Dyke v. Richard, 390 Mich. 739

Summary

The Michigan Supreme Court addressed the statute of limitations for a medical malpractice action arising from an allegedly missed pelvic fracture diagnosis. The Court held that the action must be brought within two years of the last treatment or within two years after the plaintiff discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, the malpractice, whichever is later. It reversed and remanded for further proceedings concerning the hospital's potential agency and employee relationships.

Holdings

1. An action based on malpractice by a state-licensed professional must be brought within two years after the professional discontinues treating or serving the plaintiff, or within two years after the plaintiff discovers, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the asserted malpractice, whichever is later.
2. The plaintiffs were entitled to prove the relationship between Dr. Feller and St. Joseph Hospital, as well as the duties and responsibilities of other personnel alleged to be hospital employees, in support of their claims against the hospital.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Michigan's malpractice limitation statutes, MCLA 600.5805(3) and MCLA 600.5838, abrogated the discovery rule and required all malpractice actions to be filed within two years of the patient's last treatment regardless of when the malpractice was discovered.
2. Whether the trial court properly granted St. Joseph Hospital summary judgment by limiting the hospital's duty to taking X-rays in accordance with the attending physician's instructions.
3. Whether plaintiffs should be permitted to prove the employment or agency relationship between Dr. Feller, the hospital, and other personnel and to amend inadequate pleadings under GCR 1963, 118.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded