Background
Grace Howard received dental implants from dentist Bruce Smoler on March 28, 2022. She alleged that following the procedure her bite was misaligned, her chin tingled, and that Smoler’s subsequent attempts to correct the implants were unsuccessful. Howard further alleged she suffered hearing loss, TMJ, tinnitus, and was later hospitalized with pneumonia — which she attributed to swallowing excess saliva caused by the implants — and was diagnosed with early-stage Alzheimer’s disease during that hospitalization.
Under Michigan’s two-year medical malpractice statute of limitations, MCL 600.5805(8), Howard’s claim accrued on March 28, 2022, the date of the procedure, and would have expired March 28, 2024. Howard served a Notice of Intent (NOI) on March 26, 2024 — two days before expiration — triggering a mandatory 182-day tolling period under MCL 600.2912b(1) that ran through September 24, 2024. With two days of the limitations period remaining after the tolling period, Howard was required to file her complaint no later than September 26, 2024.
Howard did not file a conforming complaint until October 4, 2024. She argued she had attempted to e-file on September 26, 2024, but forgot her MI-File password and later had her complaint rejected by the clerk for lack of a valid signature. Defendant Smoler moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), asserting the claim was time-barred. The Wayne Circuit Court agreed and dismissed the case, finding that Howard’s e-filing difficulties were self-inflicted and that her late-filed complaint could not relate back to the rejected September 26 attempt.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition, holding that Howard’s complaint was untimely and that the October 4, 2024 filing could not relate back to her rejected September 26, 2024 e-filing attempt. The court applied its recent decision in Goff v. Vitti, No. 371827 (Mich. Ct. App. 2026), which held that under the plain language of MCR 1.109(G)(5)(b), the operative filing date is the date a document is electronically submitted only if it is accepted by the clerk of court. Because Howard’s September 26 complaint was rejected as defective, there was nothing in the record for the later filing to relate back to.
The court further held that MCR 1.109(G)(7) bars a filer from obtaining a backdated filing date when the transmission failure was caused, in whole or in part, by the filer’s own actions or inactions. The trial court found — and the appellate court agreed — that Howard’s failures were self-inflicted: she forgot her password and her pleadings were rejected for noncompliance with court rules and e-filing guidelines. Howard never filed a motion under MCR 1.109(G)(7) to establish that the failure was attributable to a system error rather than her own conduct.
The court also rejected Howard’s argument that Smoler’s alleged failure to provide her medical records excused the late filing, noting that MCL 600.2912d(3) extends only the deadline for filing the Affidavit of Merit, not the deadline for filing the complaint itself.
Key Takeaways
- A rejected e-filing has no operative filing date — a subsequent corrected complaint cannot relate back to a rejected submission under MCR 1.109(G)(5)(b), because rejected documents do not become part of the court record.
- To obtain a backdated filing date after an e-filing system failure, a filer must affirmatively move the court under MCR 1.109(G)(7) and prove the failure was not caused by their own actions; password errors and noncompliant documents are attributable to the filer, not the system.
- A defendant’s failure to timely produce medical records may excuse a late Affidavit of Merit under MCL 600.2912d(3), but it does not toll or extend the deadline for filing the complaint itself.
- Michigan’s 182-day NOI tolling period preserves only whatever time remained in the limitations period when the NOI was served — here, two days — making precise calendar management essential when filing close to the deadline.
Why It Matters
This decision, following Goff v. Vitti, cements a strict rule in Michigan: e-filing rejections create no safety net for litigants who miss limitations deadlines. Attorneys who attempt last-minute electronic filings risk forfeiting their clients’ claims entirely if a submission is rejected for any reason attributable to the filer — including technical missteps as common as a forgotten password or a formatting defect. Courts will not deem a corrected filing timely simply because counsel attempted to file before the deadline.
For medical malpractice practitioners in particular, the case underscores the compounding danger of NOI timing. Serving an NOI close to the end of the limitations period creates a narrow residual window after the 182-day toll expires, leaving little margin for error. The opinion is a clear signal that courts will enforce these deadlines rigidly and that self-inflicted e-filing failures will not be treated as grounds for equitable relief.