 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Porch v. Alpha Manor Nursing Home12/13/2005
UNPUBLISHED
Before: Murphy, P.J., and Sawyer and Meter, JJ.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from the trial court's order granting summary disposition to defendants under MCR 2.116(C)(7) on the basis that plaintiff's claims for negligence, wrongful death, and medical malpractice were barred by the applicable statutes of limitation. We affirm. This case is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
This Court reviews de novo a trial court's decision granting summary disposition. Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). Questions whether a statute of limitation bars a claim and questions of statutory interpretation are also reviewed de novo. Farley v Advanced Cardiovascular Health Specialists, PC, 266 Mich App 566, 570-571; 703 NW2d 115 (2005).
The alleged deficient care by defendants occurred between May 1, 1998, and plaintiff's decedent's death on December 21, 1998. Plaintiff was issued letters of authority and appointed personal representative of the decedent's estate on May 22, 2001. On May 20, 2003, plaintiff served a notice of intent to file a claim pursuant to MCL 600.2912b. On November 9, 2003, plaintiff filed this lawsuit.
Plaintiff did not file the lawsuit within the two-year period for filing a medical malpractice action, MCL 600.5805(6), or the three-year period for filing a claim for ordinary negligence, MCL 600.5805(10). Therefore, unless an exception applies, plaintiff's action was barred.
Plaintiff relies on the wrongful death saving provision, MCL 600.5852, and the notice tolling provision, MCL 600.5856(d). MCL 600.5852 states:
If a person dies before the period of limitations has run or within 30 days after the period of limitations has run, an action which survives by law may be commenced by the personal representative of the deceased person at any time within 2 years after letters of authority are issued although the period of limitations has run. But an action shall not be brought under this provision unless the personal representative commences it within 3 years after the period of limitations has run.
We reject plaintiff's contention that this statute extends the deadline for filing a wrongful death action based on medical malpractice to five years (i.e., three years after the general two-year period of limitations has run) and extends the deadline for filing a wrongful death action based on ordinary negligence to six years (i.e., three years after the general three-year period of limitations has run). The first sentence of the statute provides a two-year saving period that begins with the issuance of letters of authority. Plaintiff did not file this action within two years after letters of authority were issued. Rather, she filed it approximately 2-1/2 years after letters of authority were issued. The second sentence of the statute applies to an action "brought under this provision . . . ." Plaintiff's action was not "brought under this provision" because it was not filed within two years after letters of authority were issued. Contrary to plaintiff's position, the extension afforded by the statute is inextricably tied to the issuance of letters of authority; it does not create an independent, extended period of limitation for wrongful death actions. See Farley, supra, p 573 n 16.
Plaintiff argues that her action was timely by virtue of the notice tolling provision applicable to this case, former MCL 600.5856(d), because she filed a notice of intent to sue before the two-year wrongful death saving provision expired. We disagree. The filing of the notice does not toll or extend the period allowed under the wrongful death saving provision. Wa
Page 1 2 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|