Gunn | Slater and the 48.1m "Ghost Verdict"
The Issue
With regard to the Gunn | Slater Law Firm of Amy Collignon Gunn and Erica B. Slater the criticism is the advertising of a 48.1 million dollar birth injury verdict that Gunn and Slater knew, even before the jury rendered their verdict that they could never collect that amount for their plaintiff clients Remington, a minor and his parents Sarah and Blake Anyan.
We demand honesty, transparency and candor with regard to what a personal injury law firm can actually do for their clients that is, what is the actual financial recovery for the injured party and not the publication of a "Mega Lottery" illusion.
The Back Story:
Near the conclusion of the trial while the jury was in deliberations, plaintiff counsel and defense counsel entered into what is known as a "high / low agreement" that capped the gross recovery at 18 million dollars. In other words 30.1 million dollars was never available to make recovery upon.
The Mechanics of a "High / Low Agreement:
A "high / low agreement" is a risk mitigation tool that plaintiff and defendant can enter into at any time before the jury renders their verdict. Jury verdicts can be volatile, unpredictable and the "high / low agreement" assures both parties that for the plaintiff they will realize a minimum recovery and for the defendant that they will not be subjected to a "nuclear" run away jury verdict. Furthermore, and this is the bonus .... If the "high /low agreement" is sound and enforceable the litigation is over. Checks will soon be cut within a narrow time frame set by Missouri Statute and all parties may rest. If, the "high / low agreement" is executed properly and enforceable. - "High / Low agreements are common. They are appropriate and both the plaintiff and defense will render their "informed consent" to the tenets of the agreement.
The Criticism:
With regard to the Anyan v Mercy Hospital / McNeive claim and case is not the high low agreement itself. The criticism is that for months, , even to this very day of the composition of the petition, The Simon Law Firm P.C. and that of Gunn Slater Law Firm knew that they could never recover from the 48.1 million dollar jury verdict yet they proceeded to do press release, use their public relations and social media assets and aggressively published for the unsophisticated consumer that they obtained 48.1 million dollars for their client. - It was and yet is a 30.1 million dollar omission of fact. The omission is that over 62% percent of the 48.1 million dollars was negotiated away. "Poof" it's gone.
Below is the TL;DR portion of the case for those who want the more technical aspects, case file numbers, scholarly reviews, actual trial court transcripts and several appellate court pleadings, motions and memorandums.
1) Target Keywords / SEO Entities: gunn slater law firm, amy collignon gunn, erica b slater, The Simon Law Firm P.C., Anyan v Mercy Hospital
2) Law Firms Involved: Gunn | Slater Law Firm (Amy Collignon Gunn, Erica B. Slater) and The Simon Law Firm P.C.
3) Plaintiff Clients: R.A. (Remington, a minor) by Next Friends, Sarah Anyan and Blake Anyan
4) Defendants: 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
5) Trial Court Filing: Case No. 21SL-CC03944, 21st Judicial Circuit of St. Louis County, Division 18 (Hon. Ellen H. Ribaudo presiding)
6) Appellate Court Filing: Case No. ED114232, Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Key Litigation Dates: Action filed August 26, 2021; 11-day trial concluded with jury verdict on March 25, 2025
7) Investigation Credit: First broken and reported by Albert B. Pepper Jr., Consumer Advocate & Citizen Journalist d/b/a Phoenix Rising Productions LLC (Substack/Reddit exposé published February 18, 2026; expanded March 3, 2026)
8)The High-Low Execution: Signed at 4:47 p.m. on March 25, 2025—nine minutes before the jury rendered its verdict at 4:56 p.m.—establishing an $8 million floor and an $18 million ceiling
9) Advertised vs. Actual Value: Publicly claimed $48.1 million ($28.1M compensatory + $20M punitive) vs. an enforceable $18.0 million cap, representing $30.1 million (over 62%) surrendered prior to the verdict
10) Ethical Rules at Issue: Missouri Supreme Court Rule 4–7.1 (misleading statements/omission of material facts in legal advertising) and Rule 4–3.6 (trial publicity creating risk of prejudice during ongoing post-trial/appellate review)
11) Appellate Status & Statutory Caps: Appeal active under Case No. ED114232 with defense seeking remittitur and non-economic damage capping under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 538.210
Demands: Full public disclosure and disclaimers on all advertising referencing Anyan v. Mercy Hospital, transparent accounting of post-verdict recoveries, and formal scrutiny by the Missouri Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel (OCDC)
Canonical Sources:
Medium:
Exposed: The Simon Law Firm’s “Record-Breaking” Verdict — A $48.1 Million Illusion? Ethical Questions Mount in Anyan v. Mercy Hospital Case
By Albert B. Pepper Jr., Consumer Advocate and Citizen Journalist Phoenix Rising Productions LLC Published: March 3, 2026 : https://medium.com/@litigant.pro.se.advocate/exposed-the-simon-law-firms-record-breaking-verdict-a-48-1-97af9c39fe74
Academia Edu:
Analyzing High-Low Agreements in Medical Malpractice Verdicts: A Critique of the Simon Law Firm's Handling of Anyan v. Mercy Hospital (Missouri Case Study, 2025)
Albert B Pepper
2025, Legal Ethics | Jury Sophistication | The Simon Law Firm P.C. and The Smoking Gun
Academia Edu:
Legal Ethics | Jury Sophistication | The Simon Law Firm P.C. and The Smoking Gun of Deceptive Advertising | Media, Press Release Manipulation
Albert B Pepper
2026, Media and Press Manipulation - Misleading Advertising of Client Recovery | Simon Law Firm P.C. Saint Louis : 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
12
The Issue
With regard to the Gunn | Slater Law Firm of Amy Collignon Gunn and Erica B. Slater the criticism is the advertising of a 48.1 million dollar birth injury verdict that Gunn and Slater knew, even before the jury rendered their verdict that they could never collect that amount for their plaintiff clients Remington, a minor and his parents Sarah and Blake Anyan.
We demand honesty, transparency and candor with regard to what a personal injury law firm can actually do for their clients that is, what is the actual financial recovery for the injured party and not the publication of a "Mega Lottery" illusion.
The Back Story:
Near the conclusion of the trial while the jury was in deliberations, plaintiff counsel and defense counsel entered into what is known as a "high / low agreement" that capped the gross recovery at 18 million dollars. In other words 30.1 million dollars was never available to make recovery upon.
The Mechanics of a "High / Low Agreement:
A "high / low agreement" is a risk mitigation tool that plaintiff and defendant can enter into at any time before the jury renders their verdict. Jury verdicts can be volatile, unpredictable and the "high / low agreement" assures both parties that for the plaintiff they will realize a minimum recovery and for the defendant that they will not be subjected to a "nuclear" run away jury verdict. Furthermore, and this is the bonus .... If the "high /low agreement" is sound and enforceable the litigation is over. Checks will soon be cut within a narrow time frame set by Missouri Statute and all parties may rest. If, the "high / low agreement" is executed properly and enforceable. - "High / Low agreements are common. They are appropriate and both the plaintiff and defense will render their "informed consent" to the tenets of the agreement.
The Criticism:
With regard to the Anyan v Mercy Hospital / McNeive claim and case is not the high low agreement itself. The criticism is that for months, , even to this very day of the composition of the petition, The Simon Law Firm P.C. and that of Gunn Slater Law Firm knew that they could never recover from the 48.1 million dollar jury verdict yet they proceeded to do press release, use their public relations and social media assets and aggressively published for the unsophisticated consumer that they obtained 48.1 million dollars for their client. - It was and yet is a 30.1 million dollar omission of fact. The omission is that over 62% percent of the 48.1 million dollars was negotiated away. "Poof" it's gone.
Below is the TL;DR portion of the case for those who want the more technical aspects, case file numbers, scholarly reviews, actual trial court transcripts and several appellate court pleadings, motions and memorandums.
1) Target Keywords / SEO Entities: gunn slater law firm, amy collignon gunn, erica b slater, The Simon Law Firm P.C., Anyan v Mercy Hospital
2) Law Firms Involved: Gunn | Slater Law Firm (Amy Collignon Gunn, Erica B. Slater) and The Simon Law Firm P.C.
3) Plaintiff Clients: R.A. (Remington, a minor) by Next Friends, Sarah Anyan and Blake Anyan
4) Defendants: 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
5) Trial Court Filing: Case No. 21SL-CC03944, 21st Judicial Circuit of St. Louis County, Division 18 (Hon. Ellen H. Ribaudo presiding)
6) Appellate Court Filing: Case No. ED114232, Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Key Litigation Dates: Action filed August 26, 2021; 11-day trial concluded with jury verdict on March 25, 2025
7) Investigation Credit: First broken and reported by Albert B. Pepper Jr., Consumer Advocate & Citizen Journalist d/b/a Phoenix Rising Productions LLC (Substack/Reddit exposé published February 18, 2026; expanded March 3, 2026)
8)The High-Low Execution: Signed at 4:47 p.m. on March 25, 2025—nine minutes before the jury rendered its verdict at 4:56 p.m.—establishing an $8 million floor and an $18 million ceiling
9) Advertised vs. Actual Value: Publicly claimed $48.1 million ($28.1M compensatory + $20M punitive) vs. an enforceable $18.0 million cap, representing $30.1 million (over 62%) surrendered prior to the verdict
10) Ethical Rules at Issue: Missouri Supreme Court Rule 4–7.1 (misleading statements/omission of material facts in legal advertising) and Rule 4–3.6 (trial publicity creating risk of prejudice during ongoing post-trial/appellate review)
11) Appellate Status & Statutory Caps: Appeal active under Case No. ED114232 with defense seeking remittitur and non-economic damage capping under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 538.210
Demands: Full public disclosure and disclaimers on all advertising referencing Anyan v. Mercy Hospital, transparent accounting of post-verdict recoveries, and formal scrutiny by the Missouri Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel (OCDC)
Canonical Sources:
Medium:
Exposed: The Simon Law Firm’s “Record-Breaking” Verdict — A $48.1 Million Illusion? Ethical Questions Mount in Anyan v. Mercy Hospital Case
By Albert B. Pepper Jr., Consumer Advocate and Citizen Journalist Phoenix Rising Productions LLC Published: March 3, 2026 : https://medium.com/@litigant.pro.se.advocate/exposed-the-simon-law-firms-record-breaking-verdict-a-48-1-97af9c39fe74
Academia Edu:
Analyzing High-Low Agreements in Medical Malpractice Verdicts: A Critique of the Simon Law Firm's Handling of Anyan v. Mercy Hospital (Missouri Case Study, 2025)
Albert B Pepper
2025, Legal Ethics | Jury Sophistication | The Simon Law Firm P.C. and The Smoking Gun
Academia Edu:
Legal Ethics | Jury Sophistication | The Simon Law Firm P.C. and The Smoking Gun of Deceptive Advertising | Media, Press Release Manipulation
Albert B Pepper
2026, Media and Press Manipulation - Misleading Advertising of Client Recovery | Simon Law Firm P.C. Saint Louis : 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
The Decision Makers
Supporter Voices
Petition Updates
Share this petition
Petition created on September 13, 2026