Castro v. Goulet
312 Mich. App. 1
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Ruben Castro underwent left hip arthroscopy on Feb 9, 2011 and developed postoperative penile numbness, dysuria, and erectile dysfunction allegedly from excessive perineal traction.
- The two-year statute of limitations expired Feb 9, 2013. Plaintiffs filed a complaint and a motion for a 28‑day extension to file an affidavit of merit (AOM) on Feb 4, 2013, but did not attach an AOM to the complaint.
- Plaintiffs filed their AOM on Feb 26, 2013 (within 28 days of the complaint filing). The trial court did not enter its order granting the 28‑day extension until Mar 8, 2013 (after the limitations period expired).
- Defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), arguing the suit was not timely commenced because no AOM accompanied the complaint and the extension order was entered after the limitations period expired.
- The majority held the trial court properly granted the 28‑day extension, tolled the limitations period from the complaint date, and that plaintiffs showed good cause; summary disposition on timeliness was reversed and the case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint filed without AOM but with motion for 28‑day extension timely commences action | Castro: filing complaint plus motion (filed before limitations expiry) and filing AOM within 28 days should toll limitations | Defs: absent AOM at filing, action not commenced; extension order entered after limitations expired so no tolling | Held: Majority — timely. Tolling runs from complaint date when extension motion is granted (even if order entered later) because plaintiffs filed motion and filed AOM within 28 days. |
| Whether plaintiffs showed "good cause" for 28‑day extension under MCL 600.2912d(2) | Castro: delayed filing because doctors assured symptoms would resolve; waited to avoid frivolous suit | Defs: plaintiffs unreasonably procrastinated; failed to seek expedited hearing to protect limitations date | Held: Majority — trial court did not abuse discretion; plaintiffs’ reliance on medical assurances constituted good cause. |
| Does entry date of court order granting extension control tolling (need order before limitations expiry)? | Castro: statutory text and precedent allow 28‑day toll to run from complaint filing regardless of when court enters order | Defs/dissent: tolling requires a court’s grant before limitations expire; otherwise extension is ineffective | Held: Majority — grant effectuates extension but 28‑day period runs from complaint date; late docketing does not negate the extension if motion filed and AOM filed within 28 days. |
| Procedural duty to request expedited hearing when limitations imminent | Castro: no statutory rule required an express plea for expedition; plaintiffs acted reasonably | Defs: plaintiffs should have requested expedition or emphasized urgency to avoid relying on clerk/court timing | Held: Majority — no rule required such a plea; plaintiffs not faulted for not requesting expedited docketing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Titan Ins Co v. Hyten, 491 Mich 547 (review standard for statutory interpretation and summary disposition)
- Scarsella v. Pollak, 461 Mich 547 (AOM required to commence malpractice action; complaint without AOM insufficient)
- Solowy v. Oakwood Hosp. Corp., 454 Mich 214 (court may grant 28‑day extension for good cause; tolling during that period)
- Ligons v. Crittenton Hosp., 490 Mich 61 (tolling and limits of extensions; complaint must be timely)
- Barlett v. North Ottawa Comm. Hosp., 244 Mich App 685 (extension effective when court grants motion)
- Tyra v. Organ Procurement Agency of Mich, 498 Mich 68 (NOI and timing requirements for commencing malpractice actions)
- Gladych v. New Family Homes, Inc., 468 Mich 594 (limitations and tolling principles relevant to commencement)