State v. Vincent, 561 S.W.3d 68

Plaintiff Janna Lowry filed a wrongful-death suit in St. Louis County alleging defendants (including Mylan Bertek and Dr. Creighton) negligently caused decedent’s opioid addiction and ultimate death by suicide.
Decedent began treatment with Dr. Creighton in 2004 (Creighton’s practice in St. Louis County); decedent lived in Kansas City from 2006–2016 and allegedly moved back to St. Charles County in 2016.
Relator (Mylan Bertek) moved to transfer venue to St. Charles County, arguing the decedent was "first injured" (first ingested opioids) in St. Charles, so venue is improper in St. Louis.
Plaintiff opposed, arguing venue is proper where negligent conduct first occurred (St. Louis County — Creighton’s practice) and filed a late reply; the trial court allowed an extension for excusable neglect, denied transfer, and Relator sought prohibition.
The court analyzes statutory venue (Section 508.010) focusing on where the decedent was "first injured" (defined by statute as where trauma or exposure occurred) and whether plaintiff disputed facts in the transfer reply.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper legal standard for "first injured" under Mo. venue statute	Venue based on where negligent conduct/exposure occurred (St. Louis where Dr. Creighton prescribed)	Venue based on where decedent was first exposed to injury — i.e., first ingestion of opioids	"First injured" means where the body was first exposed to the harmful agent; here, first ingestion controls
Where "first ingestion" occurred	Not disputed in trial court reply (but later claims not shown in petition)	Reasonable inference from petition that first ingestion was in St. Charles County	Plaintiff failed to contest that inference in reply; factual claim that ingestion occurred in St. Charles stands as undisputed for transfer purposes
Timeliness and extension of reply to motion to transfer	Late reply excusable neglect because motion combined with other motions; court may grant extension	Plaintiff’s reply untimely; Rule 51.045 mandates transfer if no reply	Trial court did not abuse discretion granting extension under Rule 44.01(b); reply was properly before the court
Relief available via writ of prohibition	Trial court should be permitted to rule on merits and deny transfer	Writ appropriate because trial court erroneously denied transfer when venue improper	Writ granted; trial court permanently prohibited from acting except to grant transfer to St. Charles County

State ex rel. Heartland Title Services, Inc. v. Harrell, 500 S.W.3d 239 (Mo. banc 2016) (extraordinary writ may correct improper venue before trial)
State ex rel. Bank of America N.A. v. Kanatzar, 413 S.W.3d 22 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (writ of prohibition appropriate when trial court erroneously denies transfer)
State ex rel. Selimanovic v. Dierker, 246 S.W.3d 931 (Mo. banc 2008) (venue determined solely by Section 508.010; interpret statute by plain language)
Igoe v. Department of Labor & Industrial Relations of State of Missouri, 152 S.W.3d 284 (Mo. banc 2005) (plaintiff bears burden to show venue is proper in reply to transfer motion)
State ex rel. Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. David, 158 S.W.3d 232 (Mo. banc 2005) (facts asserted in transfer motion but not disputed in reply are deemed undisputed)
Flowers v. City of Campbell, 384 S.W.3d 305 (Mo. App. S.D. 2012) (definition and application of "excusable neglect")
Inman v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 347 S.W.3d 569 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011) (excusable neglect is mishap, not deliberate disregard)
State ex rel. Private Nursing Services, Inc. v. Romines, 130 S.W.3d 28 (Mo. App. E.D. 2004) (pre-2005 venue law on accrual and location of wrongful conduct)
State ex rel. Kinsey v. Wilkins, 394 S.W.3d 446 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (post-reform: venue appropriate only in county of first injury)
State ex rel. Harness v. Grady, 201 S.W.3d 48 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006) (plaintiff’s burden to show venue in chosen forum)