While this case was pending on appeal, a panel of this Court issued for publication Flamont v. Dep't of Corrections,___ Mich.App. ___;___ NW3d___ (2024) (Docket No. 367863), in which it held that Christie has full retroactive effect as it applied to the facts of that case. In Flamont, the plaintiff filed their complaint prior to the issuance of Tyrrell v. Univ of Mich, 335 Mich.App. 254; 966 N.W.2d 219 (2020), where this Court held that plaintiffs were not required to comply with the notice provision of the COCA if the claims were raised in circuit court.

Moreover, this Court has recently held that the holding in Christie applies retroactively because it did not constitute a new rule, but, instead, "declared the meaning of the law as it existed, based on the unambiguous statutory language, and corrected a relatively short-lived misinterpretation of the law." Flamont v Dep't of Corrections, ___ Mich.App. ___, ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2024)(Docket No. 367863); slip op at 6. Accordingly, this Court held in Flamont that it was erroneous for the trial court not to give Christie retroactive effect.

I share my colleagues' concerns about the propriety of invoking MCL 600.6431(1) to close the courthouse doors to plaintiff, Tachelle Landin, but that outcome is mandated by this Court's published decision in Flamont v Dep't of Corrections, ___ Mich.App. ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2024) (Docket No. 367863), for two reasons. First, Flamont makes clear that our Supreme Court's ruling in Christie v Wayne State Univ, 511 Mich. 39; 993 N.W.2d 203 (2023), should be given retroactive effect because it did not announce a new rule of law even though Christie overruled this Court's decision in Tyrrell v Univ of Mich, 335 Mich.App. 254; 966 N.W.2d 219 (2020).