In a significant ruling issued last week, the Michigan Supreme Court overturned its 2004 decision in Waltz v. Wyse, reversing a longstanding interpretation of how the state's medical malpractice tolling law applies to wrongful death claims.
In a 5-2 decision in Ernest v. Brown (Supreme Court Docket No. 168462), the Court concluded that Waltz was incorrectly decided. Justice Richard Bernstein authored the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Megan Cavanagh and Justices Elizabeth Welch, Kyra Harris Bolden, and Noah Hood. Justices Kimberly Thomas and Brian Zahra dissented.
Under Michigan law, medical malpractice claims generally must be filed within two years, and plaintiffs are required to provide a notice of intent at least 182 days before filing suit. During that notice period, the statute of limitations is paused, or "tolled."
Wrongful death cases involve additional timing considerations. Generally, a personal representative has two years from the issuance of letters of authority to bring a claim, subject to an overall three-year limit following expiration of the original statute of limitations.
For more than two decades, the Waltz decision held that the tolling provisions applicable to medical malpractice actions did not extend to the additional filing period available in wrongful death cases. The Court has now reversed that interpretation.
Writing for the majority, Justice Bernstein concluded that the wrongful death statute does more than simply preserve an otherwise expired claim. Instead, the opinion states that the statute effectively creates an additional limitations period, making it subject to the tolling provisions of Michigan law. The majority also determined that overturning Waltz would have only a limited practical impact because relatively few cases are expected to be affected.
Justice Zahra filed a dissent, criticizing the majority's decision to overturn the earlier precedent and joining Justice Thomas's separate dissent.
Although Justice Thomas acknowledged that she believes Waltz was wrongly decided, she concluded that disagreement with a prior ruling, standing alone, is not sufficient reason to overturn established precedent. Her dissent emphasized the importance of stare decisis, the legal doctrine that encourages courts to follow prior decisions absent a compelling reason for change.
The majority evaluated several factors commonly considered when deciding whether to overrule precedent, including whether the earlier decision had become unworkable, whether maintaining it would create undue hardship, and whether changes in the law or underlying facts justified a different outcome. The Court concluded those considerations supported overruling Waltz.
Justice Thomas disagreed, noting that the 2004 decision had provided a workable procedural rule for more than 20 years and that no significant legal changes had occurred since it was issued. In her view, the majority did not identify a sufficiently compelling justification for departing from established precedent.
This decision has important implications for Michigan physicians and medical liability. By changing how the statute of limitations is applied in certain wrongful death medical malpractice cases, the ruling may affect litigation timelines and legal exposure for physicians and healthcare organizations across the state.
MSMS will continue to monitor the impact of this decision and keep members informed of any significant developments. For additional information or questions, please contact Tom M. George, MD, MSMS Chief Executive Officer, at TGeorge@msms.org.