Mark Zanecki v. Health Alliance Plan of Detroit
576 F. App'x 594
6th Cir.2014Background
- Richard M. Zanecki's estate sued several IRBs and medical personnel, including a § 1983 claim arising from the Wingspan Stent procedure and use.
- District court dismissed all but the § 1983 claim and ultimately dismissed the case on statute-of-limitations grounds.
- Under Michigan law, a three-year SOL applies; accrual for § 1983 claims occurs when the plaintiff knows or should know of the injury and its cause.
- The district court held accrual occurred by October/December 2007, when the stent's role in death was known, triggering SOL.
- Mark Zanecki sought relief from judgment, arguing unauthorized practice of law by the estate's lay representative; the district court denied relief.
- This court affirmatively addresses both the SOL issue and the representation issue, concluding the SOL bars the claim but unusual circumstances permit consideration of the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| accrual and statute of limitations | Zanecki argues accrual should be later; the claim not time-barred. | Court correctly found accrual when the stent's impact was known (Oct/Dec 2007), triggering the three-year SOL. | SOL bars the § 1983 claim. |
| proper accrual date under Section 1983 | Notice of potential causation could be later than death. | Plaintiff was on notice that the stent could cause death once information about the stent and its use was obtained. | Accrual occurred by late 2007; suit barred. |
| pro se representation of a party by a non-lawyer | Estate was improperly represented by Mark Zanecki; should have been dismissed for unauthorized practice. | Proceedings and representation were improper; counsel should have been involved. | Non-lawyer representation was improper; the unusual posture allows reaching a merits discussion here. |
| disposition for unauthorized practice and dismissal without prejudice | Court should dismiss without prejudice due to unauthorized practice. | In light of new counsel and waiver of the issue, merits may be reached. | Unusual circumstances permit addressing the merits despite the improper representation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harrison v. Michigan, 722 F.3d 768 (6th Cir. 2013) (state law governs statute-of-limitations; accrual is a federal question)
- Collyer v. Darling, 98 F.3d 211 (6th Cir. 1996) (accrual occurs when plaintiff knows or has reason to know)
- Shenkman v. Bragman, 682 N.W.2d 516 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004) (prohibition on non-party representation by a pro se litigant)
- Cavanaugh ex rel. Cavanaugh v. Cardinal Local Sch. Dist., 409 F.3d 753 (6th Cir. 2005) (nonlawyer cannot represent another's interests in federal court)
- Shepherd v. Wellman, 313 F.3d 963 (6th Cir. 2002) (pro se representation rules for litigants)
- Georgakis v. Ill. State Univ., 722 F.3d 1075 (7th Cir. 2013) (courts address unauthorized practice in unusual circumstances)
- C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1987) (duty to prevent unauthorized practice of law in federal proceedings)