ORDER

Dr. Mark McClung appeals the trial court’s judgment denying his amended motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and alternative motion for a new trial, after a jury found him medically negligent in connection with a reconstructive surgery he performed on Kathryn Cetto. In three points on appeal, Dr. McClung claims that the trial court erred in: (1) denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict based on his assertion that Ms. Cetto failed to make a submissi-ble medical negligence case; (2) denying his motion for a new trial based on his claim of instructional error; and (3) denying his motion for a new trial based on juror nondisclosure. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties. The points are denied, and the judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).