Background
In July 2020, Maurice Ernest died from a pulmonary embolism one day after presenting to a McLaren hospital with chest pain. The personal representative of his estate, Keran Ernest, was appointed on June 7, 2021. The general two-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice would have expired in July 2022. However, Michigan’s wrongful-death “saving statute,” MCL 600.5852, gave the representative two years from the date her letters of authority were issued—until June 7, 2023—to file suit.
The estate’s representative sent a mandatory Notice of Intent to Sue (NOI) to the defendant healthcare providers on February 10, 2023. Sending an NOI typically “tolls” (pauses) the statute of limitations for 182 days under MCL 600.5856(c). The representative filed the complaint on August 14, 2023, after the June 7 deadline but within the 182-day tolling period.
The defendants moved for dismissal, arguing the complaint was untimely. They relied on a 2004 Michigan Supreme Court case, Waltz v Wyse, which held that the wrongful-death saving period was not a “statute of limitations” and therefore could not be tolled by an NOI. The trial court and the Court of Appeals agreed, finding themselves bound by Waltz, and dismissed the case. The Michigan Supreme Court then agreed to hear the case to reconsider its own precedent in Waltz.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Supreme Court reversed, explicitly overruling its 20-year-old decision in Waltz v Wyse. The Court held that Waltz was wrongly decided and that the tolling provision of MCL 600.5856(c) *does* apply to the period provided by the wrongful-death saving statute, MCL 600.5852. As a result, the plaintiff’s complaint was timely filed.
Writing for the majority, Justice Bernstein reasoned that the fundamental flaw in Waltz was its characterization of the saving statute as something other than a limitations period. The Court clarified that when a statute “saves” a cause of action by granting an additional period of time to file, it necessarily creates a new, extended limitations period. Because MCL 600.5852 provides a specific time within which a representative must bring suit, it functions as a statute of limitations and is therefore subject to the tolling mechanisms that apply to other limitations periods, including the 182-day NOI pause.
The Court also concluded that stare decisis—the principle of adhering to precedent—did not require keeping Waltz. The majority found that Waltz defied practical workability, had been subject to widespread and consistent criticism from jurists since it was decided, and that defendants had no persuasive reliance interest in its continuation. The Court concluded that it was correcting its own prior misreading of the statute, which had created an unintended procedural trap for plaintiffs’ attorneys.
Key Takeaways
- The Michigan Supreme Court overruled its 2004 precedent in Waltz v Wyse.
- Michigan’s wrongful-death saving statute (MCL 600.5852), which gives a personal representative two years from appointment to file suit, is a statute of limitations.
- Because it is a statute of limitations, its deadline can be paused (tolled) by the 182-day period that begins after a plaintiff sends a Notice of Intent in a medical malpractice case.
- This ruling makes the timeline for filing a wrongful-death medical malpractice action more straightforward and removes what many jurists saw as a procedural trap.
Why It Matters
This decision resolves a significant point of confusion and contention in Michigan medical malpractice litigation. For two decades, the Waltz rule created a perilous situation for personal representatives, who could not rely on the standard NOI tolling provision to pause the clock on the wrongful-death saving period. Attorneys for estates had to file suit before the two-year anniversary of their appointment, regardless of where they were in the 182-day notice process, or risk dismissal.
By overturning Waltz, the Supreme Court has harmonized the statutory scheme, ensuring that the procedural protections afforded to malpractice plaintiffs apply consistently. Plaintiff’s attorneys now have more certainty and breathing room when pursuing complex wrongful-death claims, while defense counsel can no longer rely on this specific timeliness argument for dismissal. The ruling simplifies litigation by making the timeline rules more logical and predictable for all parties.