WAYNE E WHITE V BARBARA ANN KARMANOS CANCER INSTITUTE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
WAYNE E. WHITE and JANET D. WHITE,
FOR PUBLICATION
July 3, 2007
9:20 a.m.
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v
BARBARA ANN KARMANOS CANCER
INSTITUTE and DAVID S. EILENDER, M.D.,
No. 270320
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 05-534994-NH
ON RECONSIDERATION
Defendants-Appellees.
Official Reported Version
Before: Meter, P.J., and O'Connell and Davis, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiffs appeal as of right from the trial order's granting defendants' motions for
summary disposition based on the expiration of the period of limitations. We reverse and
remand.
The affidavit of merit in this case was notarized by an out-of-state notary, and it lacked
the certification required by MCL 600.2102(4) at the time the relevant limitations period expired.
However, the affidavit of merit otherwise satisfied the requirements of the alternative method of
proving notarial acts set forth in Michigan's Uniform Recognition of Acknowledgments Act
(URAA), MCL 565.261 et seq. In our prior opinion, White v Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer
Institute, 274 Mich App 801 (2007), we affirmed because we were obligated to do so by this
Court's earlier decision in Apsey v Mem Hosp (On Reconsideration), 266 Mich App 666; 702
NW2d 870 (2005). In Apsey, this Court held that the requirements in the URAA were
unavailable for out-of-state affidavits of merit used in medical malpractice cases. A majority of
this panel concluded that Apsey had been wrongly decided, and we declared a conflict pursuant
to MCR 7.215(J)(2).
A special conflict panel was convened pursuant to MCR 7.215(J)(3). While the conflict
panel was pending, our Supreme Court reversed this Court's decision in Apsey and held that the
URAA and MCL 600.2102 provide alternative methods for using out-of-state affidavits. Apsey v
Mem Hosp, 477 Mich 120; 730 NW2d 695 (2007). Because this resolved the conflict, the
conflict panel, under MCR 7.215(J)(5), returned this case to us for further consideration in light
of our Supreme Court's decision in Apsey.
-1-
On our own motion, we now grant reconsideration. For the reasons set forth in our prior
opinion in this case and in our Supreme Court's recent decision in Apsey, we reverse and remand
for further proceedings. The trial court granted summary disposition on the ground that the
affidavit of merit was a nullity at the time the limitations period expired. Because the affidavit of
merit satisfied the requirements of the URAA, it was not a nullity. The trial court's grant of
summary disposition was therefore erroneous.
Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ Peter D. O'Connell
/s/ Alton T. Davis
-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.
