Statute of limitations; The Michigan Supreme Court’s authority to issue Administrative Order No. 2020-3 (AO 2020-3) & Administrative Order No. 2020-18 (AO 2020-18); Carter v DTN Mgmt Co; Effect of the AOs; Personal representative (PR); Notice of intent (NOI)

The court held that defendants’ arguments based on the statute of limitations failed in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Carter. Thus, they did not show that the trial court erred in denying their summary disposition motions. This medical malpractice case arose from the suicide death of plaintiff-PR’s father on 4/29/19. She served the NOI on 6/11/21 and filed the complaint on 12/13/21. Defendants unsuccessfully sought summary disposition on the basis the action was untimely. They contended “that the Supreme Court lacked the authority to issue” AO 2020-3 and AO 2020-18, and that, if it “had the authority, the tolling orders only applied to deadlines that expired during the period of the” COVID-19 state of emergency. The Supreme Court held in Carter “that AO 2020-3 and AO 2020-18 were valid exercises of [its] constitutional authority. The Supreme Court further held that pursuant to these orders, the” days from 3/10/20 through 6/19/20 were not included for MCR 1.108(1) purposes. It also determined that the computation of time for the Carter plaintiff’s filing resumed on 6/20/20, providing her the same number of days to file on 6/20/20 as she had at the time the exclusion became effective on 3/23/20. The court noted that to “the extent the trial court’s reasoning may have differed somewhat,” the court may affirm a trial court’s summary disposition decision “when it reaches the correct result even if our reasoning differs.” Affirmed.