Whether the medical malpractice complaint was timely; Whether the exception listed under MCL 600.2912b(9) applied; Bush v. Shabahang; MCL 600.2912b(1) & (7); Burton v. Reed City Hosp. Corp.; Haksluoto v. Mt. Clemens Reg’l Med. Ctr.; Tyra v. Organ Procurement Agency of MI; Duncan v. Michigan; Principle that only the Supreme Court may overrule its decisions; Paige v. Sterling Heights; Equitable tolling; Houghton ex rel Johnson v. Keller

Holding that plaintiff’s medical malpractice complaint was untimely, the court affirmed the trial court’s order granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition. Plaintiff argued that his complaint was timely filed because the exception listed under MCL 600.2912b(9) applied. He relied on a conditional statement in defendants’ response to his notice of intent (NOI) to claim that they “represented they did not intend to settle the claim within the 182-day notice period of MCL 600.2912b. Specifically, defendants reserved ‘the right to modify or assert additional defenses after discovery has been initiated and further analysis is conducted by expert witnesses.’” Plaintiff contended that this reservation showed “defendants were essentially inviting plaintiff’s lawsuit before the expiration of the 182-day notice period because of the use of the word ‘discovery,’ and plaintiff reasonably relied on this reservation as showing defendants’ intent not to settle the claim during the 182-day notice period.” The Michigan “Supreme Court has held that ‘[a] defendant can either advise the plaintiff of the decision to waive or the defendant may do nothing at all, either of which triggers the shortened waiting period’ contained in MCL 600.2912b(9).” But neither of these happened in this case. “Defendants never directly—or impliedly—advised plaintiff that they wanted to waive the 182-day notice period. Furthermore, defendants did not ‘do nothing at all’ because they responded to plaintiff’s NOI in compliance with MCL 600.2912b(7).” Plaintiff failed to provide support for his claim “that reasonable reliance on his part should accelerate the 182-day notice period absent a writing demonstrating defendants’ intent not to settle.”