Whether a claim sounds in medical malpractice or negligence; Bryant v Oakpointe Villa Nursing Ctr; Dorris v Detroit Osteopathic Hosp Corp; Negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) claims; Taylor v Kurapati; Mishandling of a corpse; Deeg v City of Detroit; The three-year period of limitations under MCL 600.5805(8)

The court held that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition for defendant-hospital on the basis that plaintiffs-parents’ claims against it sounded in medical malpractice, but properly granted summary disposition for the hospital and defendant-funeral home as to plaintiffs’ NIED claims. Finally, it held that the trial court should have considered plaintiffs’ mishandling of a corpse claims against the hospital without imposing a requirement that they show physical harm, but affirmed dismissal of this claim against the funeral home. Plaintiffs alleged both NIED and mishandling of a corpse after the funeral home initially cremated only the afterbirth material of their stillborn baby instead of the human remains. As to the hospital, the trial court found that plaintiffs’ complaint sounded in medical malpractice, and that the applicable limitations period had expired. As to the funeral home, it found plaintiffs’ emotional distress was not of the nature required for a NIED claim because they failed to show resulting physical harm. On appeal, the court agreed with plaintiffs that summary disposition for the hospital was improper because their claims did not sound in medical malpractice. “[P]laintiffs are not claiming that the hospital’s medical care was negligent, but rather that the hospital negligently cataloged and transferred the wrong human remains to the funeral home. Resolving these allegations does not require specialized medical knowledge that the jury would only be able to understand as explained by an expert.” However, the court upheld summary disposition for the funeral home on their NIED claims, noting there was “no genuine issue of material fact, upon which reasonable minds might differ, that neither plaintiff actually witnessed the negligent acts or demonstrated that they suffered severe emotional distress contemporaneously with the negligent acts.” The court agreed with plaintiffs that “Michigan law recognizes a claim for emotional distress arising from the mishandling of a corpse without a showing of resulting physical harm as well, and that the trial court erred to the extent that it may have understood otherwise.” On remand, the trial court should consider their claims against the hospital “without imposing a requirement that they show physical harm.” However, as to the funeral home, because they “did not show that the funeral home ever withheld the stillborn child from them, they failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact" as to their mishandling of a corpse claims against it. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.