Medical malpractice; Motion to amend the notice of intent to file claim (NOI) & complaint; Kostadinovski v. Harrington; MCL 600.2912b; MCL 600.2301; Bush v. Shabahang; MCL 600.2912b(1); Burton v. Reed City Hosp. Corp.; Decker v. Rochowiak; Undue delay; MCR 2.118(A)(2); Weymers v. Khera; Whether failure to file an amended affidavit of merit precluded plaintiff from amending his complaint; MCL 600.2912d(1); King v. Reed

Holding that the trial court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion to amend the NOI and complaint, the court reversed and remanded. Plaintiff claimed that defendant-Beaumont was vicariously liable for the negligence of its ER “physicians and staff for failing to timely diagnose plaintiff’s stroke and to administer tissue plasminogen activator (tPA).” He argued the trial court erred in denying his motion to amend the NOI. The court held that the first prong of Bush was satisfied. Allowing him to amend the NOI and complaint did not affect Beaumont’s substantial rights “because the original NOI put Beaumont on notice of possible claims arising from the neurologists’ failure to diagnose and treat plaintiff’s stroke.” The second prong was also satisfied. “Plaintiff’s original NOI, considered as a whole, clearly set forth plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim on the basis of Beaumont’s failure to determine the time frame during which tPA could have been timely administered.” Specifically, the NOI asserted “Beaumont was vicariously liable for the actions of the emergency department physicians for failing to properly care for, diagnose, and treat plaintiff’s condition.” The NOI identified “the standard of care applicable to Beaumont, and to the doctors and nurses who participated in treating plaintiff, and alleges that the failure to treat plaintiff with tPA caused significant neurological and cognitive deficits.” Two ER doctors who were also defendants were specifically named in the NOI, which also referenced “the neurology consult, identifying several inaccuracies within the neurology consultation report. Because plaintiff made a good faith attempt to comply with the requirements of MCL 600.2912b, allowing the proposed amendments to the NOI would be in the furtherance of justice.” The court also agreed with plaintiff that the trial court erred in denying his motion because he was not seeking to add an additional legal claim but instead, sought to clarify that Beaumont was “also vicariously liable for the neurologists’ failure to administer tPA.” Further, the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to amend his complaint based on undue delay.