 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lentini v. Urbancic7/28/2005
FOR PUBLICATION
ON REMAND
Before: Smolenski, P.J., and White and Kelly, JJ.
In Lentini v Urbancic (Lentini I), 262 Mich App 552; 686 NW2d 510 (2004), we affirmed the trial court's grant of summary disposition for defendants under MCR 2.116(C)(7). However, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, our Supreme Court vacated the decision in Lentini I and remanded the case to this Court for reconsideration in light of Waltz v. Wyse, 469 Mich 642; 677 NW2d 813 (2004). Lentini v Urbancic (Lentini II), 472 Mich 885; 695 NW2d 66 (2005). On remand, we again affirm the trial court's decision to grant summary disposition.
Plaintiff, as the personal representative of his deceased wife's estate, filed a complaint alleging medical malpractice against defendants on April 17, 2002. Lentini I, supra at 555. The period of limitations is two years for an action charging malpractice. MCL 600.5805(6). Plaintiff's wife passed away on April 11, 1999, Lentini I, supra at 554, therefore, plaintiff had until April 11, 2001 to file a malpractice claim within the applicable period of limitations. However, under MCL 600.5852,
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.
Plaintiff's letters of authority making him the personal representative of his wife's estate were signed on October 15, 1999, but were certified and mailed to plaintiff on October 19, 1999. Lentini I, supra at 554. Consequently, under MCL 600.5852, plaintiff had until either October 15, 2001 or October 19, 2001, to file the malpractice claim, depending on which date the letters of authority were deemed issued.
On October 12, 2001, plaintiff filed a Notice of Intent to File Suit against defendants as required by MCL 600.2912b. Lentini I, supra at 554. Plaintiff argued that he had until April 19, 2002 to file his claim because the period under MCL 600.5852 was tolled for 182 days under MCL 600.5856(d) by the filing of notice and because the letters of authority were issued on the date certified and mailed. While this Court accepted that MCL 600.5856(d) tolled the period described under MCL 600.5852, we disagreed with plaintiff's contention that the letters of authority were issued on October 19, 1999. We held that the letters of authority were issued on the date signed. Lentini I, supra at 555. Consequently, we determined plaintiff's filing on April 17, 2002, was untimely by two days. Id.
In Lentini II, supra, our Supreme Court vacated the decision of this Court in Lentini I, supra, and instructed this Court to reconsider our decision in light of Waltz, supra. In Waltz, our Supreme Court held that MCL 600.5856(d) is properly applicable only to statutes of limitation or repose. Waltz, supra at 650. The Court further held that, because MCL 600.5852 is not a statute of limitation, but rather a saving provision, MCL 600.5856(d) does not toll the two-year period within which a personal representative may file a claim on behalf of a decedent under MCL 600.5852. Id. at 650-652. Hence, under Waltz, supra, plaintiff's filing of notice pursuant to MCL 600.2912b after the expiration of the malpractice statutory period of limitations did not toll either the original period of limitations or the period applicable under the saving provision of MCL 600.5856(
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.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|