IN RE GARDNER ESTATE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
D. DENNIS DUDLEY, Personal Representative of
the Estate of ARTHUR L. GARDNER, Deceased,
UNPUBLISHED
March 16, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 245085
Ingham Circuit Court
LC No. 02-000460-NH
JOHN N. FLOOD, D.O.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Zahra, P.J., and Saad and Schuette, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals by leave granted the trial court’s order denying his motion for
summary disposition. We reverse. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant
to MCR 7.214(E).
On June 24, 1999 plaintiff was appointed personal representative of decedent’s estate.1
On December 19, 2000 plaintiff filed suit alleging that defendant, a board-certified orthopedic
surgeon, committed medical malpractice by negligently prescribing pain medication to decedent.
The complaint was accompanied by an affidavit of merit signed by a general practitioner and
emergency room physician (suit referred to as Gardner I). Defendant moved for summary
disposition, arguing that because the complaint was not accompanied by an affidavit that met the
statutory requirements, its filing did not toll the statute of limitations and the suit was timebarred. The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of defendant.
On March 28, 2002 plaintiff re-filed the medical malpractice action. The complaint was
accompanied by an affidavit of merit signed by a board-certified orthopedic surgeon. Defendant
moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7), (8), and (10), arguing that the suit
was untimely because it was filed after June 24, 2001, and was barred by the doctrine of res
judicata. The trial court denied the motion, holding that the affidavit filed in Gardner I tolled the
1
As personal representative of decedent’s estate, plaintiff had until June 24, 2001 to file a
medical malpractice action unless the statute of limitations was tolled. MCL 600.5852.
-1-
limitations period and that the dismissal of that case was without prejudice. Defendant thereafter
filed an application for leave to appeal to this Court, which was granted.
We review a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition de novo. Auto
Club Group Ins Co v Burchell, 249 Mich App 468, 479; 642 NW2d 406 (2001). In the absence
of disputed questions of fact, the issue of whether a cause of action is barred by a statute of
limitations is a question of law that is reviewed de novo. Young v Sellers, 254 Mich App 447,
450; 657 NW2d 555 (2002).
The statute of limitations for a medical malpractice action is two years. MCL
600.5805(6). A medical malpractice plaintiff must file with the complaint an affidavit of merit
signed by a health professional who meets or whom the plaintiff’s attorney reasonably believes
meets the requirements for an expert witness under MCL 600.2169. The affidavit must contain a
statement of the applicable standard of practice, the health professional’s opinion that the
defendant breached the applicable standard of practice, the actions the defendant should have
taken to have complied with the applicable standard of practice, and the manner in which the
breach of the standard of practice was the proximate cause of the alleged injury. MCL
600.2912d(1). If the defendant is board-certified in a specialty, the expert witness must be
board-certified in the same specialty. MCL 600.2169(1).
We reverse the trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion for summary disposition in
this case. An affidavit of merit that is grossly nonconforming to the statutory requirements does
not support the filing of a complaint that tolls the running of the statute of limitations.
Mouradian v Goldberg, 256 Mich App 566, 571-575; 664 NW2d 805 (2003). The instant action
was filed after the two-year limitations period expired on June 24, 2001. The affidavit that
accompanied the complaint in Gardner I was not signed by a board-certified orthopedic surgeon.
The trial court reasoned that this fact was irrelevant because any licensed physician would be
competent to testify regarding the standard of practice for administering pain medication.
However, the fact that a witness may in fact be competent to testify regarding a particular issue is
not dispositive. Decker v Flood, 248 Mich App 75, 83-84; 638 NW2d 163 (2001) (specialist
may not testify as to the standard of practice for a general practitioner). The filing of the
complaint and a nonconforming affidavit in Gardner I did not toll the limitations period.
Mouradian, supra. Defendant was entitled to dismissal of this action with prejudice. Id.
Res judicata bars a subsequent action between the same parties when the facts or
evidence essential to the action are identical to the facts or evidence in a prior action. Dart v
Dart, 460 Mich 573, 586; 597 NW2d 82 (1999). Defendant argues that the trial court erred in
holding that the filing of the instant action was not precluded by the doctrine of res judicata. We
decline to reach this issue in light of our resolution of the statute of limitations issue.
Mouradian, supra.
Reversed.
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Bill Schuette
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.