Roberts v. Mecosta County General Hospital

(Aft 679 Mecosta Co Gen v v MECOSTACOUNTY ROBERTS (AFTER REMAND) GENERAL HOSPITAL (Cal- 122312, 122335, Argued December 2003 Docket Nos. 5). July 21, 2004. endar No. Decided malpractice brought action in the Mecosta a medical Lisa Roberts Hospital against County and General Circuit Court Mecosta Root, J., court, caregivers. The trial Lawrence C. several medical defendants, determining granted summary disposition for the required by MCR 600.2912b were of intent to file suit the notices EJ., Appeals, inadequate. and Gribbs and The Court of Sawyer, JJ., remanded, plain- concluding and that a reversed McDonald, by noncompliance a defendant who tiffs with 2912b is waived App objection filing complaint. of the 240 Mich raises no before (2000). challenge Supreme that the The Court determined 175 sufficiency had been and it remanded of the notices waived proper Appeals determine whether the case to the Court of (2002). given by plaintiff. Mich 57 The notice had been JJ., EJ., Appeals, and O’Connell and Smolensk, Court of Sawyer, remand, bring malpractice a on held that the notices of intent to strictly case, picture clarity, complied action in this while not by alleging requirements of the statute the six items 600.2912b(4). (2002). App Mich The enumerated in MCL appealed, claiming that the notices of intent were not defendants sufficiently detailed. opinion joined In Chief Justice Corri- an Justice Young, by Supreme Court held-. and Justices Taylor gan, Markman, Although the notices of intent indicated that result, medical the notices did not connect that suffered an adverse any way any meaningful with the conduct of defendant result adequately statutory and failed otherwise to meet the requirements. judgments granting trial disclosure of the court summary disposition for the defendants are reinstated. 600.2912b(4) categories of informa- 1. MCR enumerates necessary tion to be included in the notices of intent served on of a defendants. The notices contain no statement any specificallyapplicable particular or care standard of defendants, professional corpo- hospital, included a which ration, obstetrician, emergency physician, room an 470 Mich 679 600.2912b(4)(b). physician’s Similarly, assistant. MCL there is no missing statement of how the standards of or care were breached, 600.2912b(4)(c); MCL no statement of what actions compliance should appropri- have been taken to achieve care, 600.2912b(4)(d); ate standard of and no statement of how the proximate conduct of each defendant constituted the 600.2912b(4)(e). plaintiffs injury, cause of the claimed MCL particular 2. There is no one format which a claimant must required by 600.2912b(4), set forth the information but the specifically information must be identified in an ascertainable manner relating within the notice. Some of the details to the particulars may during in the litigation notice of intent evolve the process, good-faith but the claimant is to make averments provide responsive details that are to the information the requires statute particularized be disclosed and that are as as is early notice, prediscovery consistent stage proceed- with the ings. Reversed; judgments summary disposition circuit court for the defendants reinstated. joined by Justice Cavanagh Justices dis- Kelly, Weaver, 600.2912b(4) senting, requires stated that MCL that the notice of provide only intent sufficient information a claim about that a may defendant investigate ascertain and its basis and determine whether to discuss its settlement. The statements in the notices of provided by intent to sue in this case satisfied the 600.2912b(4) requirements of MCL because addressed each of statutorily they provided adequate enumerated items and notice to the They provided defendants of the claims. enough investigate information to allow the defendants to basis for the claims and consider settlement. judgment Appeals of the Court of should be affirmed. Negligence — — Malpractice Medical Notice of Intent to File Claim. bring

A malpractice notice of intent to a medical action must include a statement claim, the claimant of the factual basis for the alleged by claimant, standard of or care manner in which it is claimed that the standard of breached, or care was action that should have comply alleged standard, been taken to the manner in which it proximate is claimed that the breach was the cause of the injury notice, claimed in profes- and the names of all health sionals and notifying; health facilities the claimant is the claimant good-faith must provide make averments that details that are responsive foregoing requirements to the particu- and that are as (Aft Mecosta Co Gen v Opinion of the Court stage proceed- early as is consistent with larized must set forth with ings; the notice intent he the information put degree specificity the defendants on notice as that will 600.2912b[4]). (MCL against the claim them the nature of Granzotto, (by Mark and Mark P.C. J. Nicita Angela Granzotto), the plaintiff. for A. Burnhe- & P.C. Mark Company,

Burnheimer (by Atkins, imer), L. M.D. defendant Michael for (by Jon D. Vander Roegge Smith Rice & Haughey Hospital. General County for Mecosta Ploeg) defendant Cotant, Menkes, Moyer), Kerr L. P.C. Bensinger, (by M.D., Davis, DesNoyers, A. Barb for Gail defendants Big Rapids, EC. Gynecology and Obstetrics & Amicus Curiae: Weber,

Kerr, PLC Richard D. Weber Russell and (by Swanson), for Medical and Joanne Geha Michigan State Society.

Young, J.

INTRODUCTION us for the malpractice cáse is before This medical Hosp, Co time. In Roberts v Mecosta Gen second (Roberts (2002) I), held 57; we Mich 642 NW2d 663 limitations not be tolled under MCL the could statute 600.5856(d) given compliance was with unless notice 600.2912b, § and that 2912b provisions all the object defendants to the imposed no on requirement filing notices of intent before the sufficiency of plaintiffs the had not Appeals Because Court complaint. trial court’s conclusion addressed the 2912b, § did we comply of intent notices 470 Mich 679 Opinion of the Court remanded the to that proceed- matter Court for further remand, On ings. Appeals the Court of held that plain- tiffs strictly complied notices intent with the provi- § sions of 2912b.

We conclude that plaintiffs notices of intent are respects that, therefore, deficient in several the 5856(d). statute limitations was not tolled under 600.2912b(4) unambiguous language of MCL re- quires malpractice plaintiff medical include in her (1) notice of intent a statement of the factual basis for (2) claim, the applicable standard of or care (3) alleged by claimant, the manner in which it is claimed that applicable standard of or (4) breached, alleged action that should have (5) been standard, taken to comply manner in which it is claimed that the breach was the proximate cause of injury notice, claimed in the (6) the names of all professionals and facilities the notifying. claimant is Although the intent this case wholly are not regard deficient with requirements, they above are not in nonetheless full compliance §with 2912b because fail to properly allegations forth set regarding the of practice or care applicable defendant, to each allegations named regarding manner which it was claimed that defendants breached the standards of prac- or care, tice the alleged actions defendants should have taken order satisfy standards, allegations of the manner in which defendants’ breaches of standards proximate constituted the cause of plaintiffs injury.

Because plaintiff fully did not comply with the un- ambiguous requirements §of 2912b(4), we reverse the decision of the Court Appeals of and we reinstate the (Apt Mecosta Co Gen v of Court defendants’ mo- granting trial court judgments disposition. summary for tions HISTORY FACTS PROCEDURAL I. AND in our following recitation facts forth the We set prior opinion: pregnant sought treatment because and

Plaintiff was pain She experiencing in her abdomen. was she was severe having spontaneous and a diagnosed as suffered a abortion curettage] performed. Plaintiff and was [dilation D & C actually alleges that later discovered that she had it was ectopic pregnancy, spontane- suffering from an been abortion, fallopian left had burst. and that her tube ous plaintiffs Emergency surgery performed to remove fallopian claims that as a result of the left tube. Plaintiff longer operation, because she can no bear children second right fallopian previously tube been had removed. her pursue malpractice claim, a medical

Plaintiff decided misdiagnosed alleging her condition and that defendants unnecessary operation. subsequently performed an Plaintiff a notice of intent on defendant Mecosta served 19, 1996, County Hospital September and on on General remaining September Serving the. defendants on (1) attempt plaintiffs constituted to meet these notices requirements malpractice pre- for medical actions (2) by toll scribed MCL 600.2912b the statute 600.5856(d). pursuant to limitations waiting period required After the under MCL 600.2912b complaint. Thereafter, passed, plaintiff defen- had filed summary disposition. filed for dants motions Defendants alia, argued, inter claims were barred failed statute limitations because intent comply requirements outlined in MCL 600.2912b(4). plain- Specifically,defendants asserted that sufficiently care, tiffs notices failed state breached, manner the action in which the standard was taken, proximate cause the defendants should have that, injury. position since Defendants advanced the 684 470 Mich 679 Opinion of the Court insufficient, period the notices were the of limitation was 600.5856(d) not tolled under MCL and had therefore ex- pired. granted summary The trial court the for motions disposition. remanded, holding Appeals

The Court of and reversed ability challenge that defendants had waived their plaintiffs comply requirements failure the notice objections because did their not raise before the time I, complaint supra [Roberts the was filed .... at 59-61.] This Court the reversed decision of the Court of (1) Appeals, holding that the statute of limitations was not tolled unless given all compliance with (2) provisions 2912b, § of § that imposed 2912b no on duty challenge any defendants to in the deficiencies (3) notices of filed, intent before the complaint was and that defendants were not required to assert statute of limitations defense to challenge sufficiency the notices of intent until plaintiff after filed suit. I, “expressed] Roberts We no supra. opinion concerning plaintiffs compliance or noncompliance with MCL 600.2912b, an issue that the Court of Appeals declined to answer.” Id. at 71 n 8. We remanded the matter to the Court of Appeals to address issue. at this Id. remand,

On Court held Appeals plaintiffs that strictly notices of intent complied with the require- ments of 664, 666; 2912b.1 252 Mich App NW2d (2002). The panel opined that s plaintiff notices intent set forth factual proper basis for her claim and sufficient, accurate, if even allegation as to the applicable standard of practice or care. Id. 667-670. panel that, The further concluded by reference to the claim, recitations of the factual basis for the notices of intent set forth the manner in which it was claimed panel argument The declined to address alternative that 2912b(4) substantially complied her notices §with that substantial compliance was sufficient. (Aft Co Gen v Mecosta Court breached, the of care were standards that taken, have been actions should the breaches it was manner in which s cause proximate care were the standards likewise concluded injury. panel all professionals the names of health forth properly set in relation to plaintiff notified and facilities that claim.

II. STANDARDOF REVIEW statutory interpreta- questions This case involves I, at 62. tion, supra de novo. Roberts which are reviewed summary disposi- grant trial review the court’s We de Id. tion novo.

III. ANALYSIS A. RELEVANTSTATUTES 600.2912b(l)2 malpractice medical precludes MCL pro- a health commencing against suit claimant from is written notice facility or health unless fessional facility or before professional to that provided no- the written providing commenced. After action is the applicable is to wait for tice, required the claimant filing pass before suit.3 period notice 600.2912b(l) provides: MCL section, person provided in shall not Except this as otherwise against malpractice alleging medical health an action commence given facility person has professional health unless the or facility professional notice under this or health written health days commenced. before the action is section not less than 182 [Emphasis supplied.] days may generally an action for 182 not commence The claimant general Exceptions are set providing to this rule the notice of intent. after Mich 679 Opinion of the Court

The two-year period of limitation for medical mal- is practice during period actions tolled the notice “after date is given compliance notice with section 600.5856(d) Thus, (emphasis 2912b.” MCL supplied). 5856(d), period § order to toll the limitation under claimant all required comply with the require- I, ments of supra 2912b. Roberts at 64. 600.2912b(4) topics enumerates the specific that the claimant is address written notice intent: given professional

The to a health or health facility under this section shall contain a statement atof following: all least

(a) The factual basis for the claim.

(b) practice by The alleged standard of care or the claimant.

(c) The manner which isit claimed that the practice standard of or care was breached the health professional facility. or health

(d) alleged action that should been have taken compliance achieve standard or care.

(e) The manner in which it the breach of the proximate cause of the injury claimed in the notice.

(f) professionals The names of all health and health notifying facilities the claimant is this under section [Emphasis supplied.] relation to the claim. 600.2912b(3) (providing forth in MCL that under certain circumstances 600.2912b(8) 182-day period days), notice is shortened to 91 MCL (providing may days that the claimant file an if action after 154 no response contemplated by 600.2912b[7]), to the notice received as 600.2912b(9) (permitting and MCL the claimant to file the action immediately if, any applicable during period, time notice facility professional or named in notice informs the claimant facility writing professional that the does not intend to claim settle the applicable period). within the notice (Aft Co Gen v Mecosta Court statutory backdrop unambiguous this against It is adequacy must determine the we intent. OF DO NOT INTENT

B. PLAINTIFF’S NOTICES 2912B(4) COMPLY WITH of intent following Plaintiff provided Hospital: General County Mecosta defendant BASIS FOR CLAIM FACTUAL on negligence which occurred October claim for This is a 4, County Hospital. It is claimed 1994, General at Mecosta child, first pregnant that on date while said County General presented Claimant herself Mecosta diag- Hospital pain. that time a complaining of severe At Da spontaneous was made and and C nosis of a abortion performed. sent home at time. was Claimant was days few Claimant contin- course of the next Over the 7, and, pain cramping on October experience ued to County Hospital. again General seen at Mecosta was pain experiencing told that the she was was Claimant was cramps the D had done and was sent home. from and C she 8, 1994, hospital October

Claimant returned to the on had not had a wherein it was discovered that Claimant spontaneous ectopic pregnancy in her abortion but had Emergency surgery per- had left tube which burst. that time and her left tube was removed. formed at approximately right had her ten Claimant tube removed above, and, negligence forth years ago as a set result of unable to children. she now have ALLEGED APPLICABLE STANDARD OF PRACTICE OR CARE 2. THE care that the standard of

Claimant contends County Hospital provide Mecosta General qualified competent, the claimant with the services interns, residents, physicians, nurses and licensed staff of her, competent for render employees properly other in the care and treatment her case advice and assistance and to render same accordance care. standard of

688 470 MICH679 Opinion Court 3. THE WHICH IS CONTENDED APPLICABLE IN IT THE MANNER THAT STANDARD OF CARE WAS BREACHED above.[4] 2 paragraph

See 4. THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE TO ACHIEVE COMPLI- THAT BEEN TAKEN WITH ANCE STANDARD OF PRACTICE OR CARE THE paragraph See above. 5. WHICH BREACH WAS PROXIMATE CAUSE THE IN MANNER THE THE OF CLAIMED INJURY paragraph

See above. 6. NAMES OF FACILITIES HEALTH PROFESSIONALS, ENTITIES, AND NOTIFIED County Mecosta Hospital agents General all and and employees, ostensible, actual thereof. Plaintiff subsequently provided following (Obstetrics of intent to the remaining defendants & Gynecology Big EC.; Rapids, DesNoyers, Gail obstetrician, Davis, RA.C., and Barb physician’s assis- tant, both whom were affiliated the professional corporation; Atkins, and M.D., Michael a physician who room): treated at the hospital’s emergency FACTUAL FOR BASIS CLAIM 1. negligence This is a claim for which occurred on October 4, 1994, Gynecology Big Rapids. Obstetrics & It is date, claimed pregnant that on said while with her first child, presented Davis, PAC, Claimant herself to Barb Dr. Atkins, DesNoyers Michael and Dr. complaining Gail pain bleeding. severe abdominal diagnosis At that time a spontaneous of a abortion was made a D & C was performed County Hospital. at Mecosta General Claimant time, despite DesNoyer’s was sent home at that Dr. [sic] knowledge history prior ectopic of Claimant’s preg- nancy. paragraph are Plaintiff typographical contends errors, and that references should “paragraph be viewed 2” in the notice as referring (Aft v Co Gen Roberts Mecosta Court days, Claimant contin-

Over the course of next few and, 7, cramping pain and on October experience ued to 1994, County Hospital by Dr. General was seen Mecosta pain was Claimant was told that the she Michael Atkins. cramps D & had done and experiencing was from the C she sent home. was 1994, hospital on

Claimant returned to October Claimant had not had it was discovered that wherein ectopic pregnancy in her spontaneous abortion but had surgery Emergency per- was left tube which had burst. her that time and left tube was removed. formed at right approximately ten had tube removed Claimant her above, negligence years ago and, of forth as result set any have children. she is now unable to 2. THE PRACTICE CARE APPLICABLE STANDARD OF OR ALLEGED applicable care Claimant contends that the standard of Big Gynecology Rapids, & Dr. that Obstetrics of Davis, PAC, DesNoyers provide the Barb Claimant Gail and competent, qualified services and licensed staff residents, interns, physicians, employees and other nurses her, properly competent advice and for render and to assistance in the care and treatment of case applicable standard of render same accordance with care. 3. THE MANNER IN IS WHICH CONTENDED APPLICABLE IT THE THAT CARE BREACHED

STANDARD OF PRACTICE OR WAS Big Gynecology & Claimant claims Obstetrics Davis, DesNoyers PAC, Rapids, Barb failed to Dr. Gail and provide standard of her with the paragraph 2 above. care outlined 4. HAVE TO ACHIEVE COMPLI- ACTION SHOULD BEEN TAKEN THE THAT STANDARD OF PRACTICE OR CARE ANCE WITH THE paragraph

See 2 above. 5. THE MANNER BREACH WAS PROXIMATE CAUSE WHICH IN THE THE OF CLAIMED INJURY paragraph

See 2 above. 470 Mich 679 Court OF NAMES FACILITIES HEALTH PROFESSIONALS, ENTITIES, AND

NOTIFIED Gynecology Big Rapids, DesNoyers,

Obstetrics & Gail M.D., Davis, M.D., Atkins, PAC, Michael Barb and all agents ostensible, employees, actual thereof. primarily Plaintiffs notices of intent set forth facts demonstrating an unfavorable outcome—the fact that ectopic pregnancy rup- had suffered an and a diagnosed by tured “left tube” that not defendants. Although satisfy requirements the notices some of the satisfy requirements. 2912b, do of those all (1) Missing from the notices are a statement of the particular standard of or care (2) regard- defendants, each of the various statements ing the claimed manner in which it was that defendants (3) the care, breached standards of or alleging statements the actions that should have been (4) regarding defendants, taken statements the manner in which defendants’ breaches of the standards of or care were to have constituted the plaintiffs proximate injury. cause of 600.2912b(4)(a): 1. MCL FACTUAL BASIS agree Appeals We of Court that the notices generally intent, which describe the led events that to plaintiffs alleged injury, properly set out the factual plaintiffs for basis claim. 600.2912b(4)(b):

2. MCL STANDARD OF PRACTICE OR CARE Appeals panel The Court of declined to find fault plaintiffs with care, statements the standard of (1) noting authority that “defendants direct tous no establish the stated incorrect, standard of care is REM) (AFT HOSP MECOSTA CO GEN ROBERTS V the Court the proper believe is they us to what nor do direct (2) does not care,” statute “[t]he standard correctly or state accurately that the claimant require notice it to be care nor does declare the standard of stating if is incorrect inadequate App 252 Mich of care.” standard it is point, to the first respect panel’s With and, § 2912b compliance burden to establish of the notice turn, application to establish entitlement 5856(d). I, at 64. supra See tolling provision, acknowl- panel’s point, second we respect to With is earliest edge provided intent Indeed, the proceeding. stage malpractice a medical action can even be provided notice must be before stage, discovery as contem- At the notice commenced. et has not rules, seg., our MCR 2.300 court plated likely that the claimant has commenced, and it is been to the records provided access yet been in the notice.5 It named professional facility or plaintiffs aver- reasonably anticipatable that therefore prove to be may as to the ments discovery; formal following “inaccurate” or erroneous alleged standard of moreover, it probable light of In disputed by be defendants.6 care will circumstances, is not the claimant these However, what is with omniscience.7 craft her notice 600.2912b(5) facility receiving professional (requiring the See MCL related to all medical records notice to allow the claimant access days professional facility or within 56 are in control of the claim that the notice). receipt of after 6 hotly Indeed, practice often a applicable standard of or care is action, opposing expert disputed malpractice and matter in a medical particular likely disagree regarding to standard are to witnesses be held. which a defendant should 7 particular only forth requires the claimant set statute The care, breach, allegations regarding applicable standard of claims and 470 MICH 679 Court required that the good-faith is claimant make a effort to the specific aver standard of care that she is to claiming applicable particular professional facility be to each or e.8 in that is named the notic

Here, several different medical al- caregivers were leged to have engaged Yet, medical malpractice. rather than an stating alleged practice standard or care for each of the various defendants—a a hospital, professional corporation, obstetrician, an a physician’s assistant, and emergency an room physician— plaintiffs notices of intent allege an identical statement applicable to all response defendants9 2912b(4)(b): applicable

[T]he standard of care [the hospital, EC., Desnoyers, provide Davis] the Claim- ant competent, qualified services and licensed residents, interns, physicians, staff of nurses and other employees properly her, competent care for render Accordingly, etc. allegations good while the claimant must set forth faith, responsive posed in a specific queries by maimer that is to the statute, enough potential and with detail to allow the defendants to impending malpractice action, understand the claimed basis of the required ultimately prove claimant is not that her are statements legal “correct” in the sense. phrase practice The “standard of or care” a term of art malpractice context, unique applicable particular and the ato malpractice defendant of a is an element medical claim that be must proven. Mgrs, of Hosp 10; Cox v Flint Bd 467 Mich (2002). governed NW2d standard is either statute (see, example, 600.2912a[l], for particular which sets forth the proofs malpractice plaintiff present respect that a must with practice care,” depending defendant’s “standard of or on whether the general practitioner specialist) or, defendant is a aor in the absence of statutory standard, by Cox, 5,20. supra the common law. The standard applicable, example, surgeon care or that is for to a would likely given differ in set of circumstances from the standard ob/gyn to or to a nurse. 9 Notably, no statement of an standard of provided respect Atkins, emergency to defendant room doctor. (Aft Mecosta Co Gen 2004] Roberts v op the Court her case in the care and treatment of and advice assistance applicable in accordance with and to render same standard of care. the professional to and respect hospital

With a standard allege statement does not corporation, this cor- or hospital professional to a specifically applicable profes- healthcare to other opposed any as poration to Moreover, fails facility. this statement sional or that these defen- plaintiff alleging indicate whether to Al- directly or liable her.10 vicariously dants were is that she plaintiffs complaint it from though appears corpo- claiming hospital professional and the for the of their vicariously negligence ration are liable plaintiff implied of intent agents, notices for these defendants alleged negligence against direct privi- staff hiring negligently granting or negligently Thus, plaintiffs leges to the individual defendants. applicable specifically neither standard as ad- facilities, to defendant nor did serve plaintiff planned to defendants that equate notice these liability theory trial. proceed to under vicarious of care that plaintiffs alleged The section of standard defendants Des- appears be relevant individual Noyers and Davis states that [they] required that... care and competent

render advice and assistance and render in accordance treatment case same standard of care. statutory Thus, query, to the “What response by the or or care applicable standard claimant?”, essentially part: has answered 1) (“A Cox, directly hospital may for supra at 11 he hable See physi through negligence supervision malpractice, of staff claims 2) vicariously staff, as cians selection and retention medical as well agents.”). neghgence of its hable for 470 Mich 679 Opinion of the Court required “The standard of care adhere defendants to the standard of care.” this Obviously, statement tautological and unresponsive, it cannot be viewed 2912b(4)(b). minimally compliant as The alleged standard also DesNoyers observes that defendants Davis were care for” “properly plaintiff and to “render advice and competent assistance.” Such averments, general however, adequately are not respon- to statutory requirement sive the the claimant allege applicable standard of rel- practice or care evant to the defendant.11

Again, plaintiff was not to required provide' a state- ment of standards of care or practice might ultimately proven, trial, be after discovery and to be However, correct and accurate in every respect. plaintiff required good-faith to make a averment of some particularized standard for each of the professionals and facilities named in the notices.12 We conclude 2912b(4) argues § Legislature The dissent that nowhere in does the require plaintiff allege applicable specifically” that a a “standard to each and, therefore, defendant neither should this Court. Post 712. How ever, explained phrase practice as in n the “standard of or care” is a every term of art. Proof of the standard of care is medical malpractice lawsuit, Legislature require and the plaintiff has to a chosen to address standard proper of care issues in the notice of intent. Under a understanding term, applicable of this the standard to one defendant necessarily applicable not the same standard to another defendant. See Cox, supra Thus, attempting nothing at 10. we are to do more than 2912b(4)(b)—that interpret Legislature’s requirement § provide regarding applicable “statement” “standard of or alleged. care” explication We note that in some cases the burden of under 2912b(4)(b) § example, allegations physician bewill minimal. For wrong tooth, amputated limb, wrong has extracted or left a surgical patient’s body cavity give instrument embedded in a rise would only slight ato burden of articulation the standard of care under (4)(b). § 2912b Under such it circumstances would be obvious a casual require physician that the observer standard care would to extract tooth, amputate limb, properly the correct the correct account all for (Aet v Mecosta Co Gen Court 2912b(4)(b) comply with notices fail

that plaintiffs’ to each defendant. respect 600.2912b(4)(c): BREACH a claim- 2912b(4)(c), requires §to which response In is claimed that manner which it state “[t]he ant to or care was standard to the states “See breached,” hospital remain- provided 2 above.” The notice paragraph ing defendants13 states: Big Gynecology of & claims that Obstetrics

Claimant Davis, PAC, DesNoyers failed to and Barb Rapids, Dr. Gail practice and provide with the paragraph outlined in above. held that the notices panel of Appeals The Court 2912b(4)(c): §with complied paragraphs two and only If we look statements notices, comply arguably do three respect defen- statute, to the individual particularly with However, requires that the nothing in the statute dants. of the particular format or that each of intent be in a notice If statutory separately or identified. we be listed six items (the paragraphs respective of examine the first claim), we do find a statement basis for the factual practice of plaintiff claims the standard manner in which clearly state Specifically, the notices breached. allegations case, plaintiffs However, surgical in the instant instruments. ectopic pregnancy diagnose to an are on an failure based diagnose constituted nothing this condition Whether the failure more. examples, care, contrast to the above is a of the standard of in breach allegations. Accordingly, plaintiff was from the face of the obvious exacting of care and required provide of standard a more statement in which it was breached. of the manner care, the applicable of notice of standard with the statement As respect absolutely of the standard a breach no statement contains Atkins. of care defendant 470 Mich Opinion of the Court incorrectly diagnosed personnel sponta- the medical ectopic pregnancy, resulting neous abortion rather than plaintiffs only remaining tube, fallopian in the of loss thus rendering App 672.] [252 sterile. Mich 2912b(4) agree § nothing requires We any particular does, notice be in format. statute clearly require provide however, the claimant to “a each, categories statement” of of the enumerated disagree panel’s information, and we with the conclu- “sepa- sion that the information need not be rately Certainly, ... identified.” the statement must identify, readily specific ain manner, ascertainable 2912b(4). by § information mandated identify The notices fail to how the various defen- applicable Here, dants breached the standards of care. hospital’s paragraph notice of intent refers to which the standard of or care is set out. applicable remaining The notice of intent to the defen- dants defendants, states that defendant Atkins ex- provide [plaintiff] cluded, “failed to with the plain- standard instances, and care.” In both stated, tiff has in essence: “Defendants breached the by breaching standard of care care.” unresponsive Such circular and assertion is not mini- mally compliant statutory plain- mandate that provide tiff statement manner which defen- dants breached the standards of care.14 argument, plaintiffs At oral counsel conceded that notice merely stated, essence, [the that “the manner in which standard of breached,” care] was breached the fact it that was and counsel took the 2912b(4)(c). position required by untenable § that this is all that is Such statutory requirement a construction completely renders nugatory. Moreover, statutory purposes notifying it does not fulfill the potential malpractice against defendants of the basis the claims them. 2912b(4)(c) analogous following Counsel’s construction of hypothetical example: parent priceless lamp living A sees that in his (Aft Co Gen Mecosta v Opinion of the Court paragraphs discern also unable to We are any setting for the claim state- factual basis forth the care the standards of in which of the manner ment plaintiff indicate that The notices breached. were diagnosed pain, complained awith of severe was curettage pro- miscarriage, a dilation and underwent hospital four to the home, returned cedure, was sent ectopic pregnancy, days diagnosed later, with an was surgery “left tube.” to remove her and underwent certainly tragic Although circumstances, the these are simply not to do serve forth in the notices facts as set notify which of the manner defendants respective notices of care. The their standard breached by any plaintiff her treatment do aver how allegation, for There is no defendant was deficient. example, any perform defendants failed incorrectly diagnosed condition, or tests, critical specialist keeping failed to refer her perhaps, appropriate Although, an of care. standard plain- from the recitation of facts that inference arises alleging tiff was that one more the defendants pregnancy, diagnosed ectopic should have earlier an “inference” not sufficient to meet such statutory requirement provide a state- ment of the manner which each defendant breached care.15 standard of child, lamp parent room is broken. The asks his “How did the become lamp repetition replies, The child broken?” “The is broken.” lamp unresponsive question fact that the is broken is that was Similarly, plaintiffs’ question, answer the “How asked. intent response, “The was the standard of care breached?” with the breached.” “negli engaged in Plaintiffs notices of intent state that defendants and, thus, plaintiff specifically alleged gence” may in her said that it However, it of care occurred. notices that a “breach” the standard 2912b(4)(c) merely oc- assert breach not sufficient under 470 Mich 679 Opinion of the Court 600.2912b(4)(d): 4. MCL THAT TAKEN ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN In response 2912b(4)(d), §to a which mandates state- alleged ment of “[t]he action that should have been taken to compliance achieve of care,” plaintiffs merely notices refer the (which, reader 2” “paragraph on appeal, plaintiff 1”). claims should have read of “paragraph The Court panel that Appeals held the recitations of facts in the notices were sufficient to meet requirement: this

Clearly, reading whole, plaintiff when the notices aas alleges that the action that should have been taken was to timely diagnosed ectopic pregnancy have so that it could been plaintiffs have treated without the of loss left fallopian App [252 tube. Mich 672.] again, disagree. Once we Plaintiff to identify has failed any particular any action that defendant should have taken in compliance order to achieve with the standard of care. guess only Defendants are left to which aspect of treatment deficient, was but what plaintiff alleges defendants should have done differ- ently.

curred, requires precisely because section that a notice more contain regarding a statement the manner in which the breach is to have occurred. Despite enacting requires plaintiff general a statute that a terms provide regarding aspects her contentions six her claim of medical malpractice, Legislature nullity the dissent’s view is that the a created plaintiff obligation that a satisfies her under this statute essen- tially declaring, something happened.” “I went the doctor and bad Contrary majority “high required to the dissent’s assertion has degree specificity”—neither concept a term nor a found in our opinion—what expressly requires: we have is what the statute A good-faith part plaintiff statutory effort on the of a to answer the questions, including plaintiff the manner in which the claims that the applicable standard of breached. (Apt Co Mecosta Gen v Court 600.2912b(4)(e): CAUSE PROXIMATE satisfy require- fail to intent

Plaintiffs 2912b(4)(e) contain state- the notice §of ment alleged the breach in which it is manner “[t]he ment the proximate or care was standard of Court of notice.” The claimed injury cause of held that Appeals misdiagnosis clearly resulted states that surgery days later

having emergency four to have fallopian only remaining tube as result remove undiagnosed ectopic pregnancy, bursting from tube clearly a of the rendering her This is statement thus sterile. alleged the breach of the it is that manner which injury. proximately caused the of App 673.] Mich [253 plaintiff “clearly that disagree

We assertion of the defendants by any a misdiagnosis state[d]” that bursting and in her tube fallopian her resulted plaintiff notices does ensuing sterility. Nowhere misdiagnosed her any that of the defendants state condition; any consequences nor do notices state Indeed, the reader stemming misdiagnosis. a is from that a alleging whether is left to wonder have made ectopic pregnancy could been diagnosis “tube,” or she rupture to avoid the of her whether time as a direct result of alleging ruptured is tube DesNoyers and Davis on her treatment defendants 4,1996.16 allegations regarding specific With no October [defendants’] that “as a result of Plaintiffs notices intent state any , At negligence [plaintiff] unable have children.” first ... now requirement blush, may satisfy proximate appear causation this 2912b(4)(e). provision merely However, § this it is not sufficient under Rather, injury. negligence caused an state defendants’ 470 Mich 679 Opinion of the Court defendants, of any the conduct of the named the notices are insufficient to the particularized requirements meet 2912b(4)(e).17 §of 600.2912B(4)(F):

6. MCL HEALTH PROFESSIONALSAND FACILI- TIES Finally, agree we with the Court of that the Appeals intent, notices of County which list “Mecosta General all Hospital agents and employees, actual or osten- sible, thereof” as well as & Gynecology “Obstetrics Big Rapids, DesNoyers, M.D., Atkins, Gail Michael M.D., Davis, PAC, Barb agents and all and employees, ostensible, actual or thereof,” contain proper state- ment of the names of all professionals defendant health and facilities.

IV CONCLUSION Under MCL 600.2912b(4), a medical malpractice claimant provide potential defendants with notice that includes “statement” each statutorily categories enumerated of information. Al- 2912b(4)(e) requires precisely that a notice of intent more contain statement as to the manner in which it is that the breach awas proximate injury. cause urges, legislative history, dissent on the basis of Legislature’s purpose enacting encourage § in was to 2912b settlement legislative history questionable. discussions. Post use of This is (Kenneth Question Projects In Special See re Henes Procure Certified ment, Marketing, Consulting Industries, Corp & v Continental Biomass Inc), (2003). 114-118; However, assuming 468 Mich 659 NW2d 597 Legislature’s primary purpose that the settlement, towas facilitate it depart generally clear from the decision to from the notice pleading by Legislature environment created our court rules that the particularized required believed more statements the were in context of malpractice litigation. Indeed, primary medical objec if settlement is a 2912b, § heightened particularity by of the required tive the statute by goal providing fosters this understanding defendant with clear of plaintiffs allegations. the (Aft Co Gen v Mecosta 2004] Roberts the Court of the some of to expect though it is reasonable the claimant by supplied of the information particulars the litigation proceed, discovery as will evolve good-faith averments required make claimant is information responsive that are details provide as particularized that are as the statute and sought by stage the proceed- notice early with the is consistent must be set the notice of intent information in ings. The will put which degree specificity forth with to the nature defendants on as potential onerous task: all them. This is an against claim it is that she specify must do is what claimant categories in each of the enumerated under claiming 2912b(4). or format Although there is no one method infor- set forth the in which a claimant must must, nevertheless, specifi- be mation, that information an manner within cally identified in ascertainable notice. defen- by plaintiff to supplied

The notices of intent statutory with the comply dants in this case fail to fa- are different Among mandate. defendants two cilities, obstetrician, emergency physician, room an assistant, made to yet attempt and a no physician’s or care identify specific any indicating defendant. Rather than particular alleged) standards (improperly manner in which defendants, simply care were breached the notices were, fact, breached. indicate that the standards plaintiff notices does state what actions Nowhere comply the various defendants should have taken care, or standards of appropriate proximate how defendants’ conduct constituted Although the factual injury. cause claimed indicate that suffered recitations the notices result, this result is not connected an adverse medical meaningful way any defendant. any conduct 470 Mich by Dissenting Opinion Kelly, J. plaintiff Accordingly, did not fulfill her obligation under 2912b, and the statute of limitations was not tolled during period. the notice We therefore reverse the judgment the Court of Appeals and reinstate the judgments of the trial summary court granting disposi- tion to defendants. Taylor

Corrigan, C.J., JJ, and and con- Markman, curred with J. Young,

Kelly, J. (dissenting).

introduction granted We leave to appeal determine what con- stitutes notice of adequate intent under MCL 600.2912b(4) preparatory filing to the of a medical malpractice complaint. The majority concludes requires high statute degree specificity stage potential of a lawsuit.

I respectfully disagree. Requiring such a level of specificity inconsistent with the statute’s words and purpose. I would hold that the notice of intent must provide sufficient information about claim that a may defendant investigate ascertain and its basis and determine whether discuss settlement. After review- ing the plaintiff notices of intent provided in this case, I conclude they satisfy require- statute’s Therefore, ments. I would affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals. procedural history and

facts Early in her pregnancy, plaintiff experienced severe pain abdominal bleeding. The defendant physicians (Aet Co Gen v Mecosta Dissenting Opinion Kelly, J. abortion, a dilation performed diagnosed spontaneous and sent home procedure, curettage recover. later, it wors- persisted. days Three pain

Plaintiffs hospital. The the defendant sought ened and care at she Atkins, doctor, diagnosed defendant room emergency released cramps plaintiff. returned to the defendant night, plaintiff

Later that ectopic that she had had an It determined hospital. was fallopian her left The that had tube. pregnancy ruptured left fallopian removed physicians defendant had been removed right fallopian tube tube. Because earlier, rendered her sterile. years operation several malpractice. for medical She brought Plaintiff suit led to her physicians’ misdiagnoses claimed that sterility. to the defendant hospital

Plaintiffs counsel sent sue, MCL required by initial of intent as 600.2912b(4).1 notice approxi- amended the Counsel provides part: MCL 600.2912b (4) facility given professional health or health The notice to a a statement of at least all of

under this section shall contain following:

(a) basis the claim. The factual for (b) alleged by or care The claimant. (c) it is The manner which claimed by profes- practice or breached the health

standard of care was facility. sional or health (d) should have been taken achieve action that compliance care. standard of or with 470 Mich 679 Dissenting Opinion by Kelly, J. mately later, a month added other defendants who are agents employees of the hospital, and sent amended notice to them.

Ultimately, plaintiff brought suit and defendants summary disposition. They moved for asserted that the notices of intent failed to with comply 600.2912b(4), and statutory because then the period had expired, plaintiffs limitations claims were trial granted barred. The court the motion. The Court Appeals vacated the decision and remanded the case. (2000). 175; 240 Mich It App NW2d held that right defendants had waived their challenge sufficiency of the notices. granted

This Court majority leave to A appeal. found a challenge to the sufficiency the notices had not It been waived. then remanded the case to Court of to consider Appeals complied whether had the notice requirements. statute’s Roberts v Mecosta Co (2002) (Roberts 57; Gen 466 Mich 642 Hosp, 663 NW2d I). remand, On the Appeals Court of held that the complied requirements. had with the Roberts v (On Remand), Mecosta Co Gen Hosp 664; 252 Mich App (2002). 653 NW2d 441 We again granted leave to appeal. (2003). 468 Mich 869

STANDARD OF REVIEW We summary disposition review judgments de novo. Harvey 1, v Michigan, 6; 469 Mich 664 NW2d 767 (e) The manner in which it is the breach of the standard practice proximate of injury or care was the cause of the claimed in

the notice. (f) professionals The names of all health and health facilities notifying the claimant is under this section relation to the claim. (Aft 705 v Mecosta Co Gen Dissenting by J. Kelly, (2003). interpre- statutory of questions also review We Warren, 461 Mich City de novo. v tation Omelenchuk of (2000). I 10; See also Roberts 567, n NW2d 177 571 609 at 62. AND ANALYSIS

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION is The issue before us whether 600.2912b(4). Our of MCL requirements satisfied Legislature intended. to determine what duty is language n of begin 19. We Omelenchuk statute, Legislature clearly intent and if the of the warranted. Helder expressed, no further construction is (2000). 99; Sruba, v Mich NW2d the notice by requires its statute terms (1) six items: a “statement” at least contain (2) claim, applicable the alleged basis for the factual (3) manner in practice care, or standard or care was which the standard (4) have breached, alleged action that should been comply standard taken (5) care, the manner in which breach (6) injury, of care caused the proximately and health facili- professionals the names of all health the claimant under the statute. notifying ties that 600.2912b(4). intended Legislature ascertain what this To statute, meaning we examine the word first “statement,” not define The statute does “statement.” meaning to ascertain the lay dictionary and resort dictionary pro- limited One intended is usefulness. vides:

Statement, something 2. a n 1. stated. communication facts, speech writing, setting or forth or declaration 470 MICH 679 Dissenting J. Kelly, single disagree particulars, etc. 3. a sentence or assertion: I your College [Random last statement. House Webster’s (1995).] Dictionary merely

A can general “statement” be assertion it description. can detailed be argues former, Plaintiff that the requires statute argue requires and defendants it the latter. The it appears word as in the is both susceptible sentence to meanings. Thus, intends, to determine what statute whole, we examine its structure as a and particularly, Tim the text G C surrounding word “statement.” Co, mis Co v Alarm & Guardian 416, 420; 468 Mich (2003). NW2d

In discerning meaning, the intended we consider also Legislature’s apparent purpose enacting the In Wirsing, re provision. 467, 474; 456 Mich 573 NW2d (1998). may legislative We even history. consider School Michigan Adrian Dist v Pub School Employees Sys, Retirement 335; 458 Mich 582 NW2d 767 (1998).

The statute in question requires al- claimants leging medical send a notice of malpractice intent sue potential days filing defendants least 182 before 600.2912b(l). MCL complaint. potential party Each required then to make available to others medical possession records his to the relating claim. MCL 600.2912b(5). days intent,

Within 154 after receiving notice of (1) defendants are to it respond stating (2) their claim, the factual basis for to the defense standard of practice or care that they allege applicable, (3) the manner they complied which claim have (4) care, with the standard of they reasons why contend were not the proximate cause 600.2912b(7). plaintiffs alleged injury. (Aft Mecosta Co Gen v by Opinion Dissenting Kelly, J. will often that the defendants anticipates

The statute the challenge Id. The it was breached. manner which

care and during tolled is of limitations statutory period is sent. of intent the notice after waiting period 600.5856(d). before waiting period 182-day The if the defen- lifted immediately is complaint of a filing do not intend they writing dants communicate 600.2912b(9). claim. MCL to settle the of the notice operation and the The overall structure intended the act Legislature that the suggest provision 182-day The wait- discussions.2 encourage settlement in settlement engage parties enables ing period lawsuit, avoiding possibly initiating a before discussions is information entirely. During period, this litigation rules of discov- to the formal regard exchanged without ery. effectively immobilized

Moreover, defendants. The from the awaiting response while file the defendants only is waived if waiting period not intend to settle notice that do written claim. unlikely that all it is stage dispute,

At this have been iden- will anticipated experts and witnesses and defenses liability Theories of deposed. tified and higher A precision. developed not have been may emerges from about a claim specificity level of the notice exchanged by parties information after sent. The defendants. unfairness on works no statute assuredly the notice receive defendants who

potential by in the statute’s Senate statements conclusion is buttressed This 1993, Legislative 270, 11, Analysis, August and House Legislative SB 4403-4406, Analysis, March HB 470 Mich by Dissenting Kelly, J. possess high expertise. They level medical do not require great specificity information of order to begin Also, impending most investigating lawsuit. to a medical pertinent malpractice records claim are likely to be under control of the defendants. A general assertion the basis for the claim and of the items the statute is sufficient inform encourage them about the claim and to settlement discussions.

Moreover, provision require the does not a “unique standard,” information, or a “specific” “particularized” majority statement as the Ante at 694-695, asserts. 696. Had the Legislature intended detail in extensive the notice, it required would have it. “detailed,” specify

Numerous other statutes “com- statements, or “full” plete,” or statements made “with specificity.” Employees’ Act, In the State Retirement for example, each member is file a “detailed prior statement” of his service employee. as an MCL 38.14. 500.424(2) in

MCL the Code provides: Insurance (1), In addition to subsection an alien insurer shall make and report execute oath a standing under of its financial deposit together and of its with statement a of its full year business in the United preceding States for the pursuant statement [Emphasis to section 438. added.] 462.2(2) MCL in the railroad commission act requires governor provide “complete statement” of the charges against a railroad after commissioner removing for neglect commissioner duty malfeasance. 333.22231(4) states:

(4) made, Before application a final decision on an designated by department bureau of the the director as responsible program for the certificate of shall need issue a proposed specific findings in support decision with of fact proposed regard decision with to each the criteria (Aet Co v Mecosta Gen Dissenting Opinion Kelly, J. proposed decision also shall in section 22225. The listed authority specificity reasons and state department proposed decision. The department for the copy proposed decision to the shall transmit a applicant. [Emphasis added.] provisions Legislature These demonstrate require what to use when it intends to phrasing knows it did not mandate explicitly extensive detail. Because statute, refrain from specificity such this we should adding it ourselves. making require-

In the the Court has avoided past, object if ment that notices be detailed serve the defendant. Hum- prejudice the statute and do not 616, 625; Mich 30 NW2d 372 Rapids, mel v Grand (1948). recognized The decision Omelenchuk unwary for the tolling provisions traps should not be that, notice, tolling. can no proper without there be complex that medical actions are malpractice Given fact-intensive, require Court ill-advised Leg- intent where the blueprint detailed for notices of 576, n did not.3 Omelenchuk at islature FACTUAL ANALYSIS mind, I these considerations examine With if sent in this case to determine notices the statute. they satisfy malpractice Legisla complex deter the The nature of medical would degree specificity requiring high of intent to sue. from ture Legislature existing presumed law. This includes The to be aware of 517, Schultz,

judicial interpretations People v 435 Mich of statutes. See (1990). 543-544; telling That renders it more when the 460 NW2d 505 Legislature it the same or similar words here as used chose not to use require it detail. other instances when wished to Mich 679 Dissenting Opinion by J. Kelly, 19, 1996, intent, notice of September amending 15, 1996, August notice sent to the defendant hospital following set out the factual basis: negligence

This is a claim for which occurred on October 4, 1994, County Hospital. at Mecosta General It is claimed pregnant child, that on said date while first presented County Claimant herself to Mecosta General Hospital complaining pain. diag- of severe At that time a spontaneous nosis of a abortion was and a D made and C performed. was Claimant was sent home at that time. days Over the course of the next few Claimant contin- experience pain cramping and, 7, ued to on October again County Hospital. was seen at Mecosta General pain experiencing Claimant was told that the she was was cramps from Dthe and C she had done and was sent home. hospital 8, 1994,

Claimant returned to the on October wherein it was discovered that Claimant had not had a spontaneous ectopic pregnancy abortion but had an in her Emergency surgery left tube which had per- burst. formed at that time and her left tube was removed. right approximately

Claimant had her tube removed ten years and, ago negligence above, as a result of the set forth any she is now unable to have children. 23, 1996,

The September notice of intent sent to the remaining defendants gave following factual basis: negligence

This is a claim for which occurred on October 4, 1994, Gynecology Big Rapids. at Obstetrics & It is claimed pregnant that on said date while with her first child, presented Davis, PAC, Claimant herself to Barb Dr. Atkins, DesNoyers complaining Michael and Dr. Gail pain bleeding. diag- severe abdominal At that time a spontaneous nosis of a abortion was made and a D & C was performed County Hospital. at Mecosta General Claimant time, despite DesNoyer’s was sent home at that Dr. [sic] knowledge history prior ectopic of Claimant’s preg- nancy. (Apt Mecosta Co Gen v Dissenting Opinion Kelly, J. days, contin- few Claimant the course of the next

Over 7, and, cramping on October pain and experience ued Hospital by Dr. County Mecosta General was seen at pain she was Claimant was told that Michael Atkins. and cramps the D & C she had done experiencing was from home. was sent 8, 1994, hospital on October returned to the

Claimant that Claimant had not had it was discovered wherein ectopic pregnancy in her had an spontaneous abortion but Emergency surgery per- left tube had burst. which her left tube was removed. at that time and formed approximately ten right tube removed Claimant had her above, and, negligence forth years ago set as result any children. unable to have she is now statements, set out the factual In these misdiagnosis, initial and circumstances, alleged an diagnosis. the correct stated applicable notice articulated the September of care: applicable that the standard of care Claimant contends County Hospital provide required that Mecosta General competent, qualified the claimant with the services residents, interns, physicians, nurses and licensed staff of her, competent employees properly care for render other in the care and treatment of her case advice assistance and to render same accordance with of care. standards

Similarly, the 23 notice contained the follow- September ing: standard of care

Claimant contends that Gynecology Big Rapids, & Dr. that Obstetrics Davis, PAC, DesNoyers provide Claimant and Barb Gail competent, qualified and licensed staff with the services of interns, residents, employ- physicians, nurses and other her, competent render advice and properly care for ees 470 Mich 679 Dissenting Opinion by J. Kelly, and treatment of her case and to assistance the care render same in accordance with the standards of care. long recognized

Our courts have that medical mal- generally degree the failure to exercise that practice skill, care, diligence by of and exercised members of the same medical Dorris v Detroit profession. Osteopathic 26; (1999); 460 Mich Hosp Corp, NW2d 455 Adkins 558, v App 564; 116 Mich Annapolis Hospital, (1982), 87; 420 Mich NW2d 482 affirmed 360 NW2d 150 (1984). Plaintiffs notices state that the standard of care is to provide competent services. Because this is suffi- ciently in meaning exercising professional care, close 600.2912b(4)(b) it requirement meets MCL delineate the appropriate standard of care.

Where the standard of care generally, is stated it is unsurprising specifically same standard is majority’s to each defendant. The conclu- Legislature sion that intended that there be the requirement unique of a “standard applicable specifi- cally” defendant, each ante at is myopic. This requirement Hence, is not the statute. it does not exist.

To state the manner which the standard of 600.2912b(4)(c), was breached under MCL September 19 notice to the hospital defendant refers to paragraph two of the notice. September 23 notice following contains the statement: “Claimant claims Gynecology Big Rapids, Obstetrics & Dr. Gail DesNoyers Davis, PAC, and Barb provide failed to with the applicable standard of practice care out- lined in It paragraph plaintiff above.” is manifest that claims that the actions of the defendant physician did not fulfill the duty plaintiff. care owed to (Aet Mecosta Co v Gen Dissenting Opinion Kelly, J. the respective two of paragraph notices refer

Both “[alleged] action that should have to state the compliance taken to achieve been care” “the manner in which or alleged] the breach the standard [it injury claimed cause of proximate care was the (e). 600.2912b(4)(d), When these the notice.” MCL first together paragraphs, are read paragraphs correctly defendants should have they state that duty. professional to their diagnosed plaintiff according diagnosis pre- a correct would have They assert that medical suffered. injury the serious vented the defendants. Finally, the notices name 600.2912b(4)(f). that agree Appeals I with the Court these ” clarity” “the notice.’ “picture[s] ‘perfect

are find However, Mich I would them suffi- App under cient the statute.4

CONCLUSION I that intended that Legislature would find malpractice medical under parties alleging 600.2912b(4) in- of intent sue that provide notice of certain enumerated cludes succinct statement It intend the statement contain items. did not simply provide The statement must extensive details. 4 Ironically, highlights Legislature require why this case did not obligation potential no A defendant is under detailed statement. challenge upon receipt sufficiency the notice of to sue. its intent plaintiff, awaiting response, I. The the defendant’s cannot while legally sufficiency If its he that the notice is sufficient. should be assured filed, only challenged and found to be deficient after lawsuit has been likely period expired I will have on the claim. believe of limitations Legislature impose particularized requirements intend to did not injured effectively party immobilized either the who is until on period elapses. responds waiting defendant or the 470 MICH 679 Dissenting J. Kelly, notice of a claim potential sufficient to allow potential to ascertain defendants the basis for the claim and enter into settlement discussions.

The statements in the notices of pro- intent sue vided by plaintiff in requirements this case satisfied the 600.2912b(4). of MCL They each addressed statutorily enumerated provided items and adequate notice of plaintiffs claims. Defendants were given enough information to investigate the basis for the claims and consider settlement. Defendants have not asserted notices; misunderstood the they have merely asserted that the notices were insufficient under the statute.

For reasons, I these would affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals. WEAVER, JJ.,

CAVANAGHand J. KELLY, concurred with

Case Details

Case Name: Roberts v. Mecosta County General Hospital

Court Name: Michigan Supreme Court

Date Published: Jul 21, 2004

Citation: 684 N.W.2d 711

Docket Number: Docket 122312, 122335, 122338

Court Abbreviation: Mich.