Medical Malpractice Case Erroneously Dismissed: The State of Michigan Court of Appeals (“Michigan Appellate Court”) stated in its published opinion issued on September 22, 2022: “For more than 40 years, civil plaintiffs have relied on the tolling of applicable statutes of limitation while a motion to add defendants is pending. As long as the plaintiff “demonstrated due diligence,” Charpentier v Young, 403 Mich 851; 291 NW2d 926 (1978), the limitations periods have been tolled as a matter of course. The circuit court erroneously rejected this binding precedent. The circuit court compounded its error by finding that Meredith Steele did not demonstrate due diligence despite that he filed his motion to amend the complaint to add new defendants within the applicable statute of limitations for the claims against those defendants. We vacate the order summarily dismissing Steele’s complaint against the added defendants and remand for continued proceedings.”
The Underlying Facts
In 2017, Meredith Steele was diagnosed with prostate cancer. The Providence defendants were involved in his cancer treatment and care. His treatment included implanting 56 radiation seeds near the source of the cancer, including the rectum, followed by external radiation treatments. Steele experienced severe rectal pain and bleeding as well as urinary difficulties after the seed implantation. These issues worsened over time.
One of Steele’s treating physicians referred him for a colonoscopy with the Great Lakes defendants. On June 27, 2018, the Great Lakes defendants performed the colonoscopy. Dr. Bruce A. Jones discovered a rectal ulcer. He took biopsy samples that tested benign. However, subsequent treatment of the ulcer was unsuccessful and Steele’s condition continued to deteriorate.
On February 12, 2019, Steele underwent extensive surgery at the Cleveland Clinic to remove parts of his intestines and to install a colostomy. Steele’s condition did not sufficiently improve and he eventually required “a total pelvic exenteration.”
On July 16, 2019, Steele served his first notice of intent to file a medical malpractice suit against the Providence defendants. He filed his original complaint against those defendants on June 22, 2020. The next day, June 23, 2020, Steele served an amended notice of intent on the parties involved in the colonoscopy and ulcer treatment (the Great Lakes defendants). Steele did not file his motion to file an amended complaint until December 28, 2020. The circuit court entered an order granting the uncontested motion on January 7, 2021, ordering Steele to file his amended complaint by January 14, 2021. Steele filed his amended complaint the following day.
As Steele underwent the colonoscopy on June 27, 2018, the statute of limitations for his claims against the Great Lakes defendants expired on June 27, 2020. MCL 600.5805(8). However, service of the amended notice of intent tolled the statute of limitations for 91 days. MCL 600.2912b(3); MCL 600.5856(c). The Supreme Court also issued special orders temporarily revising court rules because of the COVID-19 pandemic. This tolled the statute of limitations for an additional 102 days. See Amended Administrative Order 2020-3, 505 Mich lxxiv (2020).
Michigan Appellate Court Opinion
The Michigan Appellate Court stated: “Whether Steele’s complaint against the Great Lakes defendants was timely filed depends on whether the limitations period was tolled while his motion to amend was pending. In Charpentier, 403 Mich at 851, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court reversed this Court, set aside the accelerated judgments entered by the trial court in the defendants’ favor, and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. The Court’s reasoning for this decision was as follows: “The statute of limitations was tolled for 21 days, from March 10 to March 31, 1976, the time during which the motion to amend complaint and add party defendants was pending, plaintiffs having demonstrated due diligence by seeking a decision on their motion within three weeks.” Id“
“None of these cases [cited by the Great Lakes defendants] overrule the specific principle outlined in Charpentier—that the statute of limitations is tolled while a motion to amend a complaint to add defendants is pending. This Court has no authority to reconsider or overrule Supreme Court precedent. Charpentier remains good law until the Supreme Court decides it isn’t. See State Treasurer v Sprague, 284 Mich App 235, 242; 772 NW2d 452 (2009). And contrary to the Great Lakes defendants’ assertion, Charpentier’s precedential value is not negated simply because this Court has not expressly cited it in a published opinion in recent years.”
Furthermore, “Basic hornbook law provides that a plaintiff is permitted to file a complaint within the statute of limitations. Steele filed his motion to file an amended complaint within the statutory limitations period and tolled the running of that period until the circuit court made its decision. Steele then filed his amended complaint before the statute of limitations expired. This was due diligence and the Great Lakes defendants were not entitled to the dismissal of the claims against them.”
Source Steele v. Winfield, No. 357935.
If you or a loved one may have been injured (or worse) as a result of medical malpractice in Michigan or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find a Michigan medical malpractice lawyer, or a medical malpractice lawyer in your state, who may investigate your medical negligence claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a medical negligence case, if appropriate.
Click here to visit our website or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find medical malpractice attorneys in your U.S. state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.