Medical malpractice; The two-year limitations period; MCL 600.5805(8); The six-year statute of repose; Burton v Macha; The discovery rule; MCL 600.5838a(2); The fraudulent-concealment exception; MCL 600.5855; Sills v Oakland Gen Hosp; Effect of silence; Eschenbacher v Hier; The fiduciary-relationship exception; Kroll v Vanden Berg; Continuing affirmative act; Draws v Levin

Holding that the trial court did not err by finding plaintiff failed to timely file her complaint, the court affirmed the grant of summary disposition for defendants-doctor and healthcare providers. Plaintiff sued defendants for medical malpractice arising out of a sinus surgery. The trial court granted summary disposition for defendants on the basis that plaintiff’s claim was time-barred. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that her complaint was timely under the discovery rule set forth in MCL 600.5838a(2). Her argument failed because of the six-year statute of repose, which “provides that a ‘claim shall not be commenced later than 6 years after the date of the act or omission that is the basis for the claim.’” Because her surgery occurred in2014 “and she filed her complaint more than eight years later, plaintiff cannot rely on the discovery rule set forth in MCL 600.5838a(2) to save her claims.” In addition, similar “to Sills, plaintiff in the instant case failed to plead fraudulent concealment in her complaint.” And her “reliance on Kroll is misplaced because that case did not establish a broad fiduciary exception to the general rule that mere silence is insufficient to establish fraudulent concealment.” In addition, the “Eschenbacher Court did not state that a doctor’s mere silence was sufficient to establish fraudulent concealment because of the fiduciary relationship between a physician and patient.” Finally, MCL 600.5855 “required plaintiff to file her complaint within two years after her symptoms failed to improve and she treated with other specialists. Because she failed to do so, her complaint was untimely.” Affirmed.