or taken as any part of the time limited for the commencement of such action against him; and provided, that if any such action shall have been commenced within the time prescribed in this section, and the plaintiff therein take or suffer a nonsuit, or after a verdict for him the judgment be arrested, or after a judgment for him the same be reversed on appeal or error, such plaintiff may commence a new action from time to time within one year after such nonsuit suffered or such judgment arrested or reversed; and in determining whether such new action has been begun within the period so limited, the time during which such nonresident or absent defendant is so absent…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov
Cited in 81 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State Ex Rel. Kansas City Stock Yards Co. of Maine v. Clark (1976) applied section 537.100 to a wrongful death suit and held a workers' compensation claim did not toll the period or trigger its savings clause. Gaines v. Monsanto Co. (1983) applied the amended three-year period to a claim not yet barred when the amendment took effect.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Wanda Mayes v. Saint Luke's Hospital of Kansas City, (Consolidated with)Wanda Mayes v. Saint Luke's Hospital of Kansas City (Supreme Court of Missouri 2014)✓After two earlier suits were dismissed, the family refiled wrongful death claims in October 2012 over a patient who died in March 2008; the court applied section 537.100's three year limit, held the claims time barred, and affirmed the dismissal.
- Gaines v. Monsanto Co. (Missouri Court of Appeals 1983, 655 S.W.2d 568)✓Parents of a secretary murdered by a coworker sued Monsanto in March 1982, nearly three years after her April 1979 death; the court applied the amended three year period of section 537.100 because the claim was not barred when the amendment took effect, so the suit was timely.
- State Ex Rel. Kansas City Stock Yards Co. of Maine v. Clark (Supreme Court of Missouri 1976, 536 S.W.2d 142)✓A worker's widow and children sued more than a year after his 1970 death, arguing an unsuccessful Kansas workers' compensation claim tolled the deadline; the court held section 537.100's nonsuit savings clause did not reach that claim and made prohibition absolute.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Missouri Car Accident Laws: Fault, Insurance, and Your Claim, Truck Accident Laws in Missouri (2026): Deadlines & Liability, Missouri Slip and Fall Laws: Proving Premises Liability in the Show-Me State
Revised Statutes of Missouri, Title XXXIII (EVIDENCE AND LEGAL ADVERTISEMENTS), Chapter 490
§ 490.065Expert witness, opinion testimony admissible, requirements for certain actions.In force
1. In actions brought under chapter 451, 452, 453, 454, or 455 or in actions adjudicated in juvenile courts under chapter 211 or in family courts under chapter 487, or in all proceedings before the probate division of the circuit court, or in all actions or proceedings in which there is no right to a jury trial: (1) If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise; (2) Testimony by such an expert witness in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact; (3) The facts or data in a particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to him at or before the hearing and must be of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject and must be otherwise reasonably reliable; (4) If a reasonable foundation is laid, an expert may…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov
Cited in 78 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Klotz v. St. Anthony's Medical Center (Supreme Court of Missouri 2010, 311 S.W.3d 752)“…s not control the admissibility of expert testimony. [2] Section 490.065, RSMo 2000, specifically governs the admissib…”
- Rafael Lozano v. BNSF Railway Company (Supreme Court of Missouri 2014, 421 S.W.3d 448)“…e the Court was reviewing the lower court’s construction of section 490.065, RSMo 2000, not because all evidentiary rulin…”
- Long v. Missouri Delta Medical Center (Missouri Court of Appeals 2000, 33 S.W.3d 629)“…ion to bar Dr. Gold-stein’s testimony as inadmissible under § 490.065, RSMo 1994. To calculate Taylor’s future dama…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- RSMo section 516.105 (medical malpractice statute of limitations: 2 years from occurrence; foreign-object and test-result discovery exceptions; minors to 20th birthday; separate 10-year statute of repose, or 2 years from a minor's 18th birthday if later; covered providers)(revisor.mo.gov).gov
- RSMo section 538.210 (noneconomic damages cap, reinstated by S.B. 239 in 2015; tiered non-catastrophic and catastrophic limits; 1.7 percent annual increase)(revisor.mo.gov).gov
- Missouri Department of Commerce and Insurance, Medical Malpractice Limits (official 2026 caps: $481,493 non-catastrophic / $842,614 catastrophic and death)(insurance.mo.gov).gov
- RSMo section 538.225 (affidavit of merit; legally qualified health care provider; 90-day deadline extendable up to 90 more days; dismissal without prejudice)(revisor.mo.gov).gov
- RSMo section 538.205 (definition of catastrophic personal injury for the higher cap tier)(revisor.mo.gov).gov
- RSMo section 537.100 (wrongful-death three-year limitation) and section 537.080 (claimants), governing wrongful-death medical malpractice(revisor.mo.gov).gov
- Watts v. Lester E. Cox Medical Centers, 376 S.W.3d 633 (Mo. banc 2012), No. SC91867 (prior noneconomic cap struck down as violating the right to jury trial)(courtlistener.com)