Opinion ID: 848702
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: MCL 600.2912b(4)(c): BREACH

Text: In response to § 2912b(4)(c), which requires a claimant to state [t]he manner in which it is claimed that the applicable standard of practice or care was breached, plaintiff's notice to the hospital states See paragraph 2 above. The notice provided to the remaining defendants [13] states: Claimant claims that Obstetrics & Gynecology of Big Rapids, Dr. Gail DesNoyers and Barb Davis, PAC, failed to provide her with the applicable standard of practice and care outlined in paragraph 2 above. The Court of Appeals panel held that the notices complied with § 2912b(4)(c): If we look only to the statements in paragraphs two and three of the notices, they arguably do not comply with the statute, particularly with respect to the individual defendants. However, nothing in the statute requires that the notice of intent be in a particular format or that each of the six statutory items be separately listed or identified. If we examine the respective first paragraphs of the notices (the factual basis for the claim), we do find a statement of the manner in which plaintiff claims the standard of practice or care was breached. Specifically, the notices clearly state that the medical personnel incorrectly diagnosed a spontaneous abortion rather than an ectopic pregnancy, resulting in the loss of plaintiff's only remaining fallopian tube, thus rendering her sterile. [252 Mich.App. at 672, 653 N.W.2d 441.] We agree that nothing in § 2912b(4) requires that the notice be in any particular format. The statute does, however, clearly require the claimant to provide a statement of each of the enumerated categories of information, and we disagree with the panel's conclusion that the required information need not be separately ... identified. Certainly, the statement must identify, in a readily ascertainable manner, the specific information mandated by § 2912b(4). The notices fail to identify how the various defendants breached the applicable standards of care. Here, the hospital's notice of intent refers to paragraph 2, in which the alleged standard of practice or care is set out. The notice of intent applicable to the remaining defendants states that defendants, defendant Atkins excluded, failed to provide [plaintiff] with the applicable standard of practice and care. In both instances, plaintiff has stated, in essence: Defendants breached the standard of care by breaching the standard of care. Such a circular and unresponsive assertion is not minimally compliant with the statutory mandate that plaintiff provide a statement of the manner in which defendants breached the applicable standards of care. [14] We are also unable to discern in the paragraphs setting forth the factual basis for the claim any statement of the manner in which the standards of care were breached. The notices indicate that plaintiff complained of severe pain, was diagnosed with a miscarriage, underwent a dilation and curettage procedure, was sent home, returned to the hospital four days later, was diagnosed with an ectopic pregnancy, and underwent surgery to remove her left tube. Although these are certainly tragic circumstances, the facts as set forth in the notices simply do not serve to notify defendants of the manner in which they breached their respective standard of care. The notices do not aver how plaintiff alleged her treatment by any defendant was deficient. There is no allegation, for example, that any of the defendants failed to perform critical tests, incorrectly diagnosed her condition, or failed to refer her to a specialist in keeping with the appropriate standard of care. Although, perhaps, an inference arises from the recitation of facts that plaintiff was alleging that one or more of the defendants should have earlier diagnosed an ectopic pregnancy, such an inference is not sufficient to meet the statutory requirement that plaintiff provide a statement of the manner in which each defendant breached the applicable standard of care. [15]