Compliance with MCL 600.6431(1) of the Court of Claims Act (COCA); Tyrrell v University of MI; The Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PWDCRA); The Worker’s Disability Compensation Act (WDCA)

Concluding that Tyrrell rendered the circuit court’s foundational premise in granting defendant summary disposition erroneous, the court reversed and remanded. Plaintiff asserted claims under the PWDCRA and the WDCA against defendant. In moving for summary disposition, defendant successfully argued that her claims were barred because it “is an arm of the state and plaintiff had not filed a notice of intention to file a claim with the clerk of the Court of Claims pursuant to MCL 600.6431.” The issue on appeal was whether she was required to comply with MCL 600.6431(1) “in pursuing her claims against defendant in the circuit court where she sought a jury trial.” The court recently held in Tyrrell that “absent the Legislature conditioning its consent to suit on compliance with the COCA, a plaintiff properly bringing a claim in circuit court against the state or a state defendant to which MCL 600.6431 applies is not required to comply with MCL 600.6431 for his or her claim to proceed in that court.” The court went on to conclude that the Legislature intended that “no claim may be maintained against the state in the Court of Claims” (as opposed to any court in the state) absent certain conditions being met. The trial court ruled that by its “clear language, the notice requirement applies to all claims against the state and its political subdivisions, not merely, as Plaintiff argues, to all claims filed or pending in the Court of Claims.” The court noted that defendant agreed that the holding in Tyrrell mandated reversal.