The claim of a former Central Michigan University (CMU) football player — who sued the university, its athletic officials, and the medical team for allegedly misleading him about his options when he considered taking a red-shirt season because of symptoms that could be attributed to past concussions — is still alive as a result of the ruling of a Michigan appeals court.
While the appeals court affirmed the rest of the ruling that dismissed the claim of Saylor Lavallii, the court remanded back to the Michigan Court of Claims the allegations against Dr. Matthew R. Jackson (Dr. Jackson),which included breach of professional standard of care, among other claims.
Specifically, it found that the notice provision of MCL 600.6431, which the court relied upon in dismissing Lavallii’s claim against Jackson, does not apply to a medical malpractice claim brought against an individual practitioner.
By way of background, Lavallii was a student at CMU, playing football for the school from 2012 through 2014. After his third year, Lavallii consulted with the former team doctor and the coaching staff about concussion-like symptoms and the possibility of taking a nonmedical “redshirt” year and not playing during the 2015 season, with the understanding that he would resume playing the following year.
The coaching staff and athletic department subsequently asked the plaintiff to take a “medical, noncount redshirt year,” meaning that the plaintiff’s scholarship would not count against the total number of scholarships available to the team. Lavallii agreed to this plan, but he alleged that he was not informed that this plan required him to be medically disqualified for the 2015 season and medically cleared the following year. In the meantime, Lavallii was treated with doctors not affiliated with CMU, who concluded that he was medically able to resume playing football. Lavallii alleged that, armed with this information, he met with the new team doctor, Dr. Jackson, who did not examine the plaintiff and, at the same time, refused to give plaintiff medical clearance to resume playing. The plaintiff was notified by the athletic director by e-mail dated June 17, 2016, that he remained medically disqualified from rejoining the football team on the basis of Dr. Jackson’s recommendation.
On August 3, 2017, the plaintiff mailed a notice of intent to file a claim under MCL 600.2912b, addressed to CMU President George Ross, Dr. Jackson, CMU Medical Staff, and CMU Health. Lavallii then filed complaints in February 2018 in the Isabella Circuit Court and in the Court of Claims against Dr. Jackson and other CMU defendants, alleging medical malpractice against Dr. Jackson, CMU Health, CMU, and CMU Medical staff, among other counts. Dr. Jackson was the only named defendant served with the circuit court complaint, which was ultimately transferred to the Court of Claims for consolidation with the parallel case in that court.
Dr. Jackson subsequently moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (C)(8), arguing in part that, in bringing his personal injury claim against an employee of a state university, the plaintiff did not comply with the notice requirement under MCL 600.6431(1). The Court of Claims granted the motion, leading to the appeal.
In its analysis, the appeals court wrote that “whether the Court of Claims has jurisdiction over the complaint is a distinct question from whether plaintiff complied with the proper notice provision. Principally, we affirm the Court of Claims’ dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim against Central Michigan Health. However, we agree with the plaintiff that the Court of Claims erred by dismissing his claim against Dr. Jackson on the basis that plaintiff did not comply with the notice requirement for bringing a claim against the state, MCL 600.6431.
“With respect to Dr. Jackson, we conclude that the Court of Claims erred in applying the notice provisions of MCL 600.6431 to the plaintiff’s claim. MCL 600.6431 requires a claimant to give notice of a personal injury claim against the state within six months of the event underlying the claim:
(1) No claim may be maintained against the state unless the claimant, within 1 year after such claim has accrued, files in the office of the clerk of the court of claims either a written claim or a written notice of intention to file a claim against the state or any of its departments, commissions, boards, institutions, arms or agencies, stating the time when and the place where such claim arose and in detail the nature of the same and of the items of damage alleged or claimed to have been sustained, which claim or notice shall be signed and verified by the claimant before an officer authorized to administer oaths.
(2) Such claim or notice shall designate any department, commission, board, institution, arm or agency of the state involved in connection with such claim, and a copy of such claim or notice shall be furnished to the clerk at the time of the filing of the original for transmittal to the attorney general and to each of the departments, commissions, boards, institutions, arms or agencies designated.
(3) In all actions for property damage or personal injuries, claimant shall file with the clerk of the court of claims a notice of intention to file a claim or the claim itself within 6 months following the happening of the event giving rise to the cause of action.
“The Court of Claims erred by referring to claims against the state without acknowledging the distinction between the state and its individual employees. Unlike the statute defining the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, MCL 600.6419, the notice provision for bringing a claim against the state does not refer to individual employees of the state, but to claims brought ‘against the state or any of its departments, commissions, boards, institutions, arms or agencies,’ MCL 600.6431(1).
“This Court recently held in Pike v Northern Mich Univ, 327 Mich App 683, 694-696; 935 NW2d 86 (2019), that this provision does not apply ‘to officers, employees, members, volunteers, or other individuals,’ nor did it incorporate the definition of ‘the state or any of its departments or officers’ used in the Court of Claims jurisdictional statute, MCL 600.6419(7). Thus, in this case, because Dr. Jackson is an individual, MCL 600.6431 does not apply.”
Saylor Lavallii v. Central Michigan University et al.; Ct. App. Mich.; No. 346803, No. 346804; 2/11/20
