Dental malpractice; Statute of limitations; MCL 600.5805(8); Accrual; MCL 600.5838a; Notice of intent (NOI); MCL 600.2912b; Tolling; MCL 600.5856(c); Electronic filing; MCR 1.109(G)(5)(b); Rejected filing; Goff v Vitti

The court held that plaintiff’s dental-malpractice complaint was barred by the statute of limitations because her accepted complaint was filed too late. She alleged that defendant-dentist negligently placed dental implants on 3/28/22, served an NOI on 3/26/24, and filed a complaint that was accepted on 10/4/24. The court first held that the two-year limitations period applied because a medical-malpractice claim “accrues at the time of the act or omission” forming the claim, and absent tolling, plaintiff’s claim would have expired on 3/28/24. The court next found that the NOI tolled the limitations period, but only left plaintiff two days after the 182-day notice period expired on 9/24/24, meaning she had to file by 9/26/24. The court rejected plaintiff’s argument that her later complaint related back to attempted earlier e-filings because her original submissions were rejected after she forgot her password and filed documents with defects. Relying on Goff, the court held that “the operative filing date is the date a document is electronically submitted so long as the document is accepted by the clerk of the court,” and a rejected filing leaves “nothing in the record for the subsequent filing to relate back to.” The court further noted that plaintiff failed to show the late filing was not attributable to her own conduct because the trial court found her e-filing problems were “self-inflicted.” Affirmed.