Estate of Stephen Stiles v. Nasim Yacob Md
332933
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jun 13, 2017Background
- Stephen Stiles, a jail detainee with epilepsy, died after not receiving timely antiseizure medication; medical personnel delayed verification and administration over many hours.
- The estate (initial personal representative Owens, later Esch) sued in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference; plaintiffs later sought leave to add a state-law medical malpractice claim after depositions.
- The federal district court denied leave to amend, citing plaintiff’s delay and that adding the state claim would require substantial additional discovery and prejudice defendants.
- Plaintiff then filed a separate medical malpractice suit in Kent Circuit Court within the wrongful-death/savings statute period; defendants moved to dismiss under MCR 2.116(C)(6) (another action pending involving same claim) and (C)(7) (statute of limitations).
- Defendants argued the federal and state claims were substantially the same (requiring dismissal), but had previously argued in federal court the two claims were different and would confuse a jury.
- The circuit court dismissed the state action under (C)(6) as involving the same operative facts as the federal § 1983 action; the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal under MCR 2.116(C)(6) was proper because a federal § 1983 case was pending | Esch: § 1983 deliberate-indifference and state malpractice are legally distinct; federal court’s denial to amend implies they are different; filing in state court was permissible | Defs: both suits arise from the same incident and operative facts; state suit is duplicative and must be dismissed | Reversed: (C)(6) dismissal improper — malpractice and § 1983 are not "the same claim"; defendants judicially estopped from arguing similarity after taking contrary position in federal court |
| Whether defendants are judicially estopped from asserting the claims are the same | Esch: defendants previously argued in federal court that the claims were different and would confuse the jury, so they should be barred from arguing they are the same now | Defs: no estoppel; efficiency favors consolidation and the operative facts are identical | Held: Judicial estoppel applies — defendants successfully urged federal court that claims were different and cannot now assert they are the same |
| Whether the malpractice claim was time-barred under MCL 600.5852 (wrongful-death savings statute) | Esch: successor personal representative timely filed within two years after issuance of successor letters and within three-year outer limit | Defs: successor PR not entitled to new saving period; statute expired | Held: Timely — Eggleston interpreted to allow successor PR to file within two years after issuance of successor letters and within three-year cap; claim was filed within limits |
| Whether denial in federal court to amend supports dismissal here | Esch: federal court’s rationale (prejudice from added discovery) shows claims are different; federal court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and cited delay | Defs: federal denial reflects prejudice and overlapping operative facts; state suit duplicates federal litigation | Held: Federal denial based on dilatory conduct and prejudice does not make the state malpractice claim identical to § 1983 claim; dismissal for duplicative action was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Paschke v. Retool Indus., 445 Mich. 502 (judicial estoppel/prior success model)
- Edwards v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 690 F.2d 595 (6th Cir.) (purpose and effect of judicial estoppel)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (difference between negligence/medical malpractice and Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference)
- Craig v. Oakwood Hosp., 471 Mich. 67 (elements and statutory codification of medical malpractice standard)
- Robinson v. Detroit, 462 Mich. 439 (interpretation of definite article "the" for statutory construction)
- Eggleston v. Bio-Med Applications of Detroit, Inc., 468 Mich. 29 (application of wrongful-death savings statute to successor personal representative)
- Gibson v. Moskowitz, 523 F.3d 657 (6th Cir.) (parsing objective seriousness and subjective deliberate indifference in § 1983 claims)
- JD Candler Roofing Co., Inc. v. Dickson, 149 Mich. App. 593 (discussed as prior authority on duplicative suits)
- Ross v. Onyx Oil & Gas Corp., 128 Mich. App. 660 (plea of abatement/abuse by repeated suits)
- Chapple v. Nat’l Hardwood Co., 234 Mich. 296 (protection against successive suits)