Negligence – Relation-back doctrine – Wrongful death

Where summary disposition was awarded to the defendants in a wrongful death medical malpractice action brought by the plaintiff personal representative of an estate, that judgment must be reversed because the lower court erred by ruling that the plaintiff’s appointment as the estate’s personal representative did not relate back to the time she filed the complaint on behalf of the estate.

“In this wrongful-death medical-malpractice action, plaintiff, Connie M. Eversole, Personal Representative of the Estate of Christopher P. Eversole, appeals as of right the final order granting defendants, Jannelle Nash and Orion Family Physicians, P.C., summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(5) (plaintiff lacked legal capacity to sue) and (C)(7) (claim barred by statute of limitations) on the basis that plaintiff’s appointment as the estate’s personal representative did not relate back to the time she filed the complaint on behalf of the estate. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

“Relying on the common-law relation-back doctrine and MCL 700.3701, plaintiff argues that her appointment as personal representative related back to the time she filed the complaint, thus preserving the estate’s wrongful-death action. In addressing this issue, both parties spill a great deal of ink discussing which of the common-law cases apply. We conclude, however, that MCL 700.3701 is dispositive.

“We conclude that under MCL 700.3701, the powers granted by the letters of authority related back to the date plaintiff filed the complaint on behalf of the estate, i.e., January 4, 2023, as filing that timely action was beneficial to the estate. Though the language of the statute provides the answer to this question, there are several opinions that tangentially touch on the meaning of MCL 700.3701. And those opinions support our reading of this rather straightforward statute.

“These decisions, as well as the plain language of the statute, support application of MCL 700.3701 to this wrongful-death action. As noted, plaintiff timely filed the complaint, but did not have the authority to do so in the absence of her appointment as personal representative of the estate. But once she received that appointment, it related back to the timely filing of the complaint so long as that prior act, the timely filing of the complaint, benefitted the estate. Because it did benefit the estate, the court should have allowed plaintiff’s appointment as personal representative to relate back. This conclusion is consistent with the other involved statutes, namely MCL 600.5852 and MCL 600.2922(2).

“The trial court’s order granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition is reversed, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings. Plaintiff may tax costs, having prevailed in full. MCR 7.219(A).”

Eversole v. Nash; MiLW 07-108095 , 13 pages; Michigan Court of Appeals published; Murray, J., joined by Riordan, J., D. H. Sawyer, J.; on appeal from Oakland Circuit Court; J. Kelly Carley for appellant; Jacquelyn A. Klima for appellee.

Click here to read the full text of the opinion

Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.