Brian Potter v. Richard C. McLeary, M.D., 483 Mich. 96

Summary

The Michigan Supreme Court held that a professional corporation must receive a notice of intent to sue before a medical malpractice action may be commenced when the claim against the corporation is based on its vicarious liability for a licensed health care provider's professional services. The Court further held that the notice of intent was compliant even though it did not expressly identify the vicarious-liability theory or separately state the legal relationship between the physician and the professional corporation. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. When claims against a professional corporation are predicated on its vicarious liability for a licensed health care provider rendering professional services, the plaintiff must provide the professional corporation with a timely notice of intent before commencing the medical-malpractice action.
2. MCL 600.2912b(4) does not require a claimant to state the legal or employment relationship between the parties being notified; subsection (4)(f) requires naming the health professionals and health facilities being notified.
3. When vicarious liability is the only claim asserted against a professional corporation, MCL 600.2912b does not require the notice of intent to use the term 'vicarious liability' or otherwise state that legal theory.
4. The notice of intent was fully compliant as to Huron Valley Radiology because it named the corporation and physician and provided the factual and medical information necessary to inform the corporation of the physician-based claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a professional corporation must receive a notice of intent before a medical-malpractice action based on its vicarious liability for a licensed health care provider's professional services may be commenced.
2. Whether MCL 600.2912b(4) requires a notice of intent to identify the legal or employment relationship between the professional corporation and the physician.
3. Whether MCL 600.2912b(4) requires a claimant to state the legal theory of vicarious liability when vicarious liability is the only claim against the professional corporation.
4. Whether the notice of intent in this case satisfied the statutory content requirements.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded