Medical malpractice; Statute of limitations; Tolling; Administrative Order No. 2020-3 (AO 2020-3); Administrative Order No. 2020-18 (AO 2020-18); Application & validity of the AOs; Carter v DTN Mgmt Co

In this medical malpractice case, the court held that the “trial court erred by failing to exclude the 102-day stay period” under the Supreme Court’s AOs “from its calculation of when the applicable limitations period expired.” Also, it found no merit in defendants’ claim that the Supreme Court lacked the authority to toll the statute of limitations. Thus, the court reversed the trial court’s order granting defendants summary disposition and remanded. The case arose from defendant-Dr. Shaird’s allegedly negligent treatment of plaintiff-estate’s decedent, Walsh. Plaintiff’s claim of medical malpractice accrued on 3/2/17, “the last date that Walsh was treated by Dr. Shaird. Pursuant to MCL 600.5805(8), the limitations period for plaintiff’s claims would have expired on [3/2/19] because the statutory period of limitations for plaintiff’s claim is generally two years. However, because Walsh died before the period of limitations had run, and the letters of authority were issued to Walsh’s estate on [12/27/18], the period of limitations was extended to” 12/27/20. Plaintiff filed this complaint on 2/26/21, “which ordinarily would be outside even this extended limitations period.” However, on 3/23/20, the Michigan Supreme Court issued AO 2020-3. This order was rescinded effective 6/20/20 by AO 2020-18. Thus, “‘the exclusion period at issue” was 102 days. The court concluded that the “trial court misapplied AO 2020-3 by failing to exclude the 102-day tolling period from its calculation of plaintiff’s filing deadline.” It found that “AO 2020-3 clearly and unambiguously tolled all limitations periods pertaining to case initiation, and the trial court, therefore, erred by limiting AO 2020-3’s applicability.” Further, the court’s binding case law, Carter, counseled it “to conclude that AO 2020-3 was constitutional.” Defendants argued here “that recognizing plaintiff’s interpretation of AO 2020-3 would mean that the Supreme Court impermissibly invaded the province of the Legislature by altering statutes of limitations. This is precisely the argument this Court rejected in Carter; therefore, we reject it again.”