Amrhein v. Philip Petachenko, D.C., P.C., Docket No. 100253

• Decision Date: 24 February 1989
• Docket Number: Docket No. 100253
• Parties: Carol M. AMRHEIN and Richard J. Amrhein, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PHILIP PETACHENKO, D.C., P.C., Defendant-Appellee, and Dr. Michael Reggish, Defendant. 174 Mich.App. 242, 435 N.W.2d 10
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 10

435 N.W.2d 10

Carol M. AMRHEIN and Richard J. Amrhein, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PHILIP PETACHENKO, D.C., P.C., Defendant-Appellee, and Dr. Michael Reggish, Defendant.

Docket No. 100253.

174 Mich.App. 242, 435 N.W.2d 10

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Feb. 10, 1988.

Decided Oct. 5, 1988.

Released for Publication Feb. 24, 1989.

[174 MICHAPP 243] Law Offices of Brochert & Ward by David S. Anderson, Bloomfield Hills, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Mellon & McCarthy, P.C. by James T. Mellon, Troy, for Philip Petachenko, D.C., P.C.

Before KELLY, P.J., and HOOD and WARSHAWSKY, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs appeal as of right from an Oakland Circuit Court order granting summary disposition in favor of Dr. Philip Petachenko, D.C., P.C. (hereafter defendant). The circuit court ruled that plaintiffs' medical malpractice complaint for injuries sustained by Carol M. Amrhein (hereafter plaintiff) was barred by the statute of limitations. We affirm.

Plaintiff began seeing Dr. Petachenko for treatment of her osteoarthritic neck condition on November 4, 1981. From December, 1981, through March 22, 1982, defendant Dr. Michael Reggish, another chiropractor, also treated plaintiff at defendant's clinic. During a February 22, 1982, treatment session, Dr. Reggish allegedly performed an [174 MICHAPP 244] improper cervical adjustment of plaintiff's neck, which aggravated plaintiff's preexisting neck condition and caused severe injury to plaintiff's cervical spine. Plaintiff was last treated by Dr. Reggish on March 22, 1982, when plaintiff began treatment with another chiropractor, Dr. Newman. Plaintiff informed Dr. Newman of sharp, stabbing pain which occurred after the February, 1982, treatment by Dr. Reggish. Plaintiff continued treatment with Dr. Newman until April, 1983.

On April 20, 1983, plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident, further aggravating her preexisting cervical spine condition. Plaintiff returned to defendant Petachenko's clinic on April 27, 1983, for a single treatment of her neck condition by defendant. Plaintiff does not complain of any malpractice occurring during this treatment. Plaintiff received additional care and treatment at Henry Ford Hospital and on August 20, 1984, plaintiff underwent a cervical laminectomy for a herniated disc.

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants Dr. Petachenko and Dr. Reggish on March 15, 1985. Plaintiff Richard J. Amrhein sued for loss of consortium. In granting defendant's motion for summary disposition, the circuit court ruled that plaintiff's last continued course of treatment with defendant took place on March 22, 1982. The court therefore held plaintiffs' claim to be time barred.

On appeal, plaintiffs argue the trial court erred in granting defendant's summary disposition motion. Plaintiffs contend that the last date of treatment was April 27, 1983, less than two years preceding the filing of plaintiffs' complaint on March 15, 1985. We disagree.

The limitations period for a medical malpractice action is governed by M.C.L. Sec. 600.5805(4); M.S.A. Sec. 27A.5805(4), which provides that "the period of [174 MICHAPP 245] limitations is 2 years for an action charging malpractice." M.C.L. Sec. 600.5838(1); M.S.A. Sec. 27A.5838(1) provides that a medical malpractice claim "accrues at the time that person discontinues serving the plaintiff in a professional or pseudoprofessional capacity as to the matters out of which the claim for malpractice arose, regardless of the time the plaintiff discovers or otherwise has knowledge of the claim." A malpractice cause of action accrues when the defendant discontinues treatment of the plaintiff for the matter from which the malpractice action arose. Whitmore v. Fabi, 155 Mich.App. 333, 340, 399 N.W.2d 520 (1986); Juravle v. Ozdagler, 149 Mich.App. 148, 153-155, 385 N.W.2d 627 (1985). This last treatment must relate to the malpractice claim and an isolated incident of treatment thereafter cannot be used to revive the statutory period. Juravle, supra.

In the present case, plaintiff claims that her complaint was timely filed on March 15, 1985. However, plaintiff's complaint alleges malpractice by Dr. Reggish in treating plaintiff. Plaintiff's last treatment by Reggish occurred on March 22, 1982. Therefore, we find that the date of last treatment for the matter from which the alleged malpractice arose was March 22, 1982, almost three years before plaintiff filed her complaint. Although defendant Petachenko did treat plaintiff on April 22, 1983, plaintiff does not complain of any malpractice occurring during that treatment. Nor was this treatment...