Ligons v. Crittenton Hospital
490 Mich. 61
| Mich. | 2011Background
- Ligons underwent a colonoscopy on January 14, 2002, and developed complications leading to death on January 29, 2002.
- Plaintiff, as personal representative, served NOI on June 8, 2005, and supplemental NOI on October 21, 2005.
- Plaintiff filed suit April 7, 2006, with two affidavits of merit (AOMs) attached.
- AOMs contained only limited causation detail; neither stated how the breach proximately caused Ligons’s death.
- Trial court denied summary disposition; Court of Appeals held AOMs deficient and dismissed with prejudice due to tolling and saving-period rules.
- This Court granted leave to address amendment viability under MCR 2.118, Bush v Shabahang, and related statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a defective AOM be amended retroactively? | Ligons argues amendments permitted by MCR 2.118 and Bush apply. | Defects cannot be cured; Kirkaldy requires dismissal with prejudice for defective AOMs. | No; amendments to defective AOMs are not permitted; dismissal with prejudice upheld. |
| Do MCL 600.5856 tolling and the saving provision allow tolling after an untimely AOM? | Saving statute tolls after limitations expire; tolling could permit amendment. | Saving statute does not toll for AOM defects; tolling ends when time runs out. | Saving period cannot toll after limitations expire; dismissal with prejudice required. |
| Did the AOMs comply with MCL 600.2912d(1) (proximate-causation duty)? | AOMs sufficiently described proximate-cause under statute. | AOMs failed to specify how the breach proximately caused the injury. | AOMs were statutorily deficient for failing to describe proximate-cause with required specificity. |
| Should MCL 600.2301 or Bush apply to cure content defects in the AOM? | Both statutes authorize curing defects; Bush allows broader cure. | Statutory framework requires dismissal and does not authorize retroactive cure for AOM defects. | Neither MCL 600.2301 nor Bush authorizes retroactive amendment of an AOM in this context. |
| What is the proper remedy for a defective AOM filed within the saving period? | Remedies other than dismissal with prejudice should be available. | Kirkaldy dictates dismissal without prejudice if AOM is challenged successfully; here tolling expired. | Dismissal with prejudice due to expired tolling and lack of viable amendment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Scarsella v Poliak, 461 Mich 547 (2000) (mandatory AOM with complaint; tolling and invalid AOM consequences)
- Kirkaldy v Rim, 478 Mich 581 (2007) (defective AOM remedy is dismissal; tolling continues until challenged)
- Waltz v Wyse, 469 Mich 642 (2004) (saving statute tolls, not saving period tolling)
- Saffian v Simmons, 477 Mich 8 (2007) (affidavit deemed valid until challenged)
- Bush v Shabahang, 484 Mich 156 (2009) (limits on applying MCL 600.2301 and concerns about good-faith attempts)
- Barnett v Hidalgo, 478 Mich 151 (2007) (AOM treated as separate from pleadings; admissibility considerations)
- Roberts v Mecosta Co Gen Hosp (After Remand), 470 Mich 679 (2004) (no heightened specificity requirement for NOIs; context for AOMs)
- Freer v White, 91 Mich 74 (1892) (attachment affidavits; precedential limits on amendments)
- Boodt v Borgess Med Ctr, 481 Mich 558 (2008) (dissenting view on amendment under MCL 600.2301)