Court Opinion

ID: 9888501
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 19:28:36.024819+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:49:52.019177
License: Public Domain

Viviano, J. (concurring).
  

   I concur with the denial order because I believe the Court of Appeals reached the right result by upholding the trial court's grant of summary disposition in favor of defendants under
   
    Scarsella v. Pollak
   
   ,
   
    461 Mich. 547
   
   , 549,
   
    607 N.W.2d 711
   
   (2000) (holding that an affidavit of merit (AOM) is necessary to toll the statute of limitations in a medical malpractice case). I write separately because I continue to question whether
   
    Scarsella
   
   was correctly decided. See
   
    Castro v. Goulet
   
   ,
   
    501 Mich. 884
   
   , 889,
   
    901 N.W.2d 614
   
   (2017) ( VIVIANO , J., concurring) (stating my belief that under a plain reading of the statutory scheme, "the AOM has no effect on commencing a lawsuit for purposes of the statute of limitations"). Under my reading of the pertinent statutes, although dismissal may still be warranted under a different rule, it would not be warranted under MCR 2.116(C)(7) for failure to comply with the statute of limitations.
   
    1
   
   But since no party has asked us to reconsider
   
    Scarsella
   
   ,
   
    2
   
   I concur with the Court's denial order in this case.
  

    Whether dismissal would still be warranted for failing to file an affidavit of merit if
    
     Scarsella
    
    were overturned and, if so, on what grounds, are interesting questions that would need to be addressed in an appropriate future case.
   

    In arguing that the Court of Appeals should have applied equitable tolling, plaintiff points to
    
     Ward v. Rooney-Gandy
    
    ,
    
     265 Mich. App. 515
    
    ,
    
     696 N.W.2d 64
    
    , rev'd
    
     474 Mich. 917
    
    ,
    
     705 N.W.2d 686
    
    (2005), and
    
     Young v. Sellers
    
    ,
    
     254 Mich. App. 447
    
    ,
    
     657 N.W.2d 555
    
    (2002). These cases only call into question how
    
     Scarsella
    
    should be applied. Thus, plaintiff raises no argument as to whether
    
     Scarsella
    
    's interpretation of the pertinent statutes is correct.