Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


BETTIE HUGHES, Personal Representative of the Estate of THOMAS HUGHES, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v MAHESHKUMAR PATEL and M. A. PATEL, M.D., P.C., Defendants-Appellees.

UNPUBLISHED April 11, 2006

No. 259174 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 03-336255-NH

Before: Smolenski, P.J., and Owens and Donofrio, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff appeals as of right from a circuit court order granting defendants' motion for summary disposition in this medical malpractice action. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E). Plaintiff's decedent treated with defendants on April 26, 1999, at which time Dr. Patel ordered an abdominal CT scan. Plaintiff's decedent suffered an adverse reaction to the dye administered as part of the procedure and eventually died. Plaintiff filed suit in October 2003. The trial court ruled that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations and that plaintiff had failed to plead facts showing fraudulent concealment of the claim. It tacitly denied plaintiff's request for leave to amend her complaint to allege such a claim. The trial court's ruling on a motion for summary disposition is reviewed de novo. Kefgen v Davidson, 241 Mich App 611, 616; 617 NW2d 351 (2000). The trial court's ruling on a motion to amend pleadings is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Doyle v Hutzel Hosp, 241 Mich App 206, 211-212; 615 NW2d 759 (2000). When a trial court fails to specify its reasons for denying a motion for leave to amend, this Court is required to reverse the trial court's decision unless amendment would be futile. Noyd v Claxton, Morgan, Flockhart & VanLiere, 186 Mich App 333, 340; 463 NW2d 268 (1990). There is no dispute that plaintiff's claim was not filed within the two-year limitations period, MCL 600.5805(6); MCL 600.5838a(2), even taking into account the tolling for the notice period under MCL 600.5856(c). However, the claim is not barred if the defendant fraudulently conceals the existence of the claim from the knowledge of the person entitled to sue on the claim, -1-


in which case the plaintiff has two years from the time the claim is discovered or should have been discovered. MCL 600.5838a(2)(a) and (3); MCL 600.5855. A plaintiff who relies on

Download ESTATE OF THOMAS HUGHES DECEASED V MAHESHKUMAR PATEL.pdf

Michigan Law