Estate of Andrew Jackson v. Oakwood Healthcare Inc
332023
Mich. Ct. App.Dec 7, 2017Background
- Decedent Andrew Jackson was hospitalized at Oakwood Annapolis Hospital; Angelina Jackson, as personal representative, sued for medical malpractice.
- Original complaint alleged vicarious liability; it was supported by two affidavits of merit (AOMs) and a statutory notice of intent (NOI).
- After deposing an MRI technician, plaintiff sought leave to file a first amended complaint adding a direct-liability claim against Oakwood for failing to implement rapid-response team policies.
- Plaintiff filed the first amended complaint without serving a new or amended NOI and without filing an additional AOM; Oakwood moved for partial summary disposition to dismiss the new direct-liability claim.
- The trial court dismissed the direct-liability claim without prejudice; plaintiff appealed. While the appeal was pending, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, prompting questions of mootness and the effect of dismissal with or without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the NOI defect required dismissal with prejudice | Jackson argued her original NOI was a good-faith attempt and any defect should be cured under MCL 600.2301 | Oakwood argued the NOI did not cover the new direct-liability claim and dismissal was proper | Vacated trial court NOI ruling and remanded to apply the Bush good-faith/Cure test and related court-rule timeliness issues |
| Whether plaintiff had to file a new AOM with the amended complaint | Jackson argued King v Reed controls and no new AOM was required for an amended complaint | Oakwood argued failure to file a new AOM warranted dismissal of the new claim | Reversed trial court: no new or amended AOM required under MCL 600.2912d(1) per King |
| Mootness of Oakwood’s cross-appeal regarding leave to amend | Jackson argued that subsequent filing of a second amended complaint rendered the challenge moot | Oakwood argued the amendment was improper and merits review | Court held the cross-appeal issue moot because the first amended complaint was superseded by the second amended complaint |
| Timeliness and procedural vehicle for challenging NOI | Jackson argued Oakwood’s challenge was untimely and must comply with MCR 2.112(L)(2)(a) | Oakwood raised the NOI defect in a motion for summary disposition after answering | Court declined to resolve on appeal; remanded for trial court to consider whether Oakwood’s challenge was timely and appropriate under the court rules |
Key Cases Cited
- Bush v. Shabahang, 484 Mich. 156 (2009) (establishes good-faith test and use of MCL 600.2301 to cure NOI defects)
- Potter v. McLeary, 484 Mich. 397 (2009) (clarifies Potter I was reversed; trial court improperly relied on Potter I language)
- King v. Reed, 278 Mich. App. 504 (2008) (holding MCL 600.2912d(1) does not require filing a new affidavit of merit with an amended complaint)
- Gulley-Reaves v. Baciewicz, 260 Mich. App. 478 (2004) (interpreting NOI scope prior to Bush; supports finding NOI deficiency)