the controversy by stating the relevant facts fairly and concisely.” Chopin v. American Auto. Ass’n of Missouri, 969 S.W.2d 248, 251 (Mo.App.1998). “The purpose of the statement of facts is to afford an immediate, accurate, complete and unbiased understanding of the facts of the case.” Haynes Family Corp. v. Dean Properties, Inc., 923 S.W.2d 465, 466-67 (Mo.App.1996). Plaintiffs statement of facts does not clearly and succinctly present the facts necessary to determine whether Plaintiff properly pled a claim for medical malpractice. “A statement of facts that consists of nothing more than an abbreviated procedural history fails to provide an understanding of the ease and is deficient.” Angle v. Grant, 997 S.W.2d 133, 134 (Mo.App.1999). See Swift v. Baker, 879 S.W.2d 735 (Mo.App.1994) (<HOLDING>). When faced with a deficient statement of
holding that a statement of facts which only consists of a procedural history of the case violates rule 8404c holding law of case doctrine is procedural and does not go to jurisdiction of court holding that under alabama law the law of the forum applies to procedural matters and that in most instances the statute of limitations is considered to be a procedural rule holding that dna act violates neither substantive nor procedural due process under the fifth amendment holding that arizona rule of civil procedure 52a requires the court to find only the ultimate facts not the evidentiary facts upon which the ultimate facts are based