Opinion ID: 845819
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION FOR A VIOLATION OF MCL 600.2912e IS A DEFAULT

Text: Another issue considered in plaintiffs' application for leave to appeal is whether default is an appropriate sanction for a violation of MCL 600.2912e. MCL 600.2912d requires a plaintiff to file an affidavit of merit with the complaint. Also, MCL 600.2912e requires a defendant to file an affidavit of meritorious defense no later than 91 days after the plaintiff files its affidavit of merit. I conclude that a defendant who fails to file an affidavit of meritorious defense may be defaulted, because an answer without an affidavit is viewed by the courts as a nullity. A default judgment is proper where a party has failed to plead or otherwise defend [an action.] MCR 2.603(A)(1). To hold otherwise would not only ignore our precedent and court rules, it would treat medical malpractice plaintiffs differently from medical malpractice defendants. For example, in Scarsella, supra, this Court addressed the proper remedy for a plaintiff's failure to file an affidavit pursuant to MCL 600.2912d. We held that the Legislature's use of shall in MCL 600.2912d, indicates that the affidavit accompanying the complaint is mandatory and imperative. Scarsella, supra at 549, 607 N.W.2d 711 (citation omitted). This Court concluded that failure to meet the affidavit requirement does not toll the applicable statute of limitations because the filing is ineffective. Id. The complaint itself is viewed as a nullity. Hence, there is nothing to toll. Similarly, in Omelenchuk v. City of Warren, 461 Mich. 567, 609 N.W.2d 177 (2000) [6] this Court held that a plaintiff cannot file suit without giving the notice required by [MCL 600.2912b(1)]. The failure of a plaintiff to give the notice means that a subsequently filed complaint is not viable. That complaint, too, would be viewed as a nullity. Consider now the requirement that defendants in medical malpractice cases must file an affidavit of meritorious defense pursuant to MCL 600.2912e. Applying the reasoning in Scarsella and Omelenchuk, there having been no statutorily required affidavits filed, defendants' answers were deficient and should be considered a nullity. Therefore, the trial court should have granted plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment. The majority points out that defendants properly asserted governmental immunity. But, proper assertion of that defense does not remove defendants from Scarsella and Omelenchuk. Defendants still failed to file a complete answer. This approach not only fosters consistent treatment of medical malpractice plaintiffs and defendants, it effectuates the intent of the Legislature as expressed MCL 600.2912e. After a plaintiff has filed an affidavit of merit and a complaint as required by MCL 600.2912d, the defendant must file an answer within 21 days. Then, as required under MCL 600.2912e, the defendant has 91 days from the filing of the plaintiff's affidavit and complaint to file an affidavit of meritorious defense. In this case, defendants' failure to follow these procedural requirements should have led the trial court to grant plaintiffs' motion for default judgment, as mandated by Scarsella and Omelenchuk.