Pendell v. Jarka, 156 Mich. App. 405

Summary

The Michigan Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff’s medical malpractice claims against an orthopedic physician and a hospital were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. The court concluded that the physician-patient relationship ended when the physician referred the plaintiff to a neurologist, and that later provision of medical records and a referral letter did not constitute continued treatment or service. The court also held that the plaintiff knew or should have known of the asserted malpractice more than six months before filing suit.

Holdings

1. Pendell's claim against St. Mary's Hospital accrued no later than the hospital's last treatment of him in late September 1981, and the action filed on February 21, 1984, was barred by the two-year limitations period.
2. Jarka discontinued treating or otherwise serving Pendell on December 29, 1981, when he referred Pendell to another physician; providing medical records, preparing a referral letter, and reviewing another physician's reports did not restart or toll the limitations period.
3. Pendell's claims against both defendants were also barred by the six-month discovery rule because the undisputed evidence showed that he knew of a possible malpractice claim more than six months before filing suit.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Pendell's claims were barred by the two-year medical-malpractice limitations period measured from the date defendants discontinued treating or serving him.
2. Whether Jarka's later provision of medical records, referral information, and review of another physician's reports constituted continued treatment or service that delayed accrual under MCL 600.5838.
3. Whether Pendell timely commenced the action under the six-month discovery rule in MCL 600.5838(2).

Disposition

affirmed