ON REMAND
In these consolidated appeals, defendants appealed by leave granted orders in this medical malpractice action denying their motions for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7). Previously, a majority of this Court reversed, holding that plaintiffs complaint should be dismissed with prejudice because the attached affidavits of merit did not conform to the requirements of MCL 600.2912d.
Potter v McLeary,
As noted in our previous opinion, the alleged malpractice took place on June 7, 2001. The period of limitations in medical malpractice cases is two years from the date the claim accrued. MCL 600.5805(6). Presuming the notice of intent was sufficient, the running of the period of limitations would have been tolled for 182 days from the date of the notice. MCL *282 600.2912b(l). A notice of intent was sent to defendants Huron Valley Radiology, P.C., and Kristyn H. Murry, M.D., on May 30, 2003, leaving eight days remaining before the period of limitations expired. A notice of intent was sent to defendants St. Joseph Mercy Hospital Ann Arbor, Robert Domeier, D.O., and Emergency Physicians Medical Group, P.C., on May 13, 2003, leaving 25 days before the period of limitations expired. The notices tolled the running of the limitations periods, which recommenced on November 30, 2003, and on November 13, 2003, respectively. The limitations period expired on December 8, 2003, for all defendants. Plaintiffs complaint was filed on November 4, 2003.
There was no serious dispute in our prior decision that the affidavits of merit were fatally defective because they failed to state how the physicians’ alleged failures related to plaintiffs alleged injuries, so they did not contain the required statement of proximate cause. See MCL 600.2912d. No conforming affidavits of merit were filed by December 8, 2003. A majority of this Court previously determined that plaintiff had therefore not filed an affidavit of merit at all, pursuant to
Geralds v Munson Healthcare,
After this Court’s previous decision, our Supreme Court overruled
Geralds
and
Mouradian
as having misapplied the case of
Scarsella v Pollak,
Our Supreme Court’s partial reversal in this case was based on its decision in Kirkaldy. As applied to the case at bar, plaintiffs complaint, filed with the affidavits of merit, tolled the running of the limitations period. Because we conclude that those affidavits of merit did not conform to the requirements of MCL 600.2912b, the proper remedy is for the trial court to dismiss plaintiffs complaint without prejudice. Plaintiff may then file a new complaint with conforming affidavits of merit within the time remaining in the limitations period.
Because we declined to do so previously, we must address defendants Murry’s and Huron Valley Radiology’s challenges to the sufficiency of the notices of intent sent to them. 1 Murry and Huron Valley Radiology first *284 argue that the notice does not properly state the applicable standard of practice or care as required by MCL 600.2912b(4)(b). We agree, in part. The second paragraph of plaintiffs notice sets forth the following standard of care:
The standard of care required Drs. Murry and/or [Gary] Augustyn and/or [Richard C.] McLeary to correctly read, interpret and report the correct results to the emergency room under the circumstances. Notwithstanding that standard of care, Drs. Murry and/or Augustyn and/or McLeary failed to properly interpret the MRI images and convey accurate information to the emergency room physician in charge of the patient that night.
The standard of care completely fails to make any reference to defendant Huron Valley Radiology. Our Supreme Court has explained that plaintiff is not obligated to provide a completely correct standard of care, but “plaintiff was required to make a good-faith averment of
some
particularized standard for each of the professionals and facilities named in the notices.”
Roberts v Mecosta Co Gen Hosp (After Remand),
Murry additionally argues that the notice of intent failed to set forth the manner in which he allegedly breached the standard of care, as required by MCL 600.2912b(4)(c). We disagree. The third paragraph of plaintiffs notice of intent states that Murry “failed to properly interpret and report back the true and correct results of the MRI that was performed at St. Joseph Mercy Hospital on June 7, 2001.” The only statutory requirement is that the notice contain “ ‘a statement’ of each of the enumerated categories of information,” not that it “be in any particular format.” Roberts, supra at 696. We find the allegations adequate here.
Murry next argues that the notice of intent failed to state what actions should have been taken to avoid the breach, as required by MCL 600.2912b(4)(d). We disagree. As was the case in Roberts, this portion of the notice of intent contains only a reference back to an earlier paragraph. Unlike in Roberts, however, no guesswork is necessary to determine what action was required of Murry to comply with the standard of care. Plaintiff has clearly set forth an applicable standard of care and a specific omission that allegedly breached the standard. It necessarily follows that the “particular action that any defendant should have taken in order to achieve compliance with the standard of care” is the specific act defendant failed to do. Roberts, supra at 698. As previously discussed, plaintiff clearly alleged that Murry “failed to properly interpret the MRI images and convey accurate information to the emergency room physician in charge of the patient that night.” To comply with the standard of care, Murry should have properly interpreted the MRI images and conveyed accurate information to the emergency room physician.
*286 Because no other challenges to the notices of intent are raised, we will not consider them further. Therefore, the trial court properly denied summary disposition on the basis of the notices of intent to all defendants other than Huron Valley Radiology. With regard to Huron Valley Radiology, we believe that our Supreme Court’s treatment of deficient — but actually filed — affidavits of merit should, by analogy, be applied to deficient — but again actually filed — notices of intent, as well. See Kirkaldy, supra at 586. Notices of intent are presumed to be valid and proper, so they support the filing of a complaint after the notice period has run, unless and until the notice is successfully challenged. The remedy to be applied if a notice is successfully challenged is dismissal without prejudice, affording the plaintiff the opportunity to cure the deficiency within the time remaining within the limitations period as theretofore tolled by the now-invalidated notice or the subsequent filing of the complaint.
We hold as follows: summary disposition is granted without prejudice to Huron Valley Radiology on the basis of the notice of intent, summary disposition is denied to all other defendants on the basis of the notices of intent, and summary disposition is granted without prejudice to all defendants on the basis of the affidavits of merit. The applicable limitations periods remain tolled until entry of the grants of summary disposition. We remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
Notes
Defendant St. Joseph Mercy Hospital joined in this challenge hut has been dismissed by stipulation. The remaining defendants do not chai *284 lenge their notices of intent, and we lack a sufficient record to assess their adequacy in any event. Thus, we presume the remaining notices were sufficient.