Medical malpractice; Affidavit of merit (AOM) requirement; MCL 600.2912d(1); Ottgen v Katranji

In an order in lieu of granting leave to appeal, the court reversed the Court of Appeals judgment (see e-Journal # 80110 in the 9/8/23 edition) and remanded the case to the trial court, holding that the trial court properly denied defendants’ summary disposition motion. Defendants “moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), arguing only that the plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations due to his failure to file a timely and valid” AOM. But pursuant to Ottgen, “‘[f]iling an AOM under MCL 600.2912d(1) is not required to commence a medical malpractice action and toll the statutory limitations period. Instead, the normal tolling rules apply to medical malpractice actions, and tolling occurs upon the filing of a timely served complaint.’” The court noted it was undisputed that “plaintiff filed and served his complaint within the applicable statute of limitations for a medical malpractice action.” Thus, denial of defendants’ motion was proper. In light of the limited basis upon which they sought summary disposition below, the court did not need to address whether they might be entitled to it on any other basis.