Opinion ID: 848675
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: under the majority's jurisprudence, defendants forfeited the statute of limitations defense

Text: This Court has held that, in medical malpractice cases, pleading requirements must be strictly followed. For instance, an affidavit of merit shall accompany the complaint, [10] unless the plaintiff obtains an extension from the trial court pursuant to MCL 600.2912d(2). In Scarsella v. Pollak, [11] this Court considered MCL 600.2912d(1). There, the plaintiff failed to include an affidavit of merit with his complaint and neglected to obtain an extension. The statutory period of limitations had expired before the plaintiff filed the affidavit. The Court held that, because the plaintiff failed to comply with the mandatory requirement, he failed to commence the action. Thus, the filing of the complaint `was a nullity' and did not toll the period of limitations. Scarsella, supra at 549, 607 N.W.2d 711 (citation omitted). This interpretation, it concluded, was necessary to effectuate the Legislature's clear statement that an affidavit of merit `shall' be filed with the complaint. MCL 600.2912d(1). Id. at 552, 607 N.W.2d 711. Similarly, this Court has held that a plaintiff cannot file suit without giving the notice required by [MCL 600.2912b(1)]. Omelenchuk v. City of Warren, 461 Mich. 567, 572, 609 N.W.2d 177 (2000), overruled in part on other grounds Waltz v. Wyse, 469 Mich. 642, 655, 677 N.W.2d 813 (2004). The failure to file a notice precludes the filing of a valid complaint. By contrast, defendants must file an affidavit as provided in ... [MCL] 600.2912e.... MCR 2.112(L). The Legislature has mandated that medical malpractice defendants promptly respond to complaints with an affidavit of meritorious defense. Unlike plaintiffs, defendants may not obtain an additional 28 days in which to file the affidavit required.... See MCL 600.2912d(2) and MCL 600.2912e. The fact that, in this case, the parties had agreed to extend the time in which to answer is of no moment. The parties may not rewrite statutes by extrajudicial agreement. See Harvey v. Harvey, 470 Mich. 186, 193-194, 680 N.W.2d 835 (2004). Defendants' answer and affidavit of meritorious defense failed to conform to the pleading requirements. Therefore, the trial court could have concluded, following the reasoning in Scarsella and Omelenchuk, that the answer was deficient. On motion by plaintiff or at the court's own initiative, defendants' nonconforming answer could then have been stricken. MCR 2.115(B). If this had occurred, plaintiff would have been entitled to judgment by default. MCR 2.603(A)(1). See Kowalski v. Fiutowski, 247 Mich.App. 156, 635 N.W.2d 502 (2001). However, plaintiff did not move to strike defendants' answer or for a default judgment. Nevertheless, the court rules require that a statute of limitations defense be asserted in the first responsive pleading, or it is forfeited. MCR 2.116(D)(2). Forfeiture is the failure to timely assert a known right. Quality Products & Concepts Co. v. Nagel Precision, Inc., 469 Mich. 362, 379, 666 N.W.2d 251 (2003). If the reasoning of Scarsella were consistently applied to MCL 600.2912e(1) as it was to MCL 600.2912d(2), defendants' answer would be deemed a nullity because defendants failed to satisfy the mandatory statutory requirements. Thus, even assuming that the statute of limitations defense was a viable affirmative defense at the time it was raised, the defense would be deemed forfeited. This holding would effectuate the Legislature's clear statement [12] that without exception, after the plaintiff has filed a complaint and the requisite affidavit of merit, an answer shall be filed within 21 days. In addition, an affidavit of meritorious defense shall be filed within 91 days. MCL 600.2912e(1). Here, defendants did neither. Their statute of limitations defense should be deemed forfeited.