Castro v. James Alan Goulet, MD & James Alan Goulet, MD, PC

4 Citing cases

  1. Ottgen v. Katranji

    511 Mich. 223 (Mich. 2023)   Cited 6 times

    Further, neither § 5838 nor § 5838a includes [the AOM requirement, MCL 600.]2912d(1) in the list of statutes ‘prescrib[ing]’ when to commence an action." Castro v Goulet, 501 Mich. 884, 888, 901 N.W.2d 614 (2017) (Viviano, J., concurring) (first and third alterations in original). Under these statutes, then, "the usual tolling regime would apply to medical malpractice cases, i.e., under § 5856(1), the running of the statutory limitations period would be tolled when the complaint is filed and served." Id.

  2. Progress Mich. v. Attorney Gen.

    506 Mich. 74 (Mich. 2020)   Cited 27 times
    In Progress Michigan v Attorney General, 506 Mich. 74; 954 N.W.2d 475 (2020), our Supreme Court considered whether a complaint had been timely filed in the Court of Claims.

    Had the Legislature intended the verification requirement to affect the commencement of the action or the tolling of the statutory period of limitations under either the FOIA or the COCA, it could have, and presumably would have, so specified. In denying the application for leave to appeal in Castro v. Goulet , 501 Mich. 884, 886, 901 N.W.2d 614 (2017), Justice Viviano offered a similar analysis concerning the MCL 600.2912d(1) AOM requirement and the statute of limitations in MCL 600.5856(1). Castro , 501 Mich. 884, 886, 901 N.W.2d 614 (2017) ( Viviano , J., concurring) ("No one has yet offered a convincing argument why it would be inconsistent to mandate the AOM filing in § 2912d(1) while at the same time permitting § 5856(1) to toll the running of the statutory limitations period.

  3. Wade v. McCadie

    926 N.W.2d 577 (Mich. 2019)   Cited 1 times

    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.

  4. Uzl v. Dotterer

    No. 358645 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 2, 2023)

    After hearing oral argument on the issue, our Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. Castro v Goulet, 501 Mich. 884 (2017).