Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.105 (2026)

Actions against health care and mental health providers (medical malpractice)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

516.105. Actions against health care and mental health providers (medical malpractice). — 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 years from the date of the discovery of such alleged negligent failure to inform, or from the date on which the patient in the exercise of ordinary care should have discovered such alleged negligent failure to inform, whichever date first occurs; except that, no such action shall be brought for any negligent failure to inform about the results of medical tests performed more than two years before August 28, 1999. For purposes of this subdivision, the act of neglect based on the negligent failure to inform the patient of the results of medical tests shall not include the act of informing the patient of the results of negligently performed medical tests or the act of informing the patient of erroneous test results; and

(3) In cases in which the person bringing the action is a minor less than eighteen years of age, such minor shall have until his or her twentieth birthday to bring such action.

In no event shall any action for damages for malpractice, error, or mistake 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.

2. Any service on a defendant by a plaintiff after the statute of limitations set forth in subsection 1 of this section has expired or after the expiration of any extension of the time provided to commence an action pursuant to law shall be made within one hundred eighty days of the filing of the petition. If such service is not made on a defendant within one hundred eighty days of the filing of the petition, the court shall dismiss the action against the defendant. The dismissal shall be without prejudice unless the plaintiff has previously taken or suffered a nonsuit, in which case the dismissal shall be with prejudice.

--------

(L. 1976 S.B. 470 § 2, A.L. 1999 H.B. 274, A.L. 2005 H.B. 393, A.L. 2016 H.B. 1765, A.L. 2018 S.B. 871)

CROSS REFERENCE:

Applicability of statute changes to cases filed after August 28, 2005, 538.305

(1985) The reduction of the limitation period for medical malpractice actions should be applicable only to claims where the alleged act of malpractice occurred after the effective date of the section. Goodman v. St. Louis Children's Hosp., 687 S.W.2d 889 (Mo. banc).

(1985) The ten-year maximum was designed to limit the "foreign object" exception to the two year statute, and not to limit the time within which an infant who suffers damage from malpractice within his first two years may file suit. McLeran v. St. Luke's Hosp. of Kansas City, 687 S.W.2d 892 (Mo. banc).

(1996) Actions brought pursuant to this section are not tolled under 516.170. Batek v. Curators of Univ. of Mo., 920 S.W.2d 895 (Mo. banc).

(2015) Ten-year statute of repose could not be equitably tolled and does not violate constitutional provisions of equal protection, open courts, due process, or special laws. Ambers-Phillips v. SSM DePaul Health Center, 459 S.W.3d 901 (Mo. banc).

(2023) The specific deadline in Section 516.105 for service of process in medical malpractice claims does not conflict with the requirement that service of process be prompt under Rule 54 of the Missouri Supreme Court Rules of Civil Procedure. Brick v. Koeppen, 672 S.W.3d 62 (Mo.App.S.D.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 172 cases (22 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: Strahler v. St. Luke's Hosp., 706 S.W.2d 7 (Mo. 1986).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Strahler v. St. Luke's Hosp., 706 S.W.2d 7 (Mo. 1986). · cites it 70× “We reverse the dismissal of plaintiff's petition and remand the case for further proceedings.”

Shonda Ambers-Phillips & Richard Phillips II v. SSM DePaul Health Ctr., 459 S.W.3d 901 (Mo. 2015). · cites it 96× “Eight years later, in 1976, the legislature took action that in part addressed the unfairness that had concerned this Court in Laughlin by adopting section 516.105, RSMo Supp. 1976. That section sets out a discovery rule for foreign object medical malpractice cases as part of…”

Weiss v. Rojanasathit, 975 S.W.2d 113 (Mo. 1998). · cites it 66× “Rojanasathit on the ground that the action was barred by section 516.105, RSMo 1994. The court of appeals affirmed, then transferred the case to this Court, finding the case to be one of general interest and importance.”

Rowland v. Skaggs Companies, Inc., 666 S.W.2d 770 (Mo. 1984). · cites it 62× “The Western District affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding that the two-year statute of limitations applicable to actions for damages against health care providers, § 516.105, RSMo 1978 [1] , barred Skaggs' suit for contribution.”

Lough Ex Rel. Lough v. Rolla Women's Clinic, Inc., 866 S.W.2d 851 (Mo. 1993). · cites it 58× “I reluctantly conclude, however, that the plaintiff's cause of action here is barred by the provisions of § 516.105, RSMo 1986. Our obligation is to determine the intent of the legislature in enacting the statute involved.”

Montgomery v. South Cnty. Radiologists, Inc., 49 S.W.3d 191 (Mo. 2001). · cites it 36× “Section 516.105 RSMo 1994. The Montgomerys allege that Szoko committed only one act on one specific date: the diagnostic service on February 14, 1995.”

Batek v. Curators of the Univ. of Missouri, 920 S.W.2d 895 (Mo. 1996). · cites it 33× “Batek’s own averments, she was over the age of twenty years when the alleged malpractice occurred and had failed to bring her suit within the two-year statute of limitations found in section 516.105, RSMo 1994. On July 21, 1995, appellant filed her first amended petition in…”

Breeden v. Hueser, 273 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 18× “” § 516.105, RSMo. The section’s opening phrase “all actions against physicians” is qualified by the words “for damages for malpractice, negligence, error or mistake related to health care.”

Wheeler v. Briggs, 941 S.W.2d 512 (Mo. 1997). · cites it 40× “The trial court dismissed plaintiff's petition on the ground that it was barred by the two-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice actions under § 516.105, RSMo 1994. Jurisdiction on appeal to this Court is based on article V, § 3 of the Missouri Constitution.”

Wanda Mayes v. Saint Luke's Hosp. of Kansas City, (Consol. with)Wanda Mayes v. Saint Luke's Hosp. of Kansas City, 430 S.W.3d 260 (Mo. 2014). · cites it 9× “The plaintiffs’ petition, however, also contained a lost chance of recovery claim, the statute of limitations for which is section 516.105, RSMo 2000. It is clear from their argument that they challenge any dismissal pursuant to a statute of limitations, regardless of whether it…”

Boland v. Saint Luke's Health Sys., Inc., 471 S.W.3d 703 (Mo. 2015). · cites it 13× “Laws 767 (codified as amended at section 516.105, RSMo 2000). Similarly, in Weiss v.”

White v. Zubres, 222 S.W.3d 272 (Mo. 2007). · cites it 22× “Section 516.105, RSMo 2000, provides a general two-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice actions with three exceptions.”

Show all 172 citing cases →

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.105(1) — 4 cases

Randazzo v. State, 894 So. 2d 337 (La. 2005).

Davidson v. Lazcano, 204 S.W.3d 213 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Dane Templeton v. Charles Orth, D.O., & Orthopedic Surgeons, Inc. (Mo. Ct. App. 2023).

Sharon Newton & Brian Newton v. Mercy Clinic East Communities d/b/a Mercy Clinic OB/GYN, & Christina Kay Meddows-Jackson, M.D. (Mo. 2020).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.105(2) — 2 cases

White v. Zubres, 222 S.W.3d 272 (Mo. 2007). “Section 516.105, RSMo 2000, provides a general two-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice actions with three exceptions.”

Davidson v. Lazcano, 204 S.W.3d 213 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.105(3) — 1 case

Millsaps v. McKee (E.D. Mo. 2019).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.105(l) — 1 case

Davidson v. Lazcano, 204 S.W.3d 213 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

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.