JENNIFER PARR V MICHELLE HENDERSON MD
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
JENNIFER PARR and TODD PARR,
UNPUBLISHED
January 19, 2006
Plaintiff-Appellants,
v
MICHELLE HENDERSON, MD and GREATER
FLINT SPORTS MEDICINE CENTER, PC, aka,
GREATER FLINT BONE AND JOINT
INSTITUTE,
No. 263468
Genesee Circuit Court
LC No. 03-078025-NH
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Hoekstra and Markey, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiffs appeal by right the trial court’s judgment granting defendants summary
disposition in this medical malpractice case based on the combined effect of the statute of
limitations and a defective affidavit of merit attached to plaintiffs’ complaint. The parties agree
that we must reverse and remand for the purpose of affording plaintiffs an opportunity to file a
proper affidavit of merit in accordance with this Court’s decision in Apsey v Memorial Hosp (On
Reconsideration), 266 Mich App 666, 682; 702 NW2d 870 (2005). Accordingly, we reverse.
Plaintiffs allege malpractice occurred on January 2, 2002. They filed their complaint on
December 23, 2003 with an affidavit of merit signed by Dr. Robert C. Polumbo in the State of
Pennsylvania bearing only a jurat completed by a Pennsylvania notary public. On April 16,
2005, this Court released its initial published opinion in Apsey. Days later, defendants moved for
summary disposition arguing that plaintiffs’ affidavit of merit did not satisfy the requirements of
MCL 600.2912d because it did not contain a certification for the out-of-state notary, as required
by MCL 600.2102. The trial court granted defendants’ motion on June 2, 2005, the same day
this Court granted reconsideration and vacated its initial decision in Apsey.
This Court released its opinion on reconsideration in Apsey on June 9, 2005. Because of
wide-spread reliance on the Uniform Recognition of Acknowledgements Act (URAA), MCL
565.261 et seq., which does not require a special certification to validate an out-of-state affidavit,
this Court held its decision requiring compliance with MCL 600.2102 would apply prospectively
only from the date of its opinion on reconsideration. Apsey, supra 679-682. The Apsey majority
also held that, “With regard to all medical malpractice cases pending in which plaintiffs are not
in compliance with MCL 600.2102(4), on the basis of justice and equity, plaintiffs can come into
-1-
compliance by filing the proper certification.” Apsey, supra 682. Because this case was pending
when Apsey was decided, we remand so that plaintiffs can comply with that decision.
We reverse and remand for further proceedings. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Michael J. Cavanagh
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Jane E. Markey
-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.
