By Alethia Kasben
Gongwer News Service
A longstanding precedent set by a 2004 Supreme Court precedent that held the medical malpractice tolling law does not extend to wrongful death suits was overruled in a 5-2 decision released Wednesday.
A split Supreme Court in Ernest v. Brown (SC Docket No. 168462) ruled Waltz v. Wyse (2004) was incorrectly decided and overturned the decision. The majority opinion was written by Justice Richard Bernstein and joined by Chief Justice Megan Cavanagh, Justice Elizabeth Welch, Justice Kyra Harris Bolden and Justice Noah Hood.
Justice Kimberly Thomas and Justice Brian Zahra dissented.
Medical malpractice claims are subject to a general two-year statute of limitations with a requirement that a plaintiff file a notice of intent to sue 182 days prior to filing a complaint. The two-year statute of limitations is tolled during the notice period.
When a wrongful death claim is involved, plaintiffs typically have two years from when letters of authority are granted to a personal representative with a three-year limit after the general limitations period has run.
In the Waltz decision, the court ruled the additional period permitted for filing wrongful-death actions is not subject to tolling under MCL 600.5856.
Bernstein wrote that Waltz characterized the law around wrongful death claims as “solely a saving provision,” which rejected the statutory reading consistent with caselaw that characterized the law as incorporating a limitations period.
“MCL 600.5852 ‘saves’ the cause of action from a statute-of-limitations defense for some additional period of time; in doing so, it necessarily incorporates a new limitations period,” the decision says. “In other words, the saving provision ‘saves’ the cause of action because it extends the limitations period.”
The majority further opined that overruling Waltz would not cause chaos, as only a small set of litigants are likely to be affected.
Zahra, in a short dissent, wrote the majority was “heavily biased,” in favor of overruling Waltz. He also joined Thomas’s separate dissent.
Thomas wrote that, generally, she agrees Waltz was wrongly decided, and there is unlikely to be significant disruption from overruling it. However, she said the majority opinion does not provide a compelling reason to overrule the precedent beyond disagreeing with its holding.
“I am not categorically opposed to overruling precedent, but there must be a compelling reason to overrule a case,” she wrote. “It is not enough that I disagree with the decision and that overruling it would not cause substantial harm; that approach threatens to flip stare decisis on its head by creating a presumption that this Court should overrule precedent with which it disagrees. We may not do so. Instead, even if we would have resolved the issue differently, we should refrain from overruling precedent absent a compelling reason.”
Stare decisis is the precedent the court uses to determine whether an earlier decision should be overruled. In the opinion, Bernstein considered whether Waltz was unworkable, whether overruling it would create an undue hardship and whether it can no longer be justified based on current facts and law.
The majority ruled that each factor favored overruling the decision.
Thomas, however, wrote Waltz created an administrable procedural rule that has been followed for the last 20 years with relative ease, and there have been no changes to the law since the original decision.
“I recognize the awkwardness of retaining a decision that one believes is legally wrong, and I do not question whether courts have an obligation to correct past errors in appropriate circumstances,” Thomas wrote. “At the same time, I believe it is important to apply stare decisis in a principled manner out of respect for this Court and to ensure legitimacy and public respect for our decisions. In this situation, I can discern no strong or compelling reason to overrule Waltz that goes beyond my skepticism of its conclusion.”
Gongwer News Service
A longstanding precedent set by a 2004 Supreme Court precedent that held the medical malpractice tolling law does not extend to wrongful death suits was overruled in a 5-2 decision released Wednesday.
A split Supreme Court in Ernest v. Brown (SC Docket No. 168462) ruled Waltz v. Wyse (2004) was incorrectly decided and overturned the decision. The majority opinion was written by Justice Richard Bernstein and joined by Chief Justice Megan Cavanagh, Justice Elizabeth Welch, Justice Kyra Harris Bolden and Justice Noah Hood.
Justice Kimberly Thomas and Justice Brian Zahra dissented.
Medical malpractice claims are subject to a general two-year statute of limitations with a requirement that a plaintiff file a notice of intent to sue 182 days prior to filing a complaint. The two-year statute of limitations is tolled during the notice period.
When a wrongful death claim is involved, plaintiffs typically have two years from when letters of authority are granted to a personal representative with a three-year limit after the general limitations period has run.
In the Waltz decision, the court ruled the additional period permitted for filing wrongful-death actions is not subject to tolling under MCL 600.5856.
Bernstein wrote that Waltz characterized the law around wrongful death claims as “solely a saving provision,” which rejected the statutory reading consistent with caselaw that characterized the law as incorporating a limitations period.
“MCL 600.5852 ‘saves’ the cause of action from a statute-of-limitations defense for some additional period of time; in doing so, it necessarily incorporates a new limitations period,” the decision says. “In other words, the saving provision ‘saves’ the cause of action because it extends the limitations period.”
The majority further opined that overruling Waltz would not cause chaos, as only a small set of litigants are likely to be affected.
Zahra, in a short dissent, wrote the majority was “heavily biased,” in favor of overruling Waltz. He also joined Thomas’s separate dissent.
Thomas wrote that, generally, she agrees Waltz was wrongly decided, and there is unlikely to be significant disruption from overruling it. However, she said the majority opinion does not provide a compelling reason to overrule the precedent beyond disagreeing with its holding.
“I am not categorically opposed to overruling precedent, but there must be a compelling reason to overrule a case,” she wrote. “It is not enough that I disagree with the decision and that overruling it would not cause substantial harm; that approach threatens to flip stare decisis on its head by creating a presumption that this Court should overrule precedent with which it disagrees. We may not do so. Instead, even if we would have resolved the issue differently, we should refrain from overruling precedent absent a compelling reason.”
Stare decisis is the precedent the court uses to determine whether an earlier decision should be overruled. In the opinion, Bernstein considered whether Waltz was unworkable, whether overruling it would create an undue hardship and whether it can no longer be justified based on current facts and law.
The majority ruled that each factor favored overruling the decision.
Thomas, however, wrote Waltz created an administrable procedural rule that has been followed for the last 20 years with relative ease, and there have been no changes to the law since the original decision.
“I recognize the awkwardness of retaining a decision that one believes is legally wrong, and I do not question whether courts have an obligation to correct past errors in appropriate circumstances,” Thomas wrote. “At the same time, I believe it is important to apply stare decisis in a principled manner out of respect for this Court and to ensure legitimacy and public respect for our decisions. In this situation, I can discern no strong or compelling reason to overrule Waltz that goes beyond my skepticism of its conclusion.”
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
