Thomas v. Golden, Docket No. 15708
| Decision Date | 16 January 1974 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 15708,No. 1,1 |
| Citation | 214 N.W.2d 907,51 Mich.App. 253 |
| Parties | , 51 Mich.App. 693 Leatrice THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald L. GOLDEN, d/b/a Detroit Optometric Centers, Defendant-Appellee |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Lawrence J. Bogos, Bogos & Bogos, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellant.
John A. Kruse, Detroit, for defendant-appellee.
Before V. J. BRENNAN, P.J., and QUINN and CARLAND,* JJ.
This is an action for malpractice. Plaintiff appeals from an accelerated judgment granted to defendant on his motion therefor based on the statute of limitations. The controlling issue is whether the statute had run.
February 20, 1968, defendant fitted plaintiff with contact lenses, following three preliminary appointments which commenced February 1, 1968. March 7, 1968, plaintiff telephoned defendant's office because she was experiencing pain in her eyes and requested medical attention. She was given an appointment for March 8, 1968 at 10:00 A.M. Plaintiff did not keep this appointment because she went to the emergency room of St. John's hospital for treatment March 7, 1968. Plaintiff returned the contact lenses March 12, 1968 and requested a refund, which was made.
This action was filed March 5, 1970. The period of limitation is two years after the claim first accrued, M.C.L.A. § 600.5805; M.S.A. § 27A.5805. M.C.L.A. § 600.5838; M.S.A. § 27A.5838 states:
'A claim based on the malpractice * * * accrues at the time that person discontinues treating or otherwise serving the plaintiff in a professional or pseudo-professional capacity as to the matters out of which the claim for malpractice arose.'
Defendant argues that as to medical malpractice, the statute runs from the date of 'last treatment', and that the last treatment of plaintiff by defendant was February 20, 1968. Defendant further argues that the words 'or otherwise serving' in the statute are required because the statute applies to professions other than the medical profession. Defendant cites the legal and accounting professions as ones which 'serve' rather than 'treat' their clients.
We accept the latter argument but we do not agree that it precludes application of 'or otherwise serving' to actions for medical malpractice. In the case before us, if it had been found that some mechanical correction or adjustment of the contact lenses would have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weaver by Weaver v. University of Michigan Bd. of Regents, Docket No. 132952
...relating to limitation of actions for medical malpractice, provide a starting point for analysis. In Thomas v. Golden (Amended Opinion), 51 Mich.App. 693, 214 N.W.2d 907 (1974), aff'd but reasoning not adopted 392 Mich. 779, 220 N.W.2d 677 (1974), the plaintiff had been fitted for contact l......
-
Wells v. Billars
...may pertain to the question of liability, but not to the statute of limitation question presented here. See also: Thomas v. Golden, 51 Mich.App. 253, 214 N.W.2d 907 (1974) [Medical malpractice action in jurisdiction which recognizes "continuous treatment"; granting of appointment by optomet......
-
Morgan v. Taylor, Docket No. 83071
...statute is designed to apply to licensed professionals who "serve" but do not "treat" their clients. See Thomas v. Golden (Amended Opinion ), 51 Mich.App. 693, 214 N.W.2d 907 (1974). 18 We find that to be a reasonable explanation, but it provides no basis to preclude application to professi......
-
Shane v. Mouw
...no more established by a refusal to accept treatment than by a refusal to treat. Plaintiff's reliance on Thomas v. Golden (Amended Opinion), 51 Mich.App. 693, 695, 214 N.W.2d 907 (1974), is similarly misplaced. In that case, the Court "The crucial issue for decision is whether the granting ......