Roberts v. MECOSTA CTY. GENERAL HOSP.
Decision Date | 22 May 2000 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 212675. |
Citation | 610 N.W.2d 285,240 Mich. App. 175 |
Parties | Lisa ROBERTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MECOSTA COUNTY GENERAL HOSPITAL, Gail A. Desnoyers, M.D., Barb Davis, Obstetrics & Gynecology, f/k/a Gunther Desnoyers & Mekar, and Michael Atkins, M.D., Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Granzotto & Nicita, P.C. (by Angela J. Nicita), Detroit, and Gary E. Levitt, Bloomfield Hills, for Lisa Roberts.
Smith, Haughey, Rice & Roegge (by Jon D. Vander Ploeg), Grand Rapids, for Mecosta County General Hospital.
Bensinger, Cotant, Menkes & Aardema, P.C. (by Kerr L. Moyer), Grand Rapids, for Gail A. DesNoyers, M.D., and Barb Davis.
Burnheimer & Company, P.C. (by Mark A. Burnheimer), Traverse City, for Michael L. Atkins, M.D.
Ford & Kobayashi, P.C. (by James B. Ford), Kalamazoo, Amicus Curiae for Michigan Trial Lawyers Association.
Before: SAWYER, P.J., and GRIBBS and McDONALD, JJ.
The trial court granted defendants' motions for summary disposition on plaintiff's claims of medical malpractice on the basis of defendants' claims of deficiencies in plaintiff's notice of intent. Plaintiff appeals and we reverse and remand.
This case involves plaintiff's allegations of medical malpractice against defendants for their alleged failure to properly diagnose an ectopic pregnancy. Plaintiff alleges that the misdiagnoses caused her to lose her remaining fallopian tube.
At issue is whether plaintiff adequately complied with the statutory requirement of filing a notice of intent, before a complaint is filed. MCL 600.2912b(1); MSA 27A.2912(2)(1). Section 2912b states, in pertinent part:
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person shall not commence an action alleging medical malpractice against a health professional or health facility unless the person has given the health professional or health facility written notice under this section not less than 182 days before the action is commenced.
* * *
(c) The manner in which it is claimed that the applicable standard of practice or care was breached by the health professional or health facility.
In addition, subsection 8 allows for a reduction in the waiting period to 154 days if the claimant does not receive a written response within 154 days of filing its notice of intent. MCL 600.2912b(8); MSA 27A.2912(2)(8).
Plaintiff's amended notice of intent was served on defendant hospital on or about September 19, 1996, and stated in pertinent part:
On September 23, 1996, a notice of intent was mailed to the remaining defendants. This notice of intent stated in pertinent part:
The trial court ruled during oral argument that the notices of intent failed to contain the minimum information required to comply with § 2912b. Specifically, the trial court found that (i) the applicable standard of care was only generally stated and failed to directly address the standard of care applicable to defendant Atkins, (ii) incorporating paragraphs 1 and 2 failed to establish breach of a standard of care with respect to defendant hospital, (iii) paragraph 4 insufficiently states what action should have been taken by defendants, and (iv) the paragraphs seem merely to indicate a "bad result," and failed to allege the proximate cause of the result. The trial court held that because the notices of intent were defective, the statute of limitations was not tolled by the statute. Therefore, the trial court granted summary disposition to defendants Atkins and hospital. The remaining defendants moved for summary disposition on the same grounds, which the trial court ultimately granted.
On appeal, plaintiff raises a number of challenges to the trial court's ruling, one of which is dispositive. Plaintiff's first argument is that defendants waived any alleged deficiencies in the notice of intent by failing to complain about any such...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Boodt v. Borgess Medical Center
...v. Mecosta Co. Gen. Hosp. (After Remand), 470 Mich. 679, 681, 684, 686, 684 N.W.2d 711 (2004). 4. See Roberts v. Mecosta Co. Gen. Hosp., 240 Mich.App. 175, 184, 610 N.W.2d 285 (2000), rev'd and remanded 466 Mich. 57, 642 N.W.2d 663 (2002); Roberts v. Mecosta Co. Gen. Hosp. (On Remand), 252 ......
-
Roberts v. Mecosta County Hosp.
...claims were barred. The trial court granted the motion. The Court of Appeals vacated the decision and remanded the case. 240 Mich.App. 175, 610 N.W.2d 285 (2000). It held that defendants had waived their right to challenge the sufficiency of the This Court granted leave to appeal. A majorit......
-
Dominion Reserves, Inc. v. MICHCON CONSOLIDATED GAS CO.
... ... at § 10:44, p. 73. A court of general jurisdiction considers the doctrine of primary jurisdiction ... ...
-
Roberts v. Mecosta County General Hosp.
...defect in the notice of intent not raised by the defendant before the filing of the complaint is not appropriate. [240 Mich.App. 175, 184-186, 610 N.W.2d 285 (2000).] We granted defendants' application for leave to appeal to consider the propriety of the Court of Appeals holding that a plai......