Albright v. Christensen, MD, 507 F.Supp.3d 851

Albright (Ohio resident) was treated in Michigan by Dr. Carl Christensen in June 2018 for opioid addiction; received a buprenorphine (Suboxone) induction during a one-week inpatient detox.
Albright alleges immediate adverse reactions to Suboxone, refused further treatment, and claims negligence and lack of informed consent against Christensen and his practice.
She filed suit on June 4, 2020 in federal court (diversity jurisdiction). Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing noncompliance with Michigan medical-malpractice pre-suit rules (MCL 600.2912b and 600.2912d).
The court treated Albright’s claims as medical malpractice under Michigan’s two-part test (professional relationship + questions of medical judgment).
The court held Michigan’s affidavit-of-merit requirement (MCL 600.2912d) does not apply in federal diversity cases, but the Michigan pre-suit notice/waiting-period requirement (MCL 600.2912b) is substantive and does apply.
Because Albright did not serve the required pre-suit notice, the statute of limitations was not tolled; her claims became time-barred and the complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Characterization: Are the negligence claims actually medical malpractice?	Albright: claims are ordinary negligence, resolvable by lay jurors.	Christensen: claims concern specialized medical treatment and thus are malpractice.	Held: Malpractice. Claims arise from professional treatment and require medical judgment beyond common knowledge.
Affidavit of merit (MCL 600.2912d): Must an affidavit accompany the complaint in federal court?	Albright: statute is procedural and conflicts with Federal Rules, so it does not apply in federal court.	Christensen: statute is substantive and should apply.	Held: Does not apply in federal court; Federal Rules control under Shady Grove analysis.
Pre-suit notice/waiting period (MCL 600.2912b): Does the Michigan notice requirement apply in federal diversity cases?	Albright: statute procedural, should not apply.	Christensen: substantive state requirement and must be applied.	Held: Applies in federal court; Erie/Hanna analysis finds it substantive and outcome-determinative, avoiding forum-shopping and inequitable administration.
Effect of noncompliance with notice: Is the statute of limitations tolled and what is the disposition?	Albright: did not comply; argued suit should proceed.	Christensen: failure to comply means limitations not tolled; suit time-barred.	Held: Because notice was not given, limitations were not tolled; claims expired and case dismissed with prejudice.

Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1940) (federal courts in diversity apply state substantive law and federal procedural rules)
Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010) (framework for resolving conflicts between Federal Rules and state law)
Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977) (use narrowest-grounds rule for fragmented Supreme Court decisions)
Gallivan v. United States, 943 F.3d 291 (6th Cir. 2019) (Federal Rules govern over state affidavit-of-merit requirement in federal court)
Bryant v. Oakpointe Villa Nursing Ctr., 684 N.W.2d 864 (Mich. 2004) (two-part test to decide whether claim is medical malpractice)
Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (1965) (when no Federal Rule on point, apply Erie choice-of-law analysis)
Burton v. Reed City Hosp. Corp., 691 N.W.2d 424 (Mich. 2005) (filing before notice period expires does not commence action under Michigan law)
Walker v. Armco Steel Corp., 446 U.S. 740 (1980) (state tolling rules are substantive and apply in federal court)
Schmigel v. Uchal, 800 F.3d 113 (3d Cir. 2015) (state pre-suit notice requirement treated as substantive and applicable in federal diversity suits)
Dorris v. Detroit Osteopathic Hosp. Corp., 594 N.W.2d 455 (Mich. 1999) (substance over form: claims cannot evade malpractice rules by labeling as ordinary negligence)