Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 430
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 430.225 (2026)

Definitions

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  430.225.  Definitions — distribution of insurance proceeds — limitation on liability. — 1.  As used in sections 430.225 to 430.250, the following terms shall mean:

  (1)  "Claim", a claim of a patient for:

  (a)  Damages from a tort-feasor; or

  (b)  Benefits from an insurance carrier;

  (2)  "Clinic", a group practice of health practitioners or a sole practice of a health practitioner who has incorporated his or her practice;

  (3)  "Health practitioner", a chiropractor licensed pursuant to chapter 331, a podiatrist licensed pursuant to chapter 330, a dentist licensed pursuant to chapter 332, a physical therapist licensed under chapter 334, a physician or surgeon licensed pursuant to chapter 334, or an optometrist licensed pursuant to chapter 336, while acting within the scope of their practice;

  (4)  "Insurance carrier", any person, firm, corporation, association or aggregation of persons conducting an insurance business pursuant to chapter 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, or 383;

  (5)  "Other institution", a legal entity existing pursuant to the laws of this state which delivers treatment, care or maintenance to patients who are sick or injured;

  (6)  "Patient", any person to whom a health practitioner, hospital, clinic or other institution delivers treatment, care or maintenance for sickness or injury caused by a tort-feasor from whom such person seeks damages or any insurance carrier which has insured such tort-feasor.

  2.  Clinics, health practitioners and other institutions, as defined in this section, shall have the same rights granted to hospitals in sections 430.230 to 430.250.

  3.  If the liens of such health practitioners, hospitals, clinics or other institutions exceed fifty percent of the amount due the patient, every health care practitioner, hospital, clinic or other institution giving notice of its lien, as aforesaid, shall share in up to fifty percent of the net proceeds due the patient, in the proportion that each claim bears to the total amount of all other liens of health care practitioners, hospitals, clinics or other institutions.  "Net proceeds", as used in this section, means the amount remaining after the payment of contractual attorney fees, if any, and other expenses of recovery.

  4.  In administering the lien of the health care provider, the insurance carrier may pay the amount due secured by the lien of the health care provider directly, if the claimant authorizes it and does not challenge the amount of the customary charges or that the treatment provided was for injuries caused by the tort-feasor.

  5.  Any health care provider electing to receive benefits hereunder releases the claimant from further liability on the cost of the services and treatment provided to that point in time.

­­--------

(L. 1999 H.B. 343, A.L. 2003 H.B. 121, A.L. 2006 S.B. 1057)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 2002–2020 · leading case: Kelly v. Marvin's Midtown Chiropractic, LLC, 351 S.W.3d 833 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kelly v. Marvin's Midtown Chiropractic, LLC, 351 S.W.3d 833 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 176× “It contends that the trial court erroneously declared that it was not entitled to a hospital lien under section 430.225, RSMo Cum. Supp.2011, because it was not supported in whole or in part by charity.”
SSM Cardinal Glennon Child.'s Hosp. v. State, 68 S.W.3d 412 (Mo. 2002). · cites it 22× “The amendment created a new section 430.225, which altered the scope of the hospital hen law in a manner similar to that proposed by H.”
Schoedinger v. Beck, 557 S.W.3d 531 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 18× “Respondent explained in a letter to Appellant that § 430.225 was the framework for his calculations and the payment of $39,901.”
Huey v. Meek, 419 S.W.3d 875 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 9× “Discussion The Lien In his first point, Huey argues the consensual lien was not valid (1) because assignments of personal injury actions are void under Missouri law and (2) because it “was not filed pursuant to § 430.”
Scroggins v. Red Lobster, 325 S.W.3d 389 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 14× “[6] It is interesting to note that when Marvin's, was decided in 2004, there was a 2003 statute authorizing a chiropractor's lien on the patient's personal injury claim, giving the chiropractor a right to share up to fifty percent of a claim's proceeds.”
Rose Ford v. Skaggs Chiropractic, LLC, 599 S.W.3d 264 (Mo. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 12× “Analysis Point 1 Skaggs' first point on appeal states that the trial court erred in determining the lien amount in this case because the "benefits of the hospital lien had been specifically [']waived[']" by Ford, and Missouri's medical lien statutes, found in sections 430.225–…”
Truman Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. CO., 597 S.W.3d 362 (Mo. Ct. App. 2020). ““Sections 430.225 to 430.250 establish the procedures hospitals and health practitioners must follow to secure a lien to recover amounts due for medical services rendered to a person injured by a tort-feasor.”
Auto-owners Ins. Co. v. Mccabe, 247 S.W.3d 595 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008). “Tammy and Steven McCabe appeal from the trial court’s judgment interpreting Sections 430.225 and 430230 RSMo 2006, as amended effective August 28, 2003, to be substantive in nature and not applicable retroactively.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.