Medical malpractice; Discovery of the existence of a claim; MCL 600.5838a(2); Fraudulent concealment; MCL 600.5855; MCL 600.5838a(3); Sills v Oakland Gen Hosp; Negligence in supervision & vicarious liability; Cox v Flint Bd of Hosp Managers; Res judicata; JAM Corp v AARO Disposal, Inc; Leave to amend; MCR 2.118; Weymers v Khera

The court held that the trial court did not err by granting defendants-doctor (Adeyemo) and health system (Oakwood) summary disposition of plaintiffs’ medical malpractice claim. Plaintiffs initially sued various doctors and medical facilities for medical malpractice. They later sought leave to amend to add Dr. Adeyemo, but the trial court denied the motion. Plaintiffs then filed a separate complaint against defendants. The trial court ultimately granted summary disposition for defendants, finding the action was time barred and that plaintiffs could not claim fraudulent concealment. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition for defendants because they "fraudulently concealed a cause of action against Dr. Adeyemo, thus extending the time for filing” suit. Based on the record, “it cannot be said that plaintiffs had no cause to believe they might have a claim against Dr. Adeyemo at the time their claims accrued in [1/17], which could have reasonably been included in the 2019 complaint. Thus, we are inclined to conclude that the two-year statute of limitations barred plaintiffs’ second complaint.” In addition, “regardless of how one looks at the evidence here, the fact remains that Dr. Adeyemo’s involvement in [plaintiff-patient’s] treatment and his potential liability for [his] injuries were obvious from the very beginning.” Plaintiffs could have discovered the claim against Dr. Adeyemo as early as 1/17. Further, “the statute of limitations has also expired with regard to plaintiffs’ claim against Oakwood.” Their claim against Oakwood was “predicated on the argument that Oakwood failed to properly select and train its agents, including Dr. Adeyemo. Since plaintiffs’ claims against Dr. Adeyemo are barred by the two-year statute of limitations, agency principles dictate that plaintiffs’ claims against Oakwood are also barred.” Moreover, res judicata would also bar their claim against Oakwood, which “was decided on the merits and disposed of before” they filed the second complaint. And they “knew or should have known they had a claim against Dr. Adeyemo.” As such, they could have brought the current “claim against Oakwood, which relates to their responsibility for Dr. Adeyemo’s actions, in the 2019 complaint.” Finally, there was “no dispute that both actions involved the same parties.” Affirmed.