 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Neal v. Oakwood Hosp. Corp.12/12/1997
In this medical malpractice case, plaintiff William Neal, as next friend of his son, Matthew Neal, a minor, appeals as of right an order (1) granting summary Disposition without prejudice in favor of defendant Oakwood Hospital Corporation, (2) granting a dismissal without prejudice to defendants Susan Adelman, M.D., and Susan Adelman, P.C. (defendant Adelman), (3) granting a dismissal without prejudice to defendant Oakwood United Hospital, Inc., and (4) denying plaintiff's motion for a stay of proceedings. We affirm.
With its enactment of 1993 PA 78, effective April 1, 1994, the Legislature made a number of changes to the Revised Judicature Act, including the addition of a requirement that in medical malpractice cases a potential plaintiff must give a potential defendant 182 days' notice before commencing suit. Specifically, § 2912b(1) provides as follows:
Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person shall not commence an action alleging medical malpractice against a health professional or health facility unless the person has given the health professional or health facility written notice under this section not less than 182 days before the action is commenced. [MCL 600.2912b(1); MSA 27A.2912(2)(1).]
The notice must specify the factual and legal basis for the plaintiff's claim. MCL 600.2912b(4); MSA 27A.2912(2)(4). After notice is given, the parties must allow each other access to those medical records related to the claim that are in their control. MCL 600.2912b(5); MSA 27A.2912(2)(5). The purpose of the notice requirement is to promote settlement without the need for formal litigation and reduce the cost of medical malpractice litigation while still providing compensation for meritorious medical malpractice claims that might otherwise be precluded from recovery because of litigation costs. Senate Legislative Analysis, SB 270, August 11, 1993; House Legislative Analysis, HB 4403-4406, March 22, 1993.
In this case, plaintiff's son was allegedly injured in spring 1991 by defendants' malpractice. On March 26, 1996, plaintiff filed a medical malpractice action on his son's behalf against defendants. In a letter dated March 27, 1996, plaintiff sent defendants written notice of intent to commence a medical malpractice action.
Defendant Adelman moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint on the ground that the trial court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction because plaintiff had failed to wait 182 days after giving notice before commencing suit as required by § 2912b(1).
Plaintiff moved for a stay of proceedings until the expiration of the 182-day notice period under § 2912b(1). Plaintiff explained that he had not complied with § 2912b(1) before commencing suit on March 26, 1996, because he wanted to avoid "significant compromise and impairment of his vested rights" due to changes in the law wrought by the enactment of certain tort reform legislation that became effective upon and applied to causes of action filed on or after March 28, 1996. See, generally, 1995 PA 161 and 1995 PA 249.
Defendant Oakwood Hospital Corporation likewise moved for summary disposition and dismissal on the same ground asserted by defendant Adelman.
The trial court granted defendants' motions and denied plaintiff's motion for a stay of proceedings. The trial court found that § 2912b(1) was both "a condition precedent to filing" a medical malpractice action and a substantive, not procedural, rule. The trial court further found that § 2912b(1) was constitutional, reasoning that the 182-day notice requirement was rationally related to the Legislature's goal of trying to cut the costs of medical care and medical malpractice insura
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|