Wrongful-death medical-malpractice; Retroactivity of Eversole v Nash; Authority under MCL 600.2922(2); MCL 700.3701 (a relation-back provision included in the Estates & Protected Individuals Code (EPIC)); MCL 600.2912c; Personal representative (PR)

Finding in this wrongful-death medical-malpractice action that “the interpretation of MCL 700.3701 in Eversole is retroactive to plaintiff’s case,” the court reversed the trial court’s orders as to codefendants-Ascension, Dr. Schned, Dr. Peacock, Dr. Oxholm, Dr. Vempati, and Ms. Ignagni, and remanded, It otherwise affirmed the order granting summary disposition to defendant-Teamhealth under MCL 600.2912c. Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed on the basis that her appointment as PR of decedent-Paul’s estate “did not relate back to the time she filed the complaint on behalf of the estate.” Plaintiff argued that the court’s recent published decision in Eversole “affirms the statutory relation-back doctrine applies where a [PR] is appointed after the complaint is filed ‘so long as . . . the timely filing of the complaint, benefitted the estate.’ According to plaintiff, Eversole is controlling here and the trial court’s order granting summary disposition should be vacated.” The court held that “Eversole is retroactive to the trial court’s decision because Eversole merely interprets statutes in existence at the time the complaint was filed, and Eversole does not create new law.” As with the plaintiff in Eversole, in this case, “plaintiff’s complaint does not conform to MCL 600.2922(2) and MCL 600.5852.” The court also held that as “with the plaintiff in Eversole, MCL 700.3701, a relation-back provision included in [EPIC] provides plaintiff relief here.” But because the record did “not reflect when, or if, plaintiff’s appointment as [PR] of Paul’s estate was accepted and the letters of authority were issued, there remains a genuine issue of fact regarding whether plaintiff is the real party in interest with standing to bring this wrongful-death medical-malpractice action.” The court concluded that the “trial court knew as much when it stated on the record that ‘[n]obody attached the [l]etters of [a]uthority, I don’t even know if she ever filed an acceptance,’ but nevertheless, erred in granting summary disposition as to all defendants.”