Background
Maurice Ernest went to McLaren Regional Medical Center on July 16, 2020, with chest pain and discomfort. He was transferred to the cardiac unit for observation and received a provisional diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome and hypokalemia. He 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. She served defendants with the notice of intent required for a medical-malpractice action on February 10, 2023, and filed her complaint on August 14, 2023. The trial court dismissed the complaint as untimely under Waltz v. Wyse, which held that the notice period does not toll the additional filing period available to a decedent’s personal representative 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 is subject to the tolling mechanism in MCL 600.5856(c). Serving a medical-malpractice notice of intent can thus toll the additional period that MCL 600.5852 gives a personal representative to bring a surviving wrongful-death claim. Applying that rule, the Court concluded that Ernest’s complaint was timely.
The Court overruled Waltz v. Wyse, concluding that Waltz incorrectly treated MCL 600.5852 solely as a saving provision rather than recognizing that it also creates a new limitations period. The majority further determined that stare decisis did not justify retaining Waltz, emphasizing its longstanding criticism, its unwarranted restriction of the filing 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 wrongful-death filing period in MCL 600.5852 is a limitations period that may be tolled under MCL 600.5856(c).
- A timely medical-malpractice notice of intent can extend the time available to a personal representative proceeding under MCL 600.5852.
- The Court overruled Waltz v. Wyse and reinstated Ernest’s malpractice action for further proceedings.
Why It Matters
The decision removes a procedural rule that had prevented personal representatives from receiving the same notice-based tolling available in other medical-malpractice actions. Lawyers evaluating a wrongful-death malpractice claim must now calculate the filing deadline with the potential tolling effect of a properly served notice of intent.
The ruling also marks a significant departure from more than two decades of Michigan precedent. The dissenters disputed either the majority’s statutory interpretation or its stare decisis analysis, arguing that Waltz supplied an administrable rule on which the bench and bar had long relied.