Rusha v. Department of Corrections
859 N.W.2d 735
Mich. Ct. App.2014Background
- Plaintiff (Rusha) alleged DOC policy and its PPPM capitation method caused prison medical contractors to deny treatment for his multiple sclerosis, worsening his condition and constituting cruel or unusual punishment under Const 1963, art 1, § 16.
- He was incarcerated Oct 20, 2010; had prior MS diagnosis and doctor-ordered medication; prison doctors refused treatment under DOC criteria; symptoms worsened and he was later wheelchair-bound; released Aug 28, 2012.
- Plaintiff filed a single-count Court of Claims complaint for damages alleging a constitutional tort within about a year after release, but did not file the six-month notice of intent required by MCL 600.6431(3) for personal-injury claims against the State.
- DOC moved for summary disposition arguing the statutory six-month notice bar applied and plaintiff’s failure to comply required dismissal; plaintiff argued constitutional claims are exempt and alternatively invoked continuing violation.
- The Court of Claims denied DOC’s motion, reasoning constitutional torts are not subject to the Act’s notice requirements; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding MCL 600.6431(3) applies to constitutional torts and plaintiff’s failure to give notice is dispositive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 600.6431(3)’s six-month notice requirement applies to a constitutional tort alleging cruel or unusual punishment | Mclane (plaintiff) argued constitutional torts are exempt from statutory notice because the Constitution supersedes statute; alternatively, the violation was continuing so the claim was timely | DOC argued § 6431(3) is a procedural condition precedent that applies to personal-injury claims against the state, including constitutional torts, and plaintiff failed to give timely notice | The court held § 600.6431(3) applies to constitutional torts; the six-month notice is a reasonable procedural requirement and plaintiff’s failure to comply requires dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Dep’t of Pub. Health, 428 Mich 540 (recognized a damages action premised on a state constitutional provision for governmental policy/custom)
- McCahan v. Brennan, 492 Mich 730 (statutory notice is a condition precedent to sue the state; strict compliance required)
- Fane v. Detroit Library Comm’n, 465 Mich 68 (standard of review for C(7) dismissal)
- Taxpayers Allied for Constitutional Taxation v. Wayne Co., 450 Mich 119 (Legislature may impose reasonable procedural requirements on constitutional claims)
- Durant v. Dep’t of Education, 186 Mich App 83 (legislation may supplement self-executing constitutional provisions with reasonable procedures)
- Rowland v. Washtenaw County Rd Comm’n, 477 Mich 197 (procedural deadlines do not abrogate substantive constitutional rights)