Opinion

ZAHRA, J.

We are called upon to answer the question whether a medical malpractice suit must be dismissed if a defective affidavit of merit (AOM) is filed after both the limitations period and the saving period have expired. We hold that in such cases, dismissal with prejudice must follow because allowing amendment of the deficient AOM would directly conflict with the statutory scheme governing medical malpractice actions, the clear language of the court rules, and precedent of this Court. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals dismissing plaintiff's case with prejudice.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Edris Ligons underwent a colonoscopy on January 14, 2002, and four days later developed vomiting, diarrhea, chills, and fever.1 On January 22, 2002, still suffering from those symptoms, Ligons went to the emergency room at defendant Crittenton Hospital, where she was treated by defendant Dr. David Bauer. An abdominal x-ray suggested the possibility of a partial small-bowel obstruction. When Ligons refused to be admitted to the hospital, she was given antibiotics, treated for dehydration, and discharged with instructions to follow up with her treating physician the next day. Ligons did so and was immediately sent to the emergency room, where she was admitted.

After extensive testing and the involvement of seven doctors, it was determined that surgery was necessary. Ligons initially refused any surgery, but eventually agreed. Exploratory surgery performed on January 24, 2002, revealed a perforated colon, an inflamed pelvic mass, and an abscess. The exploratory surgery further showed that Ligons had an advanced form of liver failure and that her liver had become hard and rocklike in appearance. Ligons had been an alcoholic for more than 30 years and suffered from acute cirrhosis with ascites, alcoholic pancreatitis, alcoholic hepatitis, coagulopathy, diverticulosis coli, and colon polyps. Removal of her colon was impossible because of these preexisting conditions. Ligons never recovered from the surgery and died on January 29, 2002.

Plaintiff was appointed personal representative of Ligons's estate on February 22, 2005, and delivered to defendants a notice of intent to sue2 (NOI) on June 8, 2005. On October 21, 2005, plaintiff delivered a supplemental NOI providing more detail regarding proximate cause. He filed a complaint in the Oakland Circuit Court on April 7, 2006, accompanied by two AOMs.

The first AOM, signed March 8, 2005, was executed by Dr. George Sternbach, an emergency-medicine specialist. Although the AOM contained 23 paragraphs regarding the manner in which the standard of care had been breached, only two of those paragraphs pertained specifically to this case:

The second AOM, signed on June 17, 2005, by Dr. Fred Thomas, did not address the required standard of practice or care, the breach of the standard of care, or the actions that should have been taken or omitted to comply with the standard of care. Rather, the Thomas AOM addressed only the manner in which the breach of the standard of practice or care was the proximate cause of the alleged injury: "It is my opinion that had the defendants admitted the patient to the hospital on January 22, 2002, and obtained the appropriate consults on January 22, 2002, as outlined in Dr. Sternbach's affidavit[,] that Edris Ligons would not have died."

In March 2007, Bauer and defendant Rochester Emergency Group, P.C. (Bauer's practice group) moved for summary disposition, arguing that plaintiff's NOIs and AOMs did not comply with the governing statutes. In April 2007, Crittenton concurred in the motion. The trial court denied defendants' motions on May 22, 2007.

Bauer and Rochester Emergency applied for leave to file an interlocutory appeal, which the Court of Appeals initially denied.3 Bauer and Rochester Emergency then applied for leave to appeal in this Court and, in lieu of granting their application, we remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted.4 The Court of Appeals later granted Crittenton's application for leave to file a delayed cross-appeal.5

On remand from this Court, the Court of Appeals concluded that plaintiff's two NOIs collectively satisfied the requirements of MCL 600.2912b.6 But a majority of the panel disagreed with the trial court's ruling that the AOMs were sufficient, concluding that neither AOM contained the required statement describing "[t]he manner in which the breach of the standard of practice or care was the proximate cause of the injury alleged in the notice."7 The majority reasoned that "it is insufficient to merely allege that the defendant's alleged negligence caused the injury," and the AOMs "contain[ed] no explanation regarding how Dr. Bauer's decision not to admit the decedent on January 22, 2002, or obtain appropriate consultations was the proximate cause of the decedent's death."8 "[E]ven when read as a whole," the AOMs "establish[ed] no connection between the purpose of the consultations, or what condition they might have revealed, and the cause of the decedent's death," nor did they explain how a one-day delay in admitting Ligons resulted in death rather than recovery.9

Recognizing that the defective AOMs required dismissal of the case under Kirkaldy v. Rim,10 the Court of Appeals further held that dismissal in this case had to be with prejudice.11 The Court of Appeals reasoned that, although filing a complaint and an AOM tolls the statutory limitations period pursuant to MCL 600.5856(a) until the AOM is successfully challenged,12 tolling was unavailable here because plaintiff had not filed his complaint within the limitations period. Plaintiff filed his complaint after the limitations period expired, but within the saving period afforded him as a personal representative under MCL 600.5852. Under Waltz v. Wyse,13 statutes that toll periods of limitations or statutes of repose, such as MCL 600.5856(a), do not toll saving provisions.14 The Court of Appeals concluded that no tolled time remained during which plaintiff could refile his suit after defendants successfully challenged his AOMs. Thus, dismissal with prejudice was required on statute-of limitations-grounds.15

Finally, the Court of Appeals rejected plaintiff's argument that he should be permitted to amend his defective AOMs under the then existing version of MCR 2.118(A), which permitted the amendment of "pleadings." The Court noted that the term "pleading" was restrictively defined by MCR 2.110(A) to include only complaints, cross-claims, counterclaims, third-party complaints, answers to any of these documents, and replies to those answers. This list does not include "mandatory attachments" such as AOMs.16 Finding no "positive authority suggesting that an affidavit of merit may be amended pursuant to MCR 2.118(A)," the Court concluded that "the only permissible remedy for a defective affidavit of merit is the one prescribed in Kirkaldy, which is dismissal."17 Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and remanded the case for entry of an order of dismissal with prejudice.18

Plaintiff applied to this Court for leave to appeal the Court of Appeals' decision. We granted leave and directed the parties to address the following issues: "(1) whether the plaintiff may amend his affidavits of merit in light of Bush v. Shabahang, 484 Mich. 156 [772 N.W.2d 272] (2009), and/or MCL 600.2301, and (2) whether the recent amendment of MCR 2.118 applies to the plaintiff's affidavits of merit."19

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review de novo a trial court's ruling on a motion for summary disposition.20 This case involves questions of statutory interpretation, which we also review de novo.21 We interpret court rules using the same principles that govern the interpretation of statutes.22 Our goal when interpreting and applying statutes or court rules is to give effect to the plain meaning of the text. If the text is unambiguous, we apply the language as written without construction or interpretation.23

III. ANALYSIS

A. INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF MCL 600.2912d

MCL 600.2912d was enacted in 1986 and amended in 1993 as an element of broad tort reforms established by the Legislature.24 In part, the legislation placed "enhanced responsibilities" on medical malpractice plaintiffs.25 MCL 600.2912d(1) requires the following:

MCL 600.2912d(2) and (3) extend the time during which an AOM may be filed under certain circumstances:

In Scarsella v. Pollak,27 this Court addressed the consequences of a plaintiff's failure to file an AOM with the complaint as required by the statute. We stressed the Legislature's "`mandatory and imperative'" language:28 MCL 600.2912d(1) requires that a plaintiff "shall file with the complaint an affidavit of merit. ..."29 In light of this legislative requirement, we held that "`for statute of limitations purposes in a medical malpractice case, the mere tendering of a complaint without the required affidavit of merit is insufficient to commence the lawsuit.'"30 We rejected the plaintiff's argument that he should have been permitted to amend his complaint by appending an untimely AOM, which would have been related back to the time the complaint was filed under MCR 2.118(D),31 because permitting such amendment would have "`effectively repeal[ed] the statutory affidavit of merit requirement'":32

In other words, Scarsella established that, when a plaintiff "wholly omits to file the affidavit required by MCL 600.2912d(1)," "the filing of the complaint is ineffective, and does not work a tolling of the applicable period of limitation."34 When the untolled period of limitations expires before the plaintiff files a complaint accompanied by an AOM, the case must be dismissed with prejudice on statute-of-limitations grounds.35 Dismissal without prejudice is proper, however, if the untolled limitations period has not yet expired.36

The issue whether a timely filed yet defective AOM tolled the limitations period was resolved in Kirkaldy. Kirkaldy observed that, under MCL 600.5856(a),37 MCL 600.2912d, and Scarsella, "the period of limitations is tolled when a complaint and affidavit of merit are filed and served on the defendant."38 Distinguishing a wholly absent AOM from a potentially defective but timely filed AOM, we stressed the holding in Saffian v. Simmons39 that "`when an affidavit is filed, it is presumed valid. It is only in subsequent judicial proceedings that the presumption can be rebutted.'"40 Accordingly, Kirkaldy held:

In Waltz, this Court clarified that MCL 600.5856, by its terms, tolls only periods of limitations or statutes of repose.42 A saving statute is neither a statute of limitations providing a limitations period nor a statute of repose; rather, it is "an `exception to the statute of limitations'" that allows "commencement of a wrongful death action as many as three years after the applicable statute of limitations has expired."43 In other words, once the limitations period has run, tolling is no longer available, even if a saving statute would still allow commencement of the action.

Read together, the cases establish four points necessary to resolving the case currently before us. First, a plaintiff's failure to file a timely AOM or to file a timely AOM that satisfies the requirements of MCL 600.2912d(1) generally results in the dismissal of the case.44 Second, that dismissal must be without prejudice unless other grounds for the dismissal exist, such as the expiration of the limitations period.45 Third, the timely filing of a defective AOM with the complaint tolls the limitations period unless and until the court finds the AOM defective. Fourth, only limitations periods may be tolled; the timely filing of a defective AOM cannot toll a saving period.46

B. THE AFFIDAVITS OF MERIT WERE INSUFFICIENT

As noted in part III(A), MCL 600.2912d(1) sets forth several requirements for affidavits of merit: (1) a certification that the health professional has reviewed the notice and all medical records supplied to him or her by the plaintiff's attorney concerning the allegations contained in the notice, (2) the applicable standard of practice or care, (3) the health professional's opinion that the applicable standard of practice or care was breached by the health professional or health facility receiving the notice, (4) the actions that should have been taken or omitted by the health professional or health facility in order to have complied with the applicable standard of practice or care, and (5) the manner in which the breach of the standard of practice or care was the proximate cause of the injury alleged in the notice. The failure to include any of the required information renders the affidavit of merit insufficient.

Plaintiff's AOMs failed to provide any statement of the manner in which the breach of the standard of care was the proximate cause of the injury alleged. Dr. George Sternbach's AOM provided only that "[a]s a direct and proximate cause of the imprudent acts and omission committed by the individuals identified herein, Edris Ligons, died." Dr. Fred Thomas's AOM provided only: "It is my opinion that had the defendants admitted the patient to the hospital on January 22, 2002, and obtained the appropriate consults on January 22, 2002, as outlined in Dr. Sternbach's affidavit that Edris Ligons would not have died."47 We have often said that it is insufficient to simply state the result when required to state the manner in which there was a breach: The answer to "How was the standard of care breached?" is never "The standard of care was breached."48 Similarly, answering the question "How was the breach the proximate cause of the injury?" requires more than "The breach caused the injury." In other words, the "`mere correlation between alleged malpractice and an injury is insufficient to show proximate cause.'"49 Contrary to the dissents' conclusions, this analysis does not require a heightened level of specificity; rather, it simply gives meaning to the level of specificity required by the statute itself. The Legislature requires a statement not just that a breach caused the injury, but the manner in which the breach caused the caused the injury.50

In this case, even the Court of Appeals dissent acknowledged that the AOMs were silent regarding how the defendants' actions or inactions caused Ligons's death. A statement answering how is precisely what MCL 600.2912d(1)(d) requires, and this case demonstrates the importance of that requirement. Ligons's colon was perforated by a doctor (who is not a defendant here) eight days before she went to the hospital. She then refused to be admitted to the hospital, only to come back a day later, when the perforated colon was discovered. With so many different parties and procedures involved, as well as Ligons's own medical history, plaintiff must state how defendants' alleged negligence in not diagnosing the perforated colon one day earlier was the proximate cause of Ligons's death. Plaintiff failed to do so, as required by MCL 600.2912d(1)(d); therefore, the AOMs were statutorily deficient.51

C. A PLAINTIFF MAY NOT AMEND A DEFECTIVE AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT

Plaintiff nonetheless argues that MCR 2.112, MCR 2.118, MCL 600.2301, and Bush v. Shabahang,52 permit retroactive amendment of defective AOMs. We are not persuaded that these authorities compel that conclusion, one that is directly contrary to the rules of Scarsella and Kirkaldy, which call for dismissal in the event of an absent or defective AOM.53

1. AN AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT IS NOT A "PLEADING" THAT MAY BE AMENDED UNDER THE APPLICABLE VERSION OF MCR 2.118

Plaintiff urges that amendment should be permitted under the version of MCR 2.118 in effect at the time this case was pending in the trial court.54 MCR 2.118 governs amended and supplemental pleadings. Both the prior and current versions of MCR 2.118(A)(1) permit a party to "amend a pleading once as a matter of course within 14 days after being served with a responsive pleading by an adverse party. . . ."55 MCR 2.118(A)(2) further provides that "[e]xcept as provided in subrule (A)(1), a party may amend a pleading only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse party. Leave shall be freely given when justice so requires." Former MCR 2.118(D), which governed the relation back of amendments, provided, "An amendment that adds a claim or a defense relates back to the date of the original pleading if the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth, or attempted to be set forth, in the original pleading."56

By its terms, former MCR 2.118 applied only to a "pleading." MCR 2.110(A) defines "pleading" for purposes of the Michigan Court Rules restrictively to include "only: (1) a complaint, (2) a cross-claim, (3) a counterclaim, (4) a third-party complaint, (5) an answer to a complaint, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party complaint, and (6) a reply to an answer. No other form of pleading is allowed."57 As with statutes, when a court rule "specifically defines a given term, that definition alone controls."58 An AOM, even if required to be appended to a complaint, is not included in this restrictive definition of a "pleading." Plaintiff relies heavily on a statement in Barnett v. Hidalgo,59 which described an AOM as "part of the pleadings" in determining that an AOM is "generally admissible as an adoptive admission[.]" But plaintiff fails to appreciate the context in which the statement was made: describing a document as "part" of the pleadings when addressing an evidentiary issue does not turn the document into a pleading for purposes of MCR 2.118(D) if it does not meet the definition in MCR 2.110(A).60 Indeed, elsewhere Barnett clearly referred to the AOM as distinct from the complaint, stating that AOMs "are required to accompany a complaint. . . ." Id. at 160, 732 N.W.2d 472. Under MCR 2.110(A)(1), for purposes of the court rules it is the "complaint" itself that constitutes a "pleading," not the complaint and any document accompanying it. Barnett neither held nor relied on the premise that an AOM is a pleading for purposes of the rule permitting amendment of pleadings, MCR 2.118

Plaintiff also argues that the Court's opinion in Scarsella compels the conclusion that an AOM is a pleading. He stresses the Scarsella Court's holding that "`the mere tendering of a complaint without the required affidavit of merit is insufficient to commence the lawsuit.'"61 Then plaintiff notes that, pursuant to MCL 600.1901, which applies generally to all civil actions, "[a] civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court." And he similarly notes that the general civil complaint tolling statute cited in Scarsella, MCL 600.5856(a), permits tolling "[a]t the time the complaint is filed. . . ." Because Scarsella held that a medical malpractice action is not commenced—and tolling does not occur—if the complaint is not accompanied by an AOM, plaintiff reasons that, for Scarsella to be consistent with MCL 600.1901 and MCL 600.5856(a), an AOM must be "part and parcel" of the complaint.

But Scarsella, like Barnett, did not rule that an AOM is a complaint or is "part and parcel" of the complaint. Rather, the Court consistently referred to the complaint and AOM as distinct documents. For example, the Court noted that "`medical malpractice plaintiffs must file more than a complaint; they "shall file with the complaint an affidavit of merit. . . ."'"62 Importantly, Scarsella clarified that commencement of a medical malpractice action is not governed solely by the general statutes applicable to civil suits. Rather, medical malpractice suits are governed in detail by specific statutes unique to this area of law. In contrast to the generic rule that a civil action may be commenced through the mere filing of a complaint, MCL 600.2912b(1) establishes that, generally, "a person shall not commence an action alleging medical malpractice . . . unless the person has given the [defendants] written notice under this section not less than 182 days before the action is commenced."63 Similarly, as Scarsella held, pursuant to MCL 600.2912d(1) a medical malpractice claimant must file not just a complaint, but "shall file with the complaint an affidavit of merit. . . ."64 A defendant, moreover, is not simply required to file an answer to the complaint, but must also file an affidavit of meritorious defense—the counterpart to a plaintiff's AOM—within 91 days after the plaintiff files an AOM.65

These specific statutes governing medical malpractice actions, which "appl[y] to the more narrow realm of circumstances," prevail over the more general rules applicable to all civil actions.66 Accordingly, it does not necessarily follow that, simply because other civil plaintiffs may commence suit by filing a complaint, an AOM is a complaint—or is part and parcel of a complaint—particularly for purposes of applying the Michigan Court Rules.67

Permitting amendment of a deficient AOM also runs directly counter to the statutes governing medical malpractice suits, particularly MCL 600.2912d. By its terms, MCL 600.2912d requires that a plaintiff obtain a qualified expert willing to review the medical records and certify that the claim has merit because, in the expert's opinion, each defendant breached the applicable standard of practice or care, there were actions the defendant should have taken or omitted in order to comply with the standard, and the breach was the proximate cause of the injury alleged in the presuit notice.68 Consistently with its purpose to certify merit at the outset of the case, MCL 600.2912d(1) directs that the plaintiff "shall file" the AOM "with the complaint." If the plaintiff is unable to comply with this mandate, the statute provides two alternatives for recourse: MCL 600.2912d(2) permits the court to grant an additional 28 days in which to file the AOM "[u]pon motion of a party for good cause shown," and MCL 600.2912d(3) affords the plaintiff "91 days after the filing of the complaint" to file the AOM if the defendant failed "to allow access to medical records within the time period set forth in [MCL 600.2912b(6)]."

Accordingly, the statute clearly conveys that the AOM must be provided within the relevant time frames. For this reason, permitting a plaintiff to correct deficiencies in the AOM through amendment as a matter of course within 14 days after service of a responsive pleading, MCR 2.118(A)(1), and indefinitely thereafter by leave of the court or consent of the adverse party, MCR 2.118(A)(2), would directly conflict with the legislative remedies provided in MCL 600.2912d(2) and (3), which allow a plaintiff who is unable to submit a conforming AOM with the complaint an additional 28 or 91 days, respectively, to complete and submit the AOM. Just as the Scarsella Court reasoned in rejecting retroactive "amendment" of untimely AOMs under MCR 2.118, permitting amendment of a deficient AOM would similarly subvert the AOM statute by allowing plaintiffs to routinely file complaints without conforming AOMs.69

Because permitting amendment of a defective AOM runs counter to the established statutes, court rules, and cases governing this area of law, we hold that a plaintiff may not amend a deficient AOM under the version of MCR 2.118 in effect during the pendency of this suit in the trial court.

2. MCL 600.2301 AND BUSH v. SHABAHANG DO NOT AUTHORIZE AMENDMENT OF AN AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT

Next, plaintiff urges that we permit amendment of deficient AOMs under MCL 600.2301 and this Court's 2009 decision in Bush.70 But retroactive amendment of a deficient AOM has never been authorized under any court rule or statute, and as explained in part III(C)(1), would actually be contrary to the specific statutory scheme governing medical malpractice actions. This Court has long recognized that an attachment to a complaint or pleading is neither a "process" nor a "proceeding" under MCL 600.2301.71 In fact, this Court noted in 1892 that there was no statutory support for allowing amendment of an affidavit on the ground that it was a process or a proceeding:

The Bush Court's application of MCL 600.2301 to a medical malpractice NOI was rooted in the Legislature's 2004 amendment of MCL 600.5856(c), the notice-tolling statute, and does not apply to AOMs. Unlike NOIs, which give notice to defendants, AOMs are meant to weed out frivolous cases before they are ever filed. Applying Bush beyond the scope of the 2004 amendment of MCL 600.5856(c) and NOIs to AOMs would be an unwarranted expansion of its focus on the notice-tolling statute, would free the opinion from its statutory moorings, would frustrate the purpose of the AOM requirement, and would create unnecessary conflict with existing caselaw, such as Kirkaldy, which Bush did not overrule. We therefore decline to apply the rationale of Bush beyond its limited statutory focus.

3. THE NEW VERSIONS OF MCR 2.112 AND MCR 2.118 ARE NOT APPLICABLE

Finally, we address plaintiff's argument that he should now be permitted to amend his AOMs in light of the 2010 amendments of MCR 2.112 and MCR 2.118. In addition to mandating that a party challenge an allegedly defective AOM or affidavit of meritorious defense within 63 days of service, MCR 2.112(L)(2)(b) now states, "An affidavit of merit or meritorious defense may be amended in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in MCR 2.118 and MCL 600.2301." In turn, MCR 2.118(D) now states, in relevant part, "In a medical malpractice action, an amendment of an affidavit of merit or affidavit of meritorious defense relates back to the date of the original filing of the affidavit."73 The February 16, 2010, order adopting the amendments unequivocally stated that they became effective May 1, 2010, long after the complaint and the AOMs in this case were filed and, indeed, after the Court of Appeals resolved the case and plaintiff's application for leave to appeal was filed in this Court.74 Because this Court explicitly ordered that the amended rules have prospective effect, we will not apply the rules retroactively at plaintiff's request. Moreover, as defendants argue, full retroactive application of the rules is impossible at this late stage and would result in prejudice to defendants; defendants cannot go back in time and comply with the new requirement that, to challenge an AOM at all, they must do so within 63 days of service. Accordingly, retroactive application of the rules would render defendants' challenge to the AOMs ineffective and afford them no opportunity to renew their arguments concerning their deficiency or to oppose any motion plaintiff might bring for amendment at the court's discretion under MCR 2.118(A)(2). A newly adopted court rule will not be applied to pending actions if a "party acts, or fails to act, in reliance on the prior rules and the party's action or inaction has consequences under the new rules that were not present under the old rules."75 In other words, amended court rules will not apply retroactively if compliance with the newly prescribed time limits is impossible.76 We therefore decline to apply the amended versions of MCR 2.112 and MCR 2.118 here.

D. DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE WAS REQUIRED

Plaintiff's case was dismissed with prejudice because the two-year statutory limitations period provided in MCL 600.5805(6) for his medical malpractice action expired before his AOMs were deemed defective; therefore, no tolling was available to him upon his filing the complaint under MCL 600.5856(a). The alleged malpractice by defendants occurred on January 22, 2002. Accordingly, the two-year limitations period expired on January 22, 2004. If the suit had been commenced before January 22, 2004, the limitations period would have been tolled when the complaint was filed with the accompanying AOMs. But no suit was filed within the limitations period, so no tolling was available.

Instead, plaintiff filed suit within the saving period afforded him under MCL 600.5852, which permits the personal representative of the decedent's estate to commence an action "at any time within 2 years after letters of authority are issued although the period of limitations has run" as long as commencement is "within 3 years after the period of limitations has run." Plaintiff was appointed personal representative on February 22, 2005.77 He had until January 22, 2007—three years after the two-year period of limitations expired on January 22, 2004—in which to file suit during the saving period. He filed his complaint and AOMs on April 7, 2006. Although plaintiff filed suit during the saving period, because the limitations period had expired, there was nothing left to toll under MCL 600.5856(a) when he filed the complaint even though it was accompanied by AOMs. For these reasons, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed plaintiff's case with prejudice.

IV. CONCLUSION

Pursuant to the plain and controlling language of MCR 2.110(A), the applicable version of MCR 2.118, MCL 600.5856, MCL 600.2912d, and this Court's decisions in Scarsella, Kirkaldy, and Waltz, we hold that a defective AOM may not be retroactively amended and that the proper response to a defective AOM is dismissal. Although the timely filing of a defective AOM tolls the limitations period until a court finds the AOM defective, an AOM filed during a saving period after the limitations period has expired tolls nothing, as the limitations period has run and the saving period may not be tolled. In this case, because the limitations period had run before the complaint was filed, plaintiff cannot amend his defective AOMs retroactively. Given that the saving period has expired, plaintiff's case had to be dismissed with prejudice. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

MICHAEL F. CAVANAGH, J., (dissenting).

I respectfully dissent from the majority's decision to affirm the Court of Appeals' judgment dismissing plaintiff's case with prejudice. In my view, MCL 600.2301 should apply when the contents of an affidavit of merit (AOM) are deficient. Accordingly, I would remand this case to the trial court for consideration under MCL 600.2301.

For the reasons stated in Justice MARILYN J. KELLY'S dissent in Roberts v. Mecosta Co. Gen. Hosp. (After Remand), 470 Mich. 679, 702-714, 684 N.W.2d 711 (2004) (MARILYN J. KELLY, J., dissenting), I agree with Justice HATHAWAY'S conclusion in this case that a heightened level of specificity in the contents of an AOM is not required. While Justice MARILYN KELLY'S dissent examined MCL 600.2912b, addressing the contents of a notice of intent to sue (NOI), I believe that her analysis is persuasive as it relates to the AOM statute, MCL 600.2912d.

As the Roberts dissent explained, it is this Court's duty to determine the Legislature's intent, which begins with an examination of a statute's language. Roberts, 470 Mich. at 705, 684 N.W.2d 711 (MARILYN J. KELLY, J., dissenting). Because the "Legislature knows what phrasing to use when it intends to require extensive detail," it is noteworthy that the Legislature did not "explicitly mandate such specificity" in the AOM context. Id. at 709, 684 N.W.2d 711. Specifically, like the NOI statute, MCL 600.2912d only requires a "statement" regarding the alleged manner in which the breach of the standard of practice or care was the proximate cause of the injury alleged in the notice.1 Thus, as Justice HATHAWAY notes, the AOM statute does not expressly require a heightened level of specificity, as do other statutes. See Roberts, 470 Mich. at 708-709, 684 N.W.2d 711 (MARILYN J. KELLY, J., dissenting) (examining other statutes that require "detailed," "complete," or "full" statements, or that require statements made "with specificity"). Further, because the purpose of the AOM statute is to deter frivolous medical malpractice claims by requiring a certification that a claim is valid, a general assertion of the items required by the AOM statute is sufficient to lend professional credence to the claim's legitimacy and thus is likely sufficient to meet the statute's apparent intent. See id. at 707-708, 684 N.W.2d 711. Therefore, I agree with Justice HATHAWAY that a high level of specificity is not required in the AOM context.

Nevertheless, assuming arguendo that the AOM2 in this case was deficient, I believe that MCL 600.23013 should apply to allow a cure of the alleged deficiency within the AOM. To begin with, applying MCL 600.2301 would not conflict with MCL 600.2912d, when the latter is read as a whole. Indeed, as recognized by Justice HATHAWAY, the AOM statute does not expressly provide a penalty for deficiencies within the contents of an AOM. And, notably, the allowances of additional time to file an AOM in MCL 600.2912d(2) and (3) do not explicitly preclude amending or disregarding defects within the contents of an AOM.4 Instead, those provisions merely provide a plaintiff additional time in which to file the initial AOM and, thus, do not address curing an arguably defective AOM. And while I continue to adhere to my position in Kirkaldy v. Rim, 478 Mich. 581, 586-587, 734 N.W.2d 201 (2007) (CAVANAGH, J., concurring), as Justice HATHAWAY suggests, allowing a defect within an AOM to be cured under MCL 600.2301 would simply provide an alternative remedy to that of Kirkaldy, in which the majority opined that the remedy for a successful challenge to a deficient AOM is dismissal without prejudice, id. at 586, 734 N.W.2d 201 (majority opinion). Accordingly, I believe that MCL 600.2301 should apply.5

Notably, the aim of MCL 600.2301 is to "`"abolish technical errors in proceedings and to have cases disposed of as nearly as possible in accordance with the substantial rights of the parties."'" Boodt v. Borgess Med. Ctr., 481 Mich. 558, 569, 751 N.W.2d 44 (2008) (MICHAEL F. CAVANAGH, J., dissenting), quoting Gratiot Lumber & Coal Co. v. Lubinski, 309 Mich. 662, 668-669, 16 N.W.2d 112 (1944). And, by its terms, MCL 600.2301 applies to any "process" or "proceeding" before a court, allowing amendment, in either form or substance, at "any time" before judgment is rendered. See, also, Bush v. Shabahang, 484 Mich. 156, 176, 772 N.W.2d 272 (2009).

In this case, judgment had not yet been entered and, in my view, an AOM is part and parcel of a medical-malpractice "proceeding," given that it must be filed with the medical-malpractice complaint. See Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed) (defining "proceeding" as including "[t]he regular and orderly progression of a lawsuit, including all acts and events between the time of commencement and the entry of judgment"; "[a]ny procedural means for seeking redress from a tribunal or agency"; and "[a]n act or step that is part of a larger action"); see, also, Bush, 484 Mich. at 176-177, 772 N.W.2d 272; Boodt, 481 Mich. at 568 n. 6, 751 N.W.2d 44 (MICHAEL F. CAVANAGH, J., dissenting).6 Further, because MCL 600.2301 permits amendment "either in form or substance," amending the substance of an AOM to more clearly state the manner in which the breach of the standard of practice or care was the proximate cause of the injury is proper. See Boodt, 481 Mich. at 569, 751 N.W.2d 44 (MICHAEL F. CAVANAGH J., dissenting); Bush, 484 Mich. at 177, 772 N.W.2d 272 (recognizing that MCL 600.2301 allows for amendment of errors in form or substance).

Also, permitting amendment of a defective AOM would be "for the furtherance of justice," consistent with MCL 600.2301. As I explained in Boodt, justice is furthered by applying MCL 600.2301 in a case in which a statute operates as a "terminal trap" for the unwary when as here, defendants seek to avoid litigation of a potentially meritorious claim on the basis of a technical defect in an otherwise sufficient7 and timely filed AOM. See Boodt, 481 Mich. at 569, 751 N.W.2d 44 (MICHAEL F. CAVANAGH, J., dissenting). Additionally, when plaintiff's AOM is read as a whole, the contents of the AOM do not evidence an utter lack of a good-faith attempt to comply with the proximate-causation requirement of MCL 600.2912d(1)(d).8 Accordingly, even if plaintiff's AOM were deficient, allowing the alleged defect to be cured under MCL 600.2301 would be in the furtherance of justice. See Bush, 484 Mich. at 180-181, 772 N.W.2d 272.

Further, I do not believe that defendants' substantial rights would be affected by permitting MCL 600.2301 to cure the alleged defect in plaintiff's AOM. See Bush, 484 Mich. at 177-178, 772 N.W.2d 272. Unlike an NOI, which is aimed at providing notice of a claim to a defendant and promoting settlement, see Roberts, 470 Mich. at 707-708, 684 N.W.2d 711 (MARILYN KELLY, J., dissenting), and Bush, 484 Mich. at 174, 772 N.W.2d 272, the purpose of an AOM is to demonstrate that a valid claim exists. Thus, because an AOM is not intended to provide details in an effort to give notice of an impending claim and to promote settlement, a stronger justification likely exists for allowing a minor defect in the contents of an AOM to be cured. Stated another way, despite a technical defect in the AOM, a defendant would certainly be apprised of the fact that a health-care professional who had reviewed the plaintiff's medical records believed that there was a valid claim, furthering the intent of the AOM statute. And although a defendant is required to file an answer to a plaintiff's complaint within 21 days after an AOM is filed, a defendant's affidavit of meritorious defense is not dependent on the contents of a plaintiff's AOM. See MCL 600.2912e; cf. MCL 600.2912b(7) (requiring a defendant to submit a written response to a plaintiff's NOI).9 Thus, I would not hastily conclude that a defendant's substantial rights would be affected by permitting any alleged defects to be cured under MCL 600.2301.10

Accordingly, even assuming arguendo that the AOM was deficient in this case, because I believe that the alleged defect can be cured pursuant to MCL 600.2301, I would remand this case to the trial court for consideration under that statute.

HATHAWAY, J., (dissenting).

I respectfully dissent from the majority's decision to dismiss plaintiff's medical malpractice action with prejudice. The majority holds that plaintiff's affidavits of merit (AOMs) were defective, that they cannot be amended pursuant to MCL 600.2301, and that plaintiff's complaint must therefore be dismissed with prejudice. The majority's conclusions are erroneous because plaintiff's AOMs were not defective and even in cases involving AOMs with content defects, MCL 600.2301 clearly provides relief. Moreover, the plain language of the AOM statute, MCL 600.2912d(1), does not contemplate, let alone require, that a plaintiff's complaint be dismissed with prejudice for defects contained in an AOM. Thus, the majority's decision ignores the plain language of the relevant statutes. The majority abandons the rule of law and reaches its result by rewriting the applicable statutes. Accordingly, I dissent.

I. THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AOM STATUTE

At issue is whether plaintiff's AOMs met the requirements of MCL 600.2912d(1), the AOM statute. To correctly resolve this issue, we must first examine the language of the AOM statute and determine its correct interpretation. In examining this statute, we follow the established rules of statutory construction. The purpose of statutory construction is to discern and give effect to the intent of the Legislature.1 In doing so, we first look to the actual language of the statute.2 If a statute is clear and unambiguous, it must be enforced as written and no further judicial construction is allowed.3 Simply stated, we must avoid a construction that would render any part of the statute nugatory,4 and similarly, we are "not free to add language to a statute or to interpret a statute on the basis of this Court's own sense of how the statute should have been written."5 Further, a statute must be read as a whole,6 and while individual words and phrases are important, the words and phrases should be read in the context of the entire legislative scheme.7

MCL 600.2912d, the AOM statute, provides in pertinent part:

The majority focuses on the requirements of subdivision (d), which states that the AOM shall contain a statement of "[t]he manner in which the breach of the standard of practice or care was the proximate cause of the injury alleged in the notice." In this case, plaintiff submitted two separate AOMs.8 The majority holds that these AOMs were deficient because they "failed to provide any statement of the manner in which the breach of the standard of care was the proximate cause of the injury alleged."9 This conclusion is disingenuous because the plaintiff's AOMs did contain statements regarding causation. The statements were just not made to the level of exacting detail that the majority asserts is required by the statute. However, the majority's interpretation of what is required by MCL 600.2912d, the AOM statute, is erroneous.

In analyzing the AOM statute, we must be mindful that the Michigan Legislature has enacted many statutes requiring that a party detail certain facts or elements of a claim with varying levels of heightened specificity. For example, the Legislature used the phrase "with specificity" in MCL 333.17015(10), MCL 333.22231(4), and MCL 769.1a(8). The phrase "stating specifically" was used in MCL 38.416 and MCL 500.8133(3). The Legislature mandated in MCL 38.14, MCL 125.1510(1), MCL 408.1027(2)(b), MCL 462.319(1)(a), MCL 600.557b(2), and MCL 600.6461(2) that a "detailed statement" be made; required a "full statement" in MCL 224.25, MCL 491.920(3), and MCL 500.424(2); required a "complete statement" in MCL 14.283(b) and MCL 462.2(2); and required a "full and complete statement" in MCL 247.172, MCL 324.51904, and MCL 390.758.

The Legislature chose not to incorporate any of these phrases heightening the level of specificity in the AOM statute. If the Legislature had chosen to incorporate such qualifying language in MCL 600.2912d(1), then the majority might have a basis for its conclusion. However, MCL 600.2912d(1) is silent concerning the level of specificity with which the information in an AOM must be conveyed. Nothing in the plain language of this statute mandates the heightened level of specificity that the majority demands, and this Court is not free to add words or phrases to a statute. Thus, the requirement that the AOM "shall contain a statement of each of the following" simply means what it says.10 The statute requires that "a statement" must be made, not a "detailed statement," "a complete statement," or a "full explanatory statement."

Moreover, the majority distorts the word "manner" as used in MCL 600.2912d(1)(d).11 The majority opines that the word "manner" requires a detailed statement of "how" the breach caused the injury:

However, this conclusion is inconsistent with how the word "manner" has been interpreted in other statutes such as MCL 28.258(12)(b), MCL 52.202(1), and MCL 52.205. Our courts have consistently interpreted the word "manner" as used in relation to those statutes as allowing for a single word description such as "homicide," "suicide," or "accident." In People v. Williams, the Court of Appeals wrote:

See also, Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109, 115, 597 N.W.2d 817 (1999) ("[T]he `manner of death was an accident.'") (citation omitted); People v. Bailey, 451 Mich. 657, 664, 549 N.W.2d 325 (1996) ("`The manner of death is homicide.'") (citation omitted); People v. Schmitt, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued July 31, 2007 (Docket No. 264176), p. 2, 2007 WL 2189059 (ZAHRA, P.J., dissenting) ("The medical examiner determined the manner of Richard's death to be a homicide. . . ."), rev'd 480 Mich. 963, 741 N.W.2d 511 (2007); and People v. Small, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued December 28, 1999 (Docket No. 205544), p. 1, 1999 WL 33326774 ("The assistant medical examiner testified that the cause of death was multiple gunshot wounds and that manner of death was homicide.").

Thus the use of the word "manner" in the AOM statute does not mandate a detailed description of how the breach caused the injury; rather the manner in which the breach was the proximate cause of the injury can be set forth in a similarly succinct description such as "the malpractice caused the death" or "the breaches of the standard of care caused the death," or "the death was caused by the breaches of the standard of care." Thus, all that MCL 600.2912d(1)(d) requires is a statement that the breach of the standard of care caused the result. To require the parties to provide further description creates a requirement not found in the language of the statute.

Moreover, the majority's ruling transforms an AOM into something that it is not. The AOM statute is one part of a larger statutory scheme for malpractice claims, and it must be read in the context of that larger legislative scheme. As set forth by the clear language of MCL 600.2912d(1), an AOM is designed only to act as certification that the claim is supported by the opinion of a qualified expert. The statute states that the plaintiff "shall file . . . an affidavit of merit signed by a health professional who the plaintiff's attorney reasonably believes meets the requirements for an expert witness. . . . The affidavit of merit shall certify that the health professional has reviewed the notice [of intent] . . . concerning the allegations contained in the notice. . . ."14 Thus, an AOM is intended to function as a certification that the allegations contained within the notice of intent (NOI) are meritorious. An AOM is filed with the complaint and is not the notice pleading. The NOI is the notice pleading. The AOM serves as certification that the allegations of the claim are meritorious, and its only role is to deter the filing of unsupported claims. By failing to read the AOM statute in its entirety and in the context of the malpractice statutory scheme, the majority simply misconstrues the statute.

The majority compounds its error by focusing solely on the statements made in the AOM, rather than reading the AOM in concert with the NOI, as contemplated by the AOM statute. The AOM statute requires that "[t]he affidavit of merit shall certify that the health professional has reviewed the notice and all medical records supplied to him or her by the plaintiff's attorney concerning the allegations contained in the notice. . . ."15 As evidenced by this plain language, an AOM is not a standalone document. Rather, it is to be read in concert with the NOI. The statute requires that the expert review the NOI and certify that he or she supports allegations contained therein, and while the statute requires the expert to make a statement on proximate causation, it does not require that the expert repeat the contents of the NOI in the AOM.

II. THE SUFFICIENCY OF PLAINTIFF'S AFFIDAVITS OF MERIT

In this case, the NOI set forth in detail the nature of the claim and how the plaintiff's decedent, Edris Ligons, died. From the pleadings, plaintiff's allegations appear to be relatively straightforward and uncomplicated. The NOI and AOMs alleged that professional negligence occurred during a visit to defendant Crittenton Hospital's emergency room, where Ligons was seen by defendant David Bruce Bauer, M.D. Plaintiff claimed that Ligons had suffered a perforation of her colon during a recently performed colonoscopy and that she developed sepsis as a result of the perforation. Ligons went to the emergency room for follow-up treatment, and plaintiff claimed that Dr. Bauer failed to admit her to the hospital for the proper diagnostic testing and treatment. Plaintiff further claimed that this improper treatment allowed the sepsis to become overwhelming, leading to multiple organ failure, causing Ligons's death. The NOI set forth the factual background of plaintiff's claim:

Plaintiff's supplemental NOI further stated:

The AOM signed by Dr. Fred Thomas certified that he had reviewed the NOI and all the medical records concerning the allegations contained in the notice and concluded, "It is my opinion that had the defendants admitted the patient to the hospital on January 22, 2002, and obtained the appropriate consults on January 22, 2002, as outlined in Dr. Sternbach's affidavit that Edris Ligons would not have died." The AOM signed by Dr. George Sternbach similarly certified his review and concluded, "As a direct and proximate cause of the imprudent acts and omission committed by the individuals identified herein, Edris Ligons, died."

While I do not opine on whether plaintiff would ultimately prevail on the merits, it is pure folly to suggest that these statements do not meet the requirements of MCL 600.2912d(1)(d). To reach such an erroneous conclusion, the majority effectively ignores the statements that the "per[forated] colon would have been detected and surgery would have been performed much earlier" and "[t]his would have avoided the overwhelming sepsis that led to the multi organ system failure and ultimately death." The majority further ignores the Dr. Thomas's certification that he had reviewed that statement and the supporting medical records and ignores his opinion that "had the defendants admitted the patient to the hospital on January 22, 2002, and obtained the appropriate consults on January 22, 2002, as outlined in Dr. Sternbach's affidavit that Edris Ligons would not have died."

The majority's conclusion that the contents of the NOI must be repeated in the AOM is at odds with the plain language of the statute. Plaintiff's AOMs met the requirements of MCL 600.2912d(1)(d).16 The AOMs, when read in concert with the NOI, set forth a "statement" regarding the "manner in which the breach of the standard of practice or care was the proximate cause of the injury alleged in the notice." Nothing more is required by the statute. Thus, plaintiff's AOMs were not defective.

III. DISMISSAL OF A CASE INVOLVING AN AOM WITH CONTENT DEFECTS IS NOT REQUIRED BY KIRKALDY

The majority further errs by holding that if an AOM contains any defect, the only possible remedy is dismissal under Kirkaldy v. Rim.17 In so opining, the majority expands the ruling of Kirkaldy well beyond its facts and legal conclusion. In Kirkaldy, the plaintiff's AOM was found to be defective because it was not signed by an expert who met the requirements of the expert-witness statute, MCL 600.2169. The plaintiff in Kirkaldy was not seeking relief from a defect in content. Instead, the plaintiff sought the ability to replace an AOM, signed by an unqualified expert, with an entirely new AOM signed by a qualified expert. Thus, Kirkaldy addressed the ability to substitute the original AOM for one signed by an entirely different expert witness. Nothing in Kirkaldy addressed an AOM containing purported defects in content. Rather, the defect at issue in Kirkaldy was that the expert was not qualified to support the claim. Significantly, the plaintiff in Kirkaldy filed a second complaint accompanied by a new AOM signed by a qualified expert. The plaintiff requested that the original case be dismissed without prejudice so that she could pursue the second complaint. This Court simply granted one of the avenues of relief requested by the plaintiff when it dismissed the case without prejudice.

Kirkaldy decided the issue of whether filing the original complaint tolled the period of limitations under MCL 600.5856, and this Court held that even an AOM signed by an unqualified expert tolls the period of limitations. Kirkaldy did not address whether alternative remedies short of dismissal, such as amendment of an AOM, were available under MCL 600.2301. Thus, it is erroneous to state that dismissal is the only remedy for an AOM with content defects because this Court did not address that issue in Kirkaldy.

IV. DISMISSAL OF AN AOM WITH CONTENT DEFECTS IS CONTRARY TO THE AOM STATUTE

The proper starting point for identifying the required penalties and available remedies for AOMs with content defects is the language of the AOM statute itself. While MCL 600.2912d(1) mandates that a plaintiff shall not commence an action for medical malpractice without timely filing an AOM, nothing in the plain language of this statute requires or compels dismissal of the case for defects in the AOM. Despite the majority's contrary conclusion, the AOM statute makes no reference whatsoever to a mandatory dismissal penalty in the event of a defect. Instead, the statute is silent regarding the consequences of filing an AOM that contains content defects. Thus, we must determine whether mandatory dismissal with prejudice was the intent of the Legislature when it enacted MCL 600.2912d.

The legislative history of the AOM statute reveals that the Legislature did not intend for a defect in an AOM to be grounds for dismissal with prejudice. The clearest indicator of this intent is the Legislature's complete rejection of a "mandatory dismissal with prejudice" clause contained in the original draft of the legislation. The AOM statute was originally introduced as part of Senate Bill No. 270 on January 28, 1993. AOMs (referred to as "certificate[s]" in SB 270 as introduced) were addressed in proposed § 2912d. Proposed § 2912d contained a mandatory dismissal penalty. The bill as introduced linked the NOI and the AOM together. It also provided for dismissal of claims without the benefit of tolling afforded in MCL 600.5856, which in essence would have resulted in a dismissal with prejudice. Section 2912d as introduced stated:

Significantly, while AOMs and NOIs remained linked in the version of the bill actually adopted, the penalty provisions did not survive. There simply were not sufficient votes in the Legislature to enact a statute with such harsh penalties. This unequivocally demonstrates that mandatory dismissal was not the will of the Legislature. Michigan law makes clear that "[w]here the Legislature has considered certain language and rejected it in favor of other language, the resulting statutory language should not be held to explicitly authorize what the Legislature explicitly rejected."18 Because the Legislature specifically omitted proposed dismissal language from the enrolled bill, it is unreasonable to conclude that the Legislature intended for courts to reinsert dismissal as the only permissible remedy. The majority's interpretation of the phrase "shall contain a statement" as meaning "shall dismiss the case if there is a possible defect no matter how minor" is misguided.19

V. CONTENT DEFECTS IN AN AOM MAY BE CORRECTED

The AOMs in this case were not defective. However, even in cases involving AOMs with content defects, a party who files a defective AOM is entitled to seek relief. The first question is whether a plaintiff is entitled to relief under the former version of MCR 2.118. The majority claims that a plaintiff whose case was pending while the former version of MCR 2.118 was in effect20 is not entitled to relief under the former rule because an AOM is not a pleading. To reach this conclusion the majority disavows the holding in Barnett v. Hidalgo, 478 Mich. 151, 161, 732 N.W.2d 472 (2007), that an AOM is part of a pleading and, therefore, admissible as substantive evidence at trial because it constitutes an admission by a party opponent. However, now the majority claims that because Barnett held that an AOM is only "part of the pleadings,"21 an AOM is not a "pleading" subject to amendment under MCR 2.118. This distinction is dubious at best, as nothing in former MCR 2.118 stated or suggested that a pleading can be amended but a part of it cannot.

Regardless of whether relief is available under the former court rule, the majority completely disregards MCL 600.2301. Once again, this Court must turn to the actual language of the statute. MCL 600.2301 contains two clear and unambiguous provisions:

The plain language of this statute imposes a duty that cannot be ignored on all courts of this state. It requires that "[t]he court at every stage of the action or proceeding shall disregard any error or defect in the proceedings which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties." This is not a discretionary provision. It is a legislative mandate that this Court must follow. Unless substantial rights are affected, the court shall disregard any error or defect at every stage of the action or proceeding. This provision applies to all actions or proceedings. Thus, even if we were to accept the majority's erroneous conclusion that an AOM is not a pleading, an AOM is nevertheless part of the "action" or "proceeding." Clearly, the failure to repeat statements already made cannot be characterized as affecting a substantial right. According to the plain language of the statute, this Court must disregard technical defects, such as the ones the majority claims are in plaintiff's AOMs. By failing to do so, the majority ignores a clear and direct mandate imposed on this Court by the Legislature.

Moreover, even in instances in which an AOM contains more substantial defects or substantial rights might be affected, trial courts still have discretion under MCL 600.2301 to afford relief by way of amendment when justice so requires. MCL 600.2301 states that "[t]he court in which any action or proceeding is pending, has power to amend any process, pleading or proceeding in such action or proceeding, either in form or substance, for the furtherance of justice, on such terms as are just. . . ." MCL 600.2301 clearly provides for amendment of more than just pleadings. It allows for amendments of "any process, pleading or proceeding." An AOM is without question part of the process or proceeding. Thus, an AOM is a document that courts have the power to amend.

The majority claims it can disregard the plain language of MCL 600.2301 by asserting that Freer v. White, 91 Mich. 74, 76, 51 N.W. 807 (1892), represents the long-established law in Michigan that amendment of an affidavit is prohibited. However, the majority's reliance on Freer (discussing "attachment" affidavits used in debtor-creditor disputes in the 1800s) is misguided.22 In Emerson v. Detroit Steel & Spring Co., 100 Mich. 127, 132, 58 N.W. 659 (1894), this Court limited the holding in Freer to its facts and recognized that Freer had not overruled Barber v. Smith, 41 Mich. 138, 1 N.W. 992 (1879), which had previously allowed for amendments to attachment affidavits.23 Accordingly, Freer does not, as the majority claims, support its decision to ignore the plain language of MCL 600.2301.

VI. WHEN COURTS SHOULD ALLOW AMENDMENT OF AN AOM

Next we must determine under what circumstances a court should allow amendment of an AOM with content defects that affect the substantial rights of the parties. While allowing an amendment is a discretionary matter, a court should view a party's request to amend in light of the statutory directive that amendments should be in "the furtherance of justice, on such terms as are just...."24 If failing to allow amendment would result in the dismissal of a plaintiff's case with prejudice, as the majority holds in this case, the result would not be in the furtherance of justice. Such a result slams the courthouse doors in the plaintiff's face, leaving that plaintiff without a forum in which to pursue a claim that an expert has certified as meritorious.

Citizens of this state are entitled to a forum to resolve claims on their merits. Furtherance of justice cannot be achieved without providing citizens access to justice. Access to justice is a cornerstone of our system of jurisprudence, and without it, confidence in the judiciary is lost. Allowing for amendment of an AOM to correct defects in content is in the furtherance of justice. Such relief permits a plaintiff to pursue his or her claim and have it decided on its merits rather than on a hypertechnical reading of an AOM or a misguided reading of the AOM statute.

Unfortunately, instead of following the rule of law, the majority denies the plaintiff in this case access to justice by rewriting the language of the AOM statute in order to come to its result.

VII. CONCLUSION

I respectfully dissent from the majority's decision to dismiss this medical malpractice action with prejudice. The majority's conclusions are erroneous because plaintiff's AOMs were not defective and even in cases involving AOMs with content defects, MCL 691.2301 clearly provides relief. Moreover, the plain language of the AOM statute does not contemplate, let alone require, that a plaintiff's complaint be dismissed with prejudice for defects contained in an affidavit. The majority's decision ignores the plain language of the relevant statutes. The majority abandons the rule of law and reaches its result by rewriting the applicable statutes.