Opinion ID: 845819
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: analysis

Text: The question presented is whether MCL 600.2912e requires a defendant to file an affidavit of meritorious defense, notwithstanding the fact that the defendant also asserts a claim of governmental immunity under the government tort liability act (GTLA), MCL 691.1407(2). MCL 600.2912e(1) provides, in pertinent part: In an action alleging medical malpractice. . . the defendant or, if the defendant is represented by an attorney, the defendant's attorney shall file, not later than 91 days after the plaintiff or the plaintiff's attorney files the affidavit [of merit], an affidavit of meritorious defense signed by a health professional. . . .[Emphasis added.] The Legislature's use of the word shall in a statute generally indicates a mandatory and imperative directive. Burton v. Reed City Hosp. Corp., 471 Mich. 745, 752, 691 N.W.2d 424 (2005). As such, the statute suggests that a medical malpractice defendant is obligated to file an affidavit of meritorious defense. However, MCL 691.1407(2) provides that a governmental employee is immune from tort liability if all the following conditions are met: (a) The officer, employee, member, or volunteer is acting or reasonably believes he or she is acting within the scope of his or her authority. (b) The governmental agency is engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function. (c) The officer's, employee's, member's, or volunteer's conduct does not amount to gross negligence that is the proximate cause of the injury or damage. We have never specifically addressed the applicability of MCL 600.2912e to defendants who are governmental employees. However, we have repeatedly observed that governmental immunity legislation evidences a clear legislative judgment that public and private tortfeasors should be treated differently. Robinson v. Detroit, 462 Mich. 439, 459, 613 N.W.2d 307 (2000) (citation omitted). We have also observed that a central purpose of governmental immunity is to prevent a drain on the state's financial resources, by avoiding even the expense of having to contest on the merits any claim barred by governmental immunity. Mack v. Detroit, 467 Mich. 186, 203 n. 18, 649 N.W.2d 47 (2002). We believe that the expense and burden of obtaining an expert to prepare an affidavit of meritorious defense fall squarely within this purpose. It would be incongruous to conclude that the failure to comply with a pleading requirement of this nature would subject a defendant to tort liability, where such a defendant is already immune from tort liability by virtue of his or her status as a governmental employee. Allowing governmental employee defendants to raise an immunity defense while simultaneously requiring that they disrupt their duties and expend time and taxpayer resources to prepare an unnecessary affidavit of meritorious defense, would render illusory the immunity afforded by the GTLA. [2] Moreover, we note that the affidavit required by MCL 600.2912e must address whether the medical malpractice defendant complied with the applicable medical standard of practice or care. [3] A claim that a defendant has violated an applicable standard of practice or care sounds in ordinary negligence. However, the plain language of the governmental immunity statute indicates that the Legislature limited governmental employee liability to gross negligencesituations in which the contested conduct was substantially more than negligent. Gross negligence is defined by GTLA as conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury results. MCL 691.1407(7)(a). Thus, MCL 600.2912e permits the assertion of a violation of the standard of care of ordinary negligence, which is a distinct and lesser standard of care than the gross negligence standard set forth in the GTLA. As such, even if a plaintiff could show that a government employee defendant's conduct breached the applicable standard of practice or care, such a showing would not be sufficient to impose liability upon the employee. Rather, such a plaintiff would still have to make the additional showing that the employee's conduct amounted to gross negligence that was the proximate cause of the injury. Because the affidavit only requires a plaintiff to address the irrelevant question of ordinary negligence, and not the ultimate question of gross negligence, we conclude that the Legislature could not have intended that a governmental employee's failure to timely comply with the affidavit of merit requirements would deprive that employee of governmental immunity from tort liability. [4] Because governmental employees are immune from breaches of the standard of ordinary care, the affidavit of merit requirements of MCL 600.2912e are not relevant to a defendant otherwise entitled to governmental immunity, and we therefore conclude that such a defendant may not lose the benefit of that immunity merely by failing to timely file the affidavit of meritorious defense. [5] However, our opinion today should not be read to suggest that the mere assertion of a governmental immunity defense forever precludes the defendant making that assertion from the obligation to file the affidavit required by MCL 600.2912e. Where it has been determined that a defendant claiming governmental immunity is not entitled to immunity under MCL 691.1407(2), the defendant would, of course, then be obligated to comply with the same requirements as any other private tortfeasor. Yet, because of the 91-day filing requirement contained in MCL 600.2912e, a ruling against the defendant on the immunity issue coming after 91 days would arguably prejudice the ability of a defendant to comply with MCL 600.2912e. Under MCR 7.202(6)(v), an order denying governmental immunity to a governmental party, including a governmental agency, official, or employee is a final order, from which an immediate appeal of right may be taken. Moreover, MCR 7.209(E)(4) provides that when a governmental party takes such an appeal, the trial court shall stay proceedings regarding that party during the pendency of the appeal, unless the Court of Appeals directs otherwise. In light of our interpretation today of the relevant statutes, and in view of these court rules, we hold that where a defendant has asserted the defense of governmental immunity, that defendant is not obligated to comply with the affidavit of meritorious defense requirement of MCL 600.2912e, unless an order has been entered denying governmental immunity to the defendant. [6] Where such an order has been entered, the defendant's obligation to comply with the requirements of MCL 600.2912e will be stayed during the pendency of the appeal of that order.