Title: Scarsella v. Pollak
Citation: 461 Mich. 547, 607 N.W.2d 711
Docket Number: 114630
State: Michigan
Issuer: Michigan Supreme Court
Date: March 28, 2000

607 N.W.2d 711 (2000)
461 Mich. 547
Richard SCARSELLA, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Norman L. POLLAK, M.D., Defendant-Appellee.
Docket No. 114630.

Supreme Court of Michigan.
March 28, 2000.
*712 Dib &amp; Fagan, P.C. (by Albert J. Dib), Detroit, and Bendure &amp; Thomas (by Victor S. Valenti), Detroit, of counsel, for plaintiff-appellant.
Schwartz &amp; Jalkanen (by Karl E. Hannum), Southfield, for defendant-appellee.
PER CURIAM.
In this case, the Court of Appeals has crafted a clear, concise opinion that correctly resolves an important issue. 232 Mich.App. 61, 591 N.W.2d 257 (1998). We adopt this opinion in its entirety, and reprint it below. At its conclusion, we will add two additional points of clarification.
In this case, plaintiff filed his medical malpractice complaint against defendant and others on September 22, 1995, approximately two to three weeks before plaintiff's claim would be barred by the applicable two-year limitation period. MCL 600.5805(4); MSA 27A.5805(4). Plaintiff did not file an affidavit of merit with the complaint, however, and he did *713 not move for a twenty-eight-day extension in which to file an affidavit.
As indicated, we wish to add two additional points. One concerns Gregory v. Heritage Hosp., decided sub nom. Dorris *714 v. Detroit Osteopathic Hosp. Corp., 460 Mich. 26, 47-48, 594 N.W.2d 455 (1999). In that case, we wrote:
That is all true. However, the difference between Dorris / Gregory and the present case is that today's plaintiff has a statute of limitations problem.[2] As we explained in Dorris, a plaintiff who files a medical-malpractice complaint without the required affidavit is subject to a dismissal without prejudice, and can refile properly at a later date. However, such a plaintiff still must comply with the applicable period of limitation.
That brings us to our second point of clarification. MCL 600.5856(a); MSA 27A.5856(a) provides that a period of limitation is tolled "[a]t the time the complaint is filed and a copy of the summons and complaint are served on the defendant."[3] In the present case, the plaintiff did file and serve a complaint within the limitation period. The issue thus arises whether that filing and service tolled the limitation period, so that it still had not expired when the affidavit was filed the following spring.[4]
As explained by the Court of Appeals in the opinion we are adopting today, such an interpretation would undo the Legislature's clear statement that an affidavit of merit "shall" be filed with the complaint. MCL 600.2912d(1); MSA 27A.2912(4)(1). And the Court of Appeals also correctly noted Solowy v. Oakwood Hosp. Corp., supra at 228-229, 561 N.W.2d 843, where we counseled persons who cannot provide the required affidavit to obtain an extension under M.C.L. § 600.2912d(2); MSA 27A.2912(4)(2).[5]
*715 Today, we address only the situation in which a medical malpractice plaintiff wholly omits to file the affidavit required by M.C.L. § 600.2912d(1); MSA 27A.2912(4)(1).[6] In such an instance, the filing of the complaint is ineffective, and does not work a tolling of the applicable period of limitation. This holding does not extend to a situation in which a court subsequently determines that a timely filed affidavit is inadequate or defective.[7]
For the reasons stated by the Court of Appeals, as clarified in this opinion,[8] we affirm the judgments of the circuit court and the Court of Appeals. MCR 7.302(F)(1).
WEAVER, C.J., and TAYLOR, CORRIGAN, YOUNG, and MARKMAN, JJ., concurred.
MICHAEL F. CAVANAGH and MARILYN J. KELLY, JJ.
We would grant or deny leave to appeal, but would not dispose of this case by opinion per curiam.
[1]  We recognize that in VandenBerg v. VandenBerg, 231 Mich.App. 497, 586 N.W.2d 570 (1998), [the Court of Appeals] held that dismissal is not an appropriate remedy when a medical malpractice plaintiff fails to file an affidavit of merit. However, VandenBerg did not involve a statute of limitations problem and hence is factually and legally distinguishable from this case.
[2]  In Dorris/Gregory, we were presented with no issue regarding the statute of limitations. Ms. Gregory's failure to file the affidavit of merit stemmed from the fact that her attorney did not believe the complaint to be one for medical malpractice. Instead, the complaint alleged assault and battery, and was framed as an ordinary negligence claim. Part of this Court's opinion was devoted to resolving the nature of the case. 460 Mich. at 43-47, 594 N.W.2d 455.
[3]  In general, of course, a statute of limitations requires only that a complaint be filed within the limitation period. Buscaino v. Rhodes, 385 Mich. 474, 481, 189 N.W.2d 202 (1971), partially overruled on other grounds, McDougall v. Schanz, 461 Mich. 15, 597 N.W.2d 148 (1999). The summons can be served within ninety-one days thereafter, unless a second summons (valid for a definite period not exceeding one year) is issued within the first ninety-one day period. MCR 2.102(A), (D).
[4]  A tolling issue under M.C.L. § 600.5856(a); MSA 27A.5856(a) could not have arisen in VandenBerg, because the affidavit of merit was served at the same time as the complaint. 231 Mich.App. at 498, 503, 586 N.W.2d 570.
[5]  Upon motion of a party for good cause shown, the court in which the complaint is filed may grant the plaintiff or, if the plaintiff is represented by an attorney, the plaintiff's attorney an additional 28 days in which to file the affidavit required under subsection (1). [MCL 600.2912d(2); MSA 27A.2912(4)(2).]
[6]  The statutory requirement is also reflected in the court rules.

Medical Malpractice Actions. In an action alleging medical malpractice filed on or after October 1, 1993, each party must file an affidavit as provided in M.C.L. § 600.2912d, 600.2912e; MSA 27A.2912(4), 27A.2912(5). Notice of filing the affidavit must be promptly served on the opposing party. If the opposing party has appeared in the action, the notice may be served in the manner provided by MCR 2.107. If the opposing party has not appeared, the notice must be served in the manner provided by MCR 2.105. Proof of service of the notice must be promptly filed with the court. [MCR 2.112(L), effective April 1, 1998, 456 Mich. ccxx (1998).]
[7]  We do not decide today how well the affidavit must be framed. Whether a timely filed affidavit that is grossly nonconforming to the statute tolls the statute is a question we save for later decisional development. Neither do we decide the proper handling of a case like Gregory (Dorris) in which there is a bona fide dispute regarding the nature of the case.
[8]  The plaintiff also raised a second issue, but it does not warrant discussion.