Richard a Krueger v. Spectrum Health Systems
328787
| Mich. Ct. App. | Sep 27, 2016Background
- Richard Krueger was diagnosed with a 3.7 cm abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in March 2007 after referral by his PCP’s referral to a gastroenterologist; PCP Dr. Giovannucci noted "we'll have to keep an eye on it."
- Krueger had annual visits with Dr. Giovannucci or his PA from 2007–2014, and no diagnostic imaging (ultrasound/CT) was ordered to monitor aneurysm size.
- The aneurysm ruptured on April 10, 2014; it measured ~7 cm at rupture.
- Plaintiffs served a notice of intent in November 2014 and filed a medical-malpractice complaint on May 1, 2015, alleging Dr. Giovannucci breached the standard of care by failing to arrange annual diagnostic testing or referral.
- Defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), arguing the alleged omission occurred in March 2007 and the six‑year statute of limitations therefore barred the claim.
- The trial court granted dismissal as time‑barred; the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding plaintiffs alleged discrete annual breaches with an actionable breach as late as February 7, 2014.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the malpractice claim is time‑barred because the act/omission that gave rise to the claim occurred in March 2007 | Krueger: each annual failure to order monitoring constituted a new, discrete breach with a separate accrual date (most recent breach Feb 7, 2014) | Spectrum/Giovannucci: the failure to "arrange" testing occurred in 2007; subsequent visits were mere continuations of that omission and thus part of the same accrual date | Court: pleadings (complaint, NOI, affidavit of merit) reasonably allege an annual duty and discrete annual breaches; most recent breach alleged Feb 7, 2014, so claim was timely |
| Whether plaintiffs’ pleadings gave adequate notice of claims based on discrete annual omissions | Plaintiffs: complaint + NOI + affidavit allege duty to order yearly imaging and breach at each annual visit | Defendants: complaint language can be read as alleging a single 2007 omission only, so notice insufficient to create later accruals | Court: read in plaintiffs’ favor and with the supporting NOI/affidavit, the allegations sufficiently put defendants on notice of annual monitoring duty and annual breaches |
| Whether alleged subsequent failures to test are simply adherence to an initial treatment plan (not new breaches) | Plaintiffs: original diagnosis was correct; breaches occurred later by failing each year to implement monitoring | Defendants: analogous to Kincaid/McKiney — continued adherence to a prior plan is not a new act | Court: distinguishes Kincaid/McKiney — here the initial diagnosis/plan was proper; the later omission to implement monitoring at each visit can amount to separate breaches |
| Whether amendment of the complaint would have been futile | Plaintiffs sought leave to amend to clarify claim was based on annual failures | Defendants: amendment would be futile because duty arose only in 2007 | Court: did not need to decide because it found pleadings sufficient; trial court erred to deem amendment futile based on time‑bar argument |
Key Cases Cited
- Kincaid v. Cardwell, 300 Mich. App. 513 (Mich. Ct. App.) (explains accrual under MCL 600.5838a and permits multiple accrual dates where discrete acts/omissions are pleaded)
- McKiney v. Clayman, 237 Mich. App. 198 (Mich. Ct. App.) (addresses when continued adherence to an initial treatment plan does not create new accruals)
- Stephens v. Worden Ins. Agency, 307 Mich. App. 220 (Mich. Ct. App.) (standard for construing nonmoving party's allegations in C(7) motions)