Background
Maurice Ernest went to McLaren Regional Medical Center with chest pain on July 16, 2020, and died the next day from a bilateral pulmonary embolism. Keran Ernest, acting as personal representative of his estate, alleged that the physicians and healthcare entities involved failed to diagnose and treat him properly.
Ernest received letters of authority on June 7, 2021, served the defendants with the notice of intent required for a medical-malpractice action on February 10, 2023, and filed suit on August 14, 2023. The trial court dismissed the complaint as untimely under Waltz v. Wyse, which held that the notice-period tolling provision did not apply to the additional filing period afforded personal representatives under Michigan’s wrongful-death saving provision. The Court of Appeals affirmed because it was bound by Waltz.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Supreme Court held that MCL 600.5852 incorporates a statute of limitations and therefore may be tolled under MCL 600.5856(c) during the mandatory medical-malpractice notice period. Because Ernest served her notice of intent before the two-year period measured from the issuance of her letters of authority expired, that notice tolled the filing period, making her August 2023 complaint timely.
The Court overruled Waltz, concluding that it wrongly treated MCL 600.5852 solely as a saving provision rather than recognizing that the statute also establishes a new limitations period. The majority further held that stare decisis did not justify retaining Waltz, emphasizing its longstanding criticism, its unwarranted restriction of the time provided by the Legislature, and the absence of persuasive reliance interests. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- The limitations period supplied by Michigan’s wrongful-death saving provision is subject to notice-of-intent tolling under MCL 600.5856(c).
- Personal representatives pursuing medical-malpractice claims must serve notice sufficiently early for the mandatory notice process to be completed and the complaint to be filed within the applicable deadline as extended by tolling.
- Waltz v. Wyse is overruled, and Ernest’s complaint may proceed because it was timely filed under the Court’s interpretation of the statutes.
Why It Matters
The decision changes a rule that governed Michigan wrongful-death medical-malpractice cases for more than 20 years. Estates may now receive the same statutory tolling associated with the mandatory notice process when proceeding within the additional limitations period created by MCL 600.5852.
The ruling removes a timing trap created by Waltz while preserving the statutory requirement that a plaintiff complete the notice period before filing suit. Attorneys must still calculate the original malpractice deadline, the personal representative’s additional filing period, the notice period, and the three-year outer limit imposed by MCL 600.5852.