Stapleton v. City of Wyandotte, 177 Mich. App. 339

441 N.W.2d 90 (1989) · Michigan Court of Appeals · June 5, 1989 · No. 104641

Summary

The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition for physicians in a medical malpractice action, holding that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the applicable limitations period and six-month discovery rule. The court determined that treatment ended upon the plaintiff's hospital discharge and that she had reason to believe the treatment was improper shortly thereafter. The court did not reach whether contract-based claims were separately viable because that issue had not been preserved for appeal.

Holdings

  1. A medical-malpractice claim accrues when the physician-patient relationship ends as to the matters underlying the claim. The defendants' treatment of plaintiff ended upon her discharge from the hospital on July 17, 1984; a general suggestion that she arrange a future checkup did not extend the relationship.
  2. The two-year limitations period expired on July 17, 1986, not July 18, 1986, because the day of discharge was excluded but the corresponding calendar date two years later was included.
  3. A plaintiff discovers or should have discovered a medical-malpractice claim when the defendant's act or omission becomes known and the plaintiff has reason to believe the medical treatment was improper; an attorney's advice is not required.
  4. The appellate court did not decide whether plaintiff's claims sounded solely in malpractice or also in contract because the issue was not addressed by the trial court and was not preserved for appeal.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether plaintiff's medical-malpractice claim accrued when defendants ceased treating her upon her discharge from the hospital on July 17, 1984, or later based on a suggested follow-up appointment.
  2. Whether the two-year medical-malpractice limitations period expired before plaintiff filed suit on July 18, 1986.
  3. Whether plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the existence of her malpractice claim more than six months before filing suit under MCL 600.5838(2).
  4. Whether plaintiff's breach-of-contract theories were subject to different limitations periods.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (17)

  • Coddington v. Robertson, 160 Mich. App. 406, 407 N.W.2d 666 (1987)(followed)
  • Pendell v. Jarka, 156 Mich. App. 405, 402 N.W.2d 23 (1986)(followed)
  • Bigelow v. Walraven, 392 Mich. 566, 576, 221 N.W.2d 328 (1974)(followed)
  • Kelleher v. Mills, 70 Mich. App. 360, 365, 245 N.W.2d 749 (1976)(followed)
  • Smith v. Sinai Hospital, 152 Mich. App. 716, 724-725, 394 N.W.2d 82 (1986)(followed)
  • Schalm v. Mt. Clemens General Hospital, 82 Mich. App. 669, 672, 267 N.W.2d 479 (1978)(followed)
  • Thomas v. Golden, 51 Mich. App. 253, 214 N.W.2d 907 (1974), modified, 51 Mich. App. 693, 214 N.W.2d 907 (1974), aff'd without adopting reasoning, 392 Mich. 779, 220 N.W.2d 677 (1974)(distinguished)
  • Shane v. Mouw, 116 Mich. App. 737, 323 N.W.2d 537 (1982)(distinguished)
  • Wise v. Sisters of Mercy, 21 Mich. App. 134, 175 N.W.2d 33 (1970)(followed)
  • Kelly v. Richmond, 156 Mich. App. 699, 402 N.W.2d 73 (1986)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 17.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Michigan Michigan Court Of Appeals