Medical malpractice; Whether plaintiff’s claim was time-barred; The two-year limitations period for medical malpractice actions; MCL 600.5805(8); Notice of intent (NOI); MCL 600.2912b(1); The 182-day tolled notice period; MCL 600.5856(c); The mailbox rule; MCL 600.2912b(2); Accrual; MCL 600.5838a(1); Driver v Naini; Effect of administrative orders extending filing deadlines & statutory prerequisites to filing

The court held that the trial court did not err by finding plaintiff’s medical malpractice action was time-barred. Plaintiff sued defendants (doctor, physician group, and hospital) for medical malpractice arising out of an allegedly improperly performed left total knee arthroplasty. The trial court granted summary disposition for defendants on the basis of the statute of limitations. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the trial court erred by finding her complaint was untimely because Administrative Order No. 2020-3 and Amended Administrative Order No. 2020-3 extended the deadline for filing. “Plaintiff mailed her NOI on [4/21/20] which began the mandatory notice period. Because defendants did not respond to plaintiff’s NOI, plaintiff was entitled to file suit as early as [9/23/20], 154 days after sending notice, plus one day.” However, the notice period continued to toll until 10/20/20, 182 days after she mailed her NOI. “Plaintiff then had 44 days of tolled time under the statute of limitations (the number of days she had left as of [3/10/20]) to file suit, beginning” 10/21/20. Plaintiff’s complaint was therefore due by 12/4/20. Her complaint, filed 12/11/20, was untimely. Affirmed.