Professional (veterinary) malpractice; Two-year statute of limitations; Bryant v Oakpointe Villa Nursing Ctr

The court held that regardless of how plaintiff pled the causes of action, the case arose from the treatment of plaintiff’s dog in the course of a professional veterinary relationship. Thus, the dismissal of her first amended complaint premised on the two-year statute of limitations was proper. Plaintiff contended the trial court erred by holding the “two-year statute of limitations period applicable to medical malpractice actions governed this case because the veterinary hospital did not constitute a healthcare facility or agency and a veterinarian was not a licensed healthcare professional.” Thus, she claimed that the three-year statute of limitations applicable to ordinary negligence claims applied. Defendants last treated the dog on 6/14/17. Plaintiff filed her complaint on 11/15/19. “Because her complaint for professional malpractice was filed outside the two-year period of limitations, the trial court properly granted defendants’ motion for summary disposition.” The court rejected her “attempt to characterize her litigation as involving negligence, breach of contract, breach of warranty, and other claims related to the treatment of her dog to avoid the two-year statute of limitations.” The court held that although the “Bryant test was applied in the context of medical malpractice, we consider it as analogous to veterinary malpractice actions.” Regardless of how the case was pled, plaintiff’s claims arose “from the alleged acts and omissions of defendants in treating her dog. These claims included the failure to properly diagnose and treat the injury and infection, the failure to properly bandage the injury, the failure to provide proper emergency treatment, and the failure to provide proper discharge instructions.” Applying the Bryant test, the first prong was “satisfied because these alleged acts and omissions occurred in the context of the professional relationship between plaintiff and defendants.” The second prong was also “satisfied because the question of whether defendants properly examined, diagnosed, and treated the dog involves professional judgment that is beyond the expertise of laypeople.” Affirmed.