In this medical malpractice case, plaintiff
James Wade filed a complaint against the defendant physician and hospital, but
did not file an affidavit of merit with the complaint, as required by MCL
600.2912d. The defendants argued that
this omission required that Wade’s lawsuit be dismissed, and they filed a
motion for summary disposition. Wade
disagreed, arguing that he had an additional 91 days to file his affidavit of
merit under MCL 600.2912b(3), because the defendants failed to provide him with
his complete medical records, as they were required to do. Wade admitted that the defendants produced
some medical records, but contended that the records were incomplete and that
billing records were not provided. The
defendants, in response, argued that they provided all available records to Wade. The trial court granted the defendants’
motion for summary disposition. But the
Court of Appeals reversed this ruling in an unpublished, split per curiam
opinion, and reinstated the lawsuit. The
defendants filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court has scheduled oral argument on the
application, ordering the parties to address “(1) whether the 91-day extension provided in MCL 600.2912d(3) for
filing an affidavit of merit applies where the plaintiff claims that the
defendants did not produce all medical records within 56 days after receipt of
the notice of intent as required by MCL 600.2912b(5); (2) whether the defendants were obligated,
under MCL 600.2912b(5), to explain to the plaintiff that certain records could
not be produced because they had been destroyed; and (3) whether billing records are medical
records for purposes of MCL 600.2912b(5).”