Premature medical malpractice complaint does not toll statute of limitations: Michigan Supreme Court
A confusion that has lingered on for years together has finally been cleared by the Michigan Supreme Court. The State Supreme Court, in Tyra v. Organ Procurement Agency of Michigan and Furr v. McLeod stated that when a medical malpractice plaintiff files a complaint before the expiration of the mandatory notice-waiting period, the filing is ineffective, doesn’t initiate tolling of the statute of limitations and must be dismissed.
Defendant McLeod was represented by Stephanie Hoffer of Smith Haughey Rice & Roegge. Hoffer talked about the importance of the decision given by the Supreme Court. She further said that the “current Supreme Court was going to follow the language of statutes and not going to willy-nilly overrule prior cases.”. She also said that several procedural requirements were designed to promote early resolution of meritorious claims and to prevent non-meritorious claims which came along with filing a medical malpractice claim.
In such lawsuits, it is a pre-requisite for the Plaintiff to notify the hospital worker who is being accused of medical malpractice. Thereafter, a waiting period of 182 days post such notification is mandatory before filing the complaint.
According to Hoffer, the 182 days waiting period was essential for retaining legal counsel and for gathering the information required for deciding how to proceed.
The waiting period is used to obtain medical record authorizations and receive the records. The potential expert witnesses are then contacted to review the medical records in order to provide an opinion on whether the case has merit. These opinions are used to pursue a settlement, defend the case or to enter into the discovery process to gather more information. Several cases have followed the opinion given by the Supreme Court in Burton v. Reed City Hosp. in 2003. However, on a number of occasions it has been questioned how cases that have been filed before the required waiting period been handled.
The Supreme Court judges passed a unanimous decision stating that when a medical malpractice complaint is prematurely filed, it does not toll the statute of limitations, and therefore, once the limitations period expires, the complaint must be dismissed with prejudice.
Related Content
Indo-US Legal Sector Redefined: Consulate General of India, New York, SEPC India, and Draft n Craft Join Forces.
NEW YORK, UNITED STATES, June 29, 2023-The Indo-US Legal Sector – Redefining Relationships Conference, a groundbreaking event aimed at fostering...
Indo-US Legal Sector – Redefining Relationships Conference to Unite Legal Professionals from India and the United States
Indo-US Legal Sector – Redefining Relationships Conference to Unite Legal Professionals from India and the United States This...
Importance of Medical Records Summaries in Mass Tort Litigation
Mass torts cases are complex and often involve multiple plaintiffs who have suffered harm from the same product...
Care Plus and its Entities Agree to Pay $7.2 Million Against Anti-Kickback Allegations
On April 13, 2022, Care Plus Management, LLC (“Care Plus”), its founders Paul D. Weir and John R....
Copper Creek (Marysville) | Washington Court of Appeals on Effect of Bankruptcy Discharge on Statute of Limitations
On April 11, 2022, the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 granted the motion for reconsideration and...
Federal District Court, California Dismisses Class Action Suit for Lack of Specific Jurisdiction
On April 01, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California ruled in dismissal of...
Southern District of Florida Grants Motion to Dismiss in Mass Class Action
On April 5, 2022, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida has granted motion...
First Department Ordered New Trial in Personal Injury Damages Lawsuit
On March 29, 2022, the Appellate Division, First Department, decided in Miller v. Camelot Communications Group, Inc., 2022...
Supreme Court of Georgia Rules out Product Liability due to Third Party’s Wrongful Behavior
The Supreme Court of Georgia on March 15, 2022, decided in Maynard v. Snapchat, Inc., Case that a...
Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA): Employers fate to be decided in 2022
On December 15, 2021, the United States Supreme Court announced to review the most consequential PAGA case Viking...
New Jersey Lawmakers Advance Bill To Allow Pandemic Insurance
A New Jersey Assembly committee on Wednesday advanced legislation that would permit insurers to offer coverage to policyholders...
Tech groups criticize Florida’s social media law as Unconstitutional.
Tech groups criticize Florida's social media law as unconstitutional.
New York ‘HERO’ Act requires employers to establish airborne infectious disease safety protocols.
The New York HERO Act (S.1034-B/A.2681-B), a critical bill requiring businesses to have enforceable safety standards to prevent...
Cost-padding, profit shedding law firms! Are you one of them?
Cost padding happens when a business deliberately inflates its costs than what it has incurred and then passes...
Survey says half of in-house law depts have outsourced legal work, most were happy with results
ABA Journal | By Martha Neil | Oct 22, 2013 More than half of the corporate law departments that...
State Wise Minimum Wage Changes
State minimum wage changes effective December 31, 2014 State Changes/Effective Date New York $8.75 per hour. The state...
7 Key Litigation Support Tasks You Can (and Should) Delegate to Remote Paralegals
“The most expensive paralegal in your office is probably you. If you’re redlining discovery responses at midnight, that’s...
Former Principal Awarded with $275,000 in Reverse Racial Discrimination Lawsuit Against District
The former Principal of Richmond Heights high school, Timothy Pingle has received $275,000 as part of his settlement...
