MARY BETH KELLY, J.

In this medical malpractice action, we must decide whether a plaintiff is entitled to amend an original notice of intent (NOI) when adding a nonparty defendant to a pending action pursuant to this Court's holding in Bush v. Shabahang1 and MCL 600.2301 so that the amended NOI relates back to the original filing for purposes of tolling the statute of limitations. We hold that a plaintiff is not entitled to amend an original NOI to add nonparty defendants so that the amended NOI relates back to the original filing for purposes of tolling the statute of limitations, and we affirm the result reached by the Court of Appeals only and reverse the Court of Appeals' judgment in all other respects.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In 2003, plaintiff Willie Driver2 visited defendant Mansoor Naini, M.D., who administered a carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA)3 test to plaintiff. The results indicated that plaintiff had a slightly elevated CEA level. Dr. Naini did not order a colonoscopy or take any further action even though plaintiff was over the age of 50 and had a family history of colon cancer. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff began experiencing unexplained weight loss, and in 2005 a gastroenterologist diagnosed him with stage IV colon cancer with metastasis to the liver.

On April 25, 2006, plaintiff's counsel sent a notice of intent (NOI) to file a medical malpractice action to Dr. Naini and Michigan Cardiology Associates, P.C., (MCA) as required by MCL 600.2912b(1).4 Plaintiff complied with the notice waiting period under MCL 600.2912b(1) and timely filed a complaint against Dr. Naini and MCA on October 23, 2006.5 Plaintiff alleged that Dr. Naini had failed to properly screen for colon cancer and alleged that MCA was vicariously liable for the malpractice.

In January 2007, Dr. Naini and MCA sent a notice of nonparty at fault to plaintiff's counsel pursuant to MCR 2.112(K). Defendants named Cardiovascular Clinical Associates, P.C. (CCA) as a potential defendant. Defendants indicated that CCA might be vicariously liable because Dr. Naini worked for CCA at some point during his treatment of plaintiff.

On February 1, 2007, plaintiff sent an NOI to CCA and moved to file an amended complaint to add CCA as a defendant pursuant to MCL 600.2957(2), the nonparty fault statute.6 The circuit court granted the motion, and, 49 days later, on March 22, 2007, plaintiff filed an amended complaint and added CCA as a defendant to the action. In doing so, plaintiff failed to comply with the 91-day notice waiting period for adding a defendant to an existing medical malpractice action under MCL 600.2912b(3).7

Subsequently, CCA moved for summary disposition, arguing that plaintiff's claim against it was time-barred because the statute of limitations had expired. According to CCA, plaintiff failed to toll the statute of limitations when he did not comply with the notice waiting period. Plaintiff responded that he had timely filed the amended complaint in accord with the nonparty fault statute, MCL 600.2957(2). The circuit court agreed and denied CCA's motion.

The Court of Appeals granted CCA leave to appeal and reversed the circuit court and remanded for entry of summary disposition in CCA's favor.8 The Court of Appeals held that plaintiff's claim accrued "at the latest" when he was diagnosed with colon cancer in November 2005 and that plaintiff had two years from that point forward to commence an action against CCA.9 The Court of Appeals reasoned that because plaintiff filed the amended complaint without first complying with the notice waiting period, the complaint failed to commence an action that tolled the statute of limitations.10 The Court of Appeals cited Burton v. Reed City Hosp. Corp.,11 in which this Court held that a premature complaint does not commence an action that tolls the statute of limitations in a malpractice suit.12 Here, plaintiff filed his amended complaint 49 days13 after he sent CCA an NOI; therefore, the Court of Appeals concluded, the premature complaint did not toll the statute of limitations and plaintiff's claim had become time-barred.14

However, the Court of Appeals concluded that plaintiff's claim was saved in part by MCL 600.2957(2).15 The Court of Appeals reasoned that because plaintiff's claim was partially valid under MCL 600.2957(2), yet totally barred by MCL 600.2912b, the statutes irreconcilably conflicted.16 The Court of Appeals concluded that MCL 600.2912b was more specific and governed because it applies only in medical malpractice actions, whereas MCL 600.2957(2) applies to actions in general.17 Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court's order denying CCA's motion for summary disposition and remanded for entry of summary disposition in CCA's favor.18 Plaintiff applied for leave to appeal in this Court, and we ordered and heard oral argument on whether to grant the application.19

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review de novo a circuit court's decision on a motion for summary disposition.20 This case requires interpretation of the several statutory provisions involved. We also review de novo issues of statutory interpretation.21 When interpreting the meaning of a statute, our primary goal is to discern the intent of the Legislature by first examining the plain language of the statute.22 Statutory provisions must be read in the context of the entire act, giving every word its plain and ordinary meaning.23 When the language is clear and unambiguous, we will apply the statute as written and judicial construction is not permitted.24

III. APPLICABLE LAW

MCL 600.2912b(1) requires a claimant to submit an NOI to a potential defendant before commencing a medical malpractice suit. This requirement is mandatory25 and applies equally to individuals and professional entities, including professional corporations.26 Ordinarily, the claimant must then wait 182 days before filing a complaint.27

The Legislature set forth a different set of requirements in MCL 600.2912b(3) for adding a defendant to an existing medical malpractice action. MCL 600.2912b(3) provides for service of additional NOIs on health professionals and health facilities that will be added to an existing medical malpractice action as follows:

The 91-day waiting period required by MCL 600.2912b(3) is consistent with MCL 600.2957(2), which applies to lawsuits generally.28 MCL 600.2957(2) provides:

When a claimant files an NOI with time remaining on the applicable statute of limitations, that NOI tolls the statute of limitations for up to 182 days with regard to the recipients of the NOI.29 In a medical malpractice action, a claimant normally has two years from the time his claim accrues to commence a suit.30 A medical malpractice claim accrues "at the time of the act or omission that is the basis for the claim . . ., regardless of the time the plaintiff discovers or otherwise has knowledge of the claim."31 However, when a plaintiff discovers a claim two or more years after the alleged negligent act occurred, then the plaintiff must commence an action "within 6 months after the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the existence of the claim, whichever is later."32

IV. ANALYSIS

A. PLAINTIFF DID NOT TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO CCA AND HIS SUIT IS TIME-BARRED

In this case, the six-month discovery rule provides the applicable limitations period.33 Plaintiff alleged in his complaint that Dr. Naini failed to screen for cancer in 2003 after a test showed that he had an elevated CEA level. This was the negligent act that formed the basis for his claim. Because the claim accrued in 2003 and plaintiff discovered the claim more than two years later, the six-month discovery rule applied. Contrary to the Court of Appeals' erroneous conclusion, the November 2005 diagnosis of cancer was not the negligent act that gave rise to plaintiff's claim.34 Accordingly, plaintiff had six months from November 2005 (i.e., until May 2006) to commence a medical malpractice action against all defendants.35

There is no dispute that plaintiff timely filed suit within this six-month period with respect to Dr. Naini and MCA. Plaintiff provided those defendants an NOI in April 2006 and then waited 182 days before filing his complaint in October 2006. Plaintiff, however, first provided CCA an NOI in February 2007 and filed a complaint against CCA in March 2007, long after the six-month discovery period expired in May 2006. Because a medical malpractice plaintiff must provide every defendant a timely NOI in order to toll the limitations period applicable to the recipient of the NOI, plaintiff failed to toll the limitations period applicable to CCA.36 Hence, plaintiff's complaint was time-barred with regard to CCA, and the Court of Appeals properly remanded the case for entry of summary disposition in CCA's favor.37

B. BUSH v. SHABAHANG IS INAPPLICABLE

Plaintiff, however, argues that he should be permitted to amend his original NOI pursuant to this Court's holding in Bush38 and MCL 600.230139 so that the NOI he sent to CCA relates back in time to his original NOI. According to plaintiff, allowing amendment and relation back would preserve tolling with respect to all three defendants.

In Bush, the plaintiff sent an NOI to multiple defendants two days before the statute of limitations was set to expire.40 The defendants moved for summary disposition and argued in part that the plaintiff's NOI was defective because it failed to state a particularized standard of care.41 The circuit court granted summary disposition with regard to three of the defendants, but denied summary disposition with respect to certain claims against defendants Spectrum Health and West Michigan Cardiovascular Surgeons (WMCS).42 On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff's NOI did not comply with the requirements of MCL 600.2912b(4) with respect to certain claims of liability against WMCS and Spectrum Health.43 The Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the circuit court for entry of partial summary disposition without prejudice of these claims, but held that the statute of limitations remained tolled until entry of the judgment of summary disposition.44 This Court granted leave to appeal and addressed whether a defective NOI tolls the statute of limitations under MCL 600.5856(c).45 The Bush majority held that when an NOI fails to meet all of the content requirements under MCL 600.2912b(4),46 MCL 600.2301 allows a plaintiff to amend the NOI and preserve tolling unless the plaintiff failed to make a good-faith effort to comply with MCL 600.2912b(4).47

Bush is inapplicable to the present circumstances. At the outset we note that the holding in Bush that a defective yet timely NOI could toll the statute of limitations simply does not apply here because CCA never received a timely, albeit defective, NOI. More importantly, and contrary to the dissent's analysis, the facts at issue do not trigger application of MCL 600.2301. That statute states:

By its plain language, MCL 600.2301 only applies to actions or proceedings that are pending.48 Here, plaintiff failed to commence an action against CCA before the six-month discovery period expired, and his claim was therefore barred by the statute of limitations. "An action is not `pending' if it cannot be `commenced'. . . ."49 In Bush, however, this Court explained that an NOI is part of a medical malpractice "proceeding."50 The Court explained that, "[s]ince an NOI must be given before a medical malpractice claim can be filed, the service of an NOI is a part of a medical malpractice `proceeding.' As a result, [MCL 600.2301] applies to the NOI `process.'"51 Although plaintiff gave CCA an NOI, he could not file a medical malpractice claim against CCA because the six-month discovery period had already expired. Service of the NOI on CCA could not, then, have been part of any "proceeding" against CCA because plaintiff's claim was already time-barred when he sent the NOI. A proceeding cannot be pending if it was time-barred at the outset. Therefore, MCL 600.2301 is inapplicable because there was no action or proceeding pending against CCA in this case.

Moreover, amendment of the original NOI to allow plaintiff to add CCA would not be "`for the furtherance of justice'" and would affect CCA's "substantial rights."52 Every defendant in a medical malpractice suit is entitled to a timely NOI. The legislative purpose behind the notice requirement "was to provide a mechanism for `promoting settlement without the need for formal litigation, reducing the cost of medical malpractice litigation, and providing compensation for meritorious medical malpractice claims that would otherwise be precluded from recovery because of litigation costs. . . .'"53 Applying MCL 600.2301 in the present case would deprive CCA of its statutory right to a timely NOI followed by the appropriate notice waiting period, and CCA would be denied an opportunity to consider settlement. CCA would also be denied its right to a statute-of-limitations defense. These outcomes are plainly contrary to, and would not be in furtherance of, the Legislature's intent in enacting MCL 600.2912b.

In addition, allowing a claimant to amend an original NOI to add nonparty defendants conflicts with the statutory requirements that govern the commencement of a medical malpractice action and tolling of the statute of limitations. MCL 600.2912b(1) states that

We have construed this provision as containing a dual requirement: A plaintiff must (1) submit an NOI to every health professional or health facility before filing a complaint54 and (2) wait the applicable notice waiting period with respect to each defendant before he or she can commence an action.55 A plaintiff has the burden of ensuring compliance with these mandates.56 With regard to the requirement that a plaintiff provide every defendant an NOI during the applicable limitations period before filing a complaint, nothing in Bush eliminates this requirement. Permitting amendment to add time-barred nonparty defendants to an original NOI on the basis of Bush would render the NOI requirement meaningless and the provision pertaining to nonparty defendants, MCL 600.2912b(3), nugatory.57

Nor does Bush compel the conclusion that a plaintiff can add a nonparty defendant and avoid compliance with the notice waiting period by simply amending the original NOI. As we explained in Burton, when a plaintiff fails to strictly comply with the notice waiting period under MCL 600.2912b, his or her prematurely filed complaint fails to commence an action that tolls the statute of limitations.58 The plaintiff in Burton underwent abdominal surgery at the defendant hospital and suffered complications allegedly caused by the defendants' negligence.59 The plaintiff sent the defendants an NOI and, 115 days later, filed a complaint.60 After the statute of limitations expired, the defendants moved for summary disposition and argued that the plaintiff had failed to comply with the notice waiting period under MCL 600.2912b.61 The defendants argued that the premature complaint failed to toll the statute of limitations, and we agreed.62 We parsed the language of MCL 600.2912b and explained that it "unequivocally provides that a person `shall not' commence an action alleging medical malpractice against a health professional or health facility until the expiration of the statutory notice period."63 We stated:

In sum, the significance of Burton is that a plaintiff cannot commence an action that tolls the statute of limitations against a particular defendant until the plaintiff complies with the notice-waiting-period requirements of MCL 600.2912b.

Nothing in Bush altered our holding in Burton.65 The central issue in Bush involved the effect an NOI had on tolling when the NOI failed to comply with the content requirements of MCL 600.2912b(4).66 The central issue in Burton involved the effect the plaintiff's failure to comply with the notice-waiting-period requirements had on tolling. Indeed, the Bush Court repeatedly emphasized that the focus of MCL 600.5856(c) is compliance with the notice waiting period set forth in MCL 600.2912b.67 In contrast to placing doubt on the viability of Burton, this aspect of Bush aligned with Burton's holding that a plaintiff must comply with the notice waiting period to ensure the complaint tolls the statute of limitations.68

Additional concerns support our conclusion that a plaintiff cannot amend an originally filed NOI to add a nonparty defendant. Not only would such a rule be contrary to the plain language of the statutory provisions at issue, but it would create a situation permitting endless joinder of nonparty defendants. Plaintiff would have us allow a claimant in a malpractice action to preserve claims against an infinite number of potential nonparty defendants by simply submitting an NOI to a single defendant. This would absolve a plaintiff of his or her statutory burden to preserve tolling in accord with the prerequisites explained in Burton. Absent the statutory mechanisms governing tolling, a claimant could continually add nonparty defendants to an existing action for an undefined amount of time. This result is contrary to the plain language of MCL 600.2912b and MCL 600.5856(c).

Moreover, amendment and relation back would defeat the very principles underlying limitations periods. In Moll v. Abbott Laboratories69 we explained that

Were a plaintiff able to continually add nonparty defendants to a malpractice action, the nonparty defendants would be exposed to protracted fear of litigation and plaintiffs would not be compelled to promptly prosecute claims once they submitted an NOI to a single defendant. Nonparty defendants would not be provided a fair opportunity to defend against claims, as the facts underlying the claim could have occurred long before the party was added to the suit. Courts would be required to shepherd stale claims through their dockets, which could result in delay and docket congestion. We decline to adopt such a radical departure from the Legislature's carefully crafted framework that governs commencement and tolling in a medical malpractice suit.

C. MCL 600.2957(2) DOES NOT SAVE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM

Plaintiff also contends that application of MCL 600.2301 in this case is necessary to ensure that a medical malpractice claimant whose claim is governed by the six-month discovery rule can subsequently add a nonparty at fault under MCL 600.2957(2). MCL 600.2957(2) provides:

With respect to the present case, the key language in this provision allows a party to add a defendant to an action if the claim against the new defendant would not have been time-barred "at the time of the filing of the original action."71 Plaintiff commenced the original action against Dr. Naini and MCA in October 2006. At that time, the statute of limitations had long since expired with respect to CCA. As noted earlier, the complaint was timely with respect to Dr. Naini and MCA because plaintiff sent those defendants an NOI that tolled the statute of limitations. That NOI did not toll the statute of limitations with respect to CCA. Hence, plaintiff could not add CCA pursuant to MCL 600.2957(2) because plaintiff's claim against CCA would have been barred at the time the original action was filed.72

Plaintiff contends that the notice waiting period will always serve to exhaust the six-month limitations period applicable to a claim governed by the discovery rule. Plaintiff argues that it is necessary that he be able to amend his original NOI in order to avail himself of the provisions of MCL 600.2957(2). Plaintiff's argument is unpersuasive for two reasons: first, a claimant can toll the six-month limitations period by filing an NOI before that limitations period expires; second, as articulated earlier, allowing plaintiff to amend the original NOI so that he or she can add a nonparty under MCL 600.2957(2) runs counter to the Legislative framework governing commencement of and tolling in malpractice actions. We cannot ignore the plain language of MCL 600.2912b to permit a plaintiff to utilize MCL 600.2957(2) under the present circumstances.73

Moreover, we presume the Legislature was aware of the nuance between adding a nonparty at fault under MCL 600.2957(2) and the notice waiting period under MCL 600.2912b (i.e., that the 182-day waiting period virtually engulfs the discovery rule's six-month limitations period) when it enacted MCL 600.2957 in 1995 PA 161 as part of the 1995 tort reform legislation.74 Further, in enacting the tort reform legislation, the Legislature eliminated joint and several liability in tort actions with the exception of medical malpractice suits.75 As joint and several liability remains the rule, inclusion of all potential parties in a medical malpractice action is not necessary in order for a plaintiff to secure full recovery.

V. RESPONSE TO THE DISSENT

Although the dissent accuses the majority of misinterpreting the statutes at issue, it is obvious from the dissent's dire attempt to save plaintiff's claim that it is in fact the dissent that misconstrues the statutory framework governing medical malpractice claims. Central to the dissent's flawed analysis is its failure to recognize that plaintiff's claims against CCA, MCA, and Dr. Naini accrued at the same time when plaintiff discovered the negligent act and were governed by the same six-month limitations period. Thus, when plaintiff failed to provide CCA an NOI within that six-month period, plaintiff's claim became time-barred. The dissent, however, erroneously posits that plaintiff's claim accrued against CCA when plaintiff learned that CCA might be vicariously liable. This conclusion is wholly unsupported by law and ignores the statutory framework governing claim accrual. Receipt of notice of a nonparty at fault under MCL 600.2957(2) is irrelevant to determining the date of accrual of a medical malpractice claim.76 Nor did MCL 600.2957(2) provide plaintiff with an additional 91 days in which to commence an action against the nonparty defendant, as the dissent asserts. As we have explained, that provision, by its plain language, is not a tolling provision, nor does it otherwise provide an additional basis on which to bring a claim.

Moreover, the dissent overlooks the significance of Burton. Plaintiff failed to comply with the 91-day notice waiting period under MCL 600.2912b(3) after he sent CCA an NOI. Pursuant to Burton, the premature complaint failed to commence an action that tolled the statute of limitations, and his claim was time-barred when the Court of Appeals issued its opinion and order reversing the circuit court's order denying CCA's motion for summary disposition and remanding the case to the circuit court for the entry of an order of summary disposition in CCA's favor. Although the dissent claims that Burton is inapplicable to the present case, the dissent would essentially overrule Burton and disregard the notice-waiting-period requirements mandated by MCL 600.2912b. Unlike the dissent, we will adhere to the plain language of MCL 600.2912b and binding precedent established in Burton.

Finally, the dissent's attempt to save plaintiff's claim through reliance on MCL 600.2301 is unavailing. As we previously stated, MCL 600.2301 does not apply in this case because it only applies in actions or proceedings that are "pending." Plaintiff's claim with regard to CCA was time-barred from the outset; hence, it was not "pending" because it could not be commenced.77 While the dissent acknowledges that amendment under MCL 600.2301 would deprive CCA of the period permitted for the parties to attempt to settle the claim, it concludes that deprivation of this period would not affect CCA's substantial rights because there is no indication that CCA would have settled the claim. The dissent further posits that, because plaintiff "attempted to follow the applicable procedural requirements" for adding a nonparty at fault, allowing amendment under MCL 600.2301 would be "in the furtherance of justice."78 However, the dissent's eagerness to do away with the statutory framework governing notice, limitations periods, and claim accrual simply because plaintiff "attempted" to comply with MCL 600.2957(2) amounts to nothing more than an effort to judicially toll the statute of limitations applicable to CCA by permitting plaintiff to amend the original NOI under MCL 600.2301.

VI. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff failed to commence an action against CCA before the statutory limitations period expired and his amended complaint was time-barred. Plaintiff was not entitled to amend his original NOI and preserve tolling with regard to CCA because that would be counter to the legislative framework governing commencement of and tolling in a medical malpractice action. Because entry of summary disposition in CCA's favor was warranted, we affirm the result reached by the Court of Appeals only and reverse the Court of Appeals' judgment in all other respects.

ROBERT P. YOUNG, JR., STEPHEN J. MARKMAN, BRIAN K. ZAHRA, JJ., concurs.

YOUNG, C.J. (concurring).

Although the majority opinion correctly recognizes that Potter v. McLeary controls whether a medical malpractice claimant must serve a notice of intent (NOI) on a professional corporation (PC) before initiating a lawsuit,1 I continue to adhere to my partial dissent in Potter.2 Nevertheless, I join the majority opinion because it faithfully applies the rule established in Potter and because the jurisprudence of this state benefits from having a clear majority rule of law in this case.3

HATHAWAY, J. (dissenting).

This case addresses the procedural requirements imposed on medical malpractice actions by the notice of intent (NOI) statute1 and the notice of nonparty fault (NNPF) statute.2 At issue are the statutory time requirements for adding a defendant, who has been identified as a nonparty at fault, to a pending medical malpractice action. The majority holds that plaintiff's action against the identified nonparty at fault, Cardiovascular Clinical Associates, P.C. (CCA), must be dismissed with prejudice because it was not commenced before the expiration of the period of limitations. The majority also opines that plaintiff is not entitled to amend his original NOI. I respectfully dissent because the majority has incorrectly interpreted the relevant statutes, including the applicable statutes of limitations.3

Plaintiff Willie Driver's original complaint alleging medical malpractice was filed against defendant Mansoor Naini, M.D., and his employer, defendant Michigan Cardiology Associates, P.C. (MCA), on October 23, 2006.4 The lawsuit alleged that plaintiff was treated by Dr. Naini for approximately 22 years, and his last visit was in October 2005. Plaintiff alleged that after he reached the age of 50, Dr. Naini failed to perform any routine colon cancer screening, despite plaintiff's age and the fact that he had a family history of colon cancer. Plaintiff further alleged that in November 2005 he was diagnosed with stage IV colon cancer with metastasis to the liver and that, if Dr. Naini had performed routine screening, plaintiff's cancer would have been diagnosed at a much earlier stage.

On January 15, 2007, MCA and Dr. Naini identified CCA as a nonparty at fault. The NNPF set forth the following:

In response to receiving this notice, plaintiff provided an NOI to CCA on February 1, 2007. Plaintiff also filed a motion to amend his complaint to add CCA as a defendant and filed suit against CCA on March 22, 2007. The majority holds that plaintiff's NOI and complaint against CCA were untimely. I disagree.

To determine whether plaintiff's NOI and complaint against CCA were timely, we must consider the NOI and NNPF statutes, as well as the applicable statutes of limitations.5 Given that this action was filed against CCA as a result of its designation as a nonparty at fault, the proper starting point for our analysis is the NNPF statute, MCL 600.2957. That statute provides:

As evidenced by the plain language of the statute, its purpose is to allow the trier of fact to assess the appropriate percentage of fault attributable to each of the named parties in an action. In order to accomplish this, the statute allows parties to identify nonparties as liable, so that a nonparty's proportionate share of responsibility may be determined. The trier of fact determines the percentage of fault of the parties and nonparties at the time of trial. If a nonparty is assessed a percentage of fault, that percentage is not awarded to the plaintiff because a "finding of fault does not subject the nonparty to liability in that action. . . ."6 However, if a nonparty is identified, the plaintiff may choose to add the nonparty as a named defendant to the suit.

MCL 600.2957(2) sets forth the procedural requirements imposed on a plaintiff who chooses to add an identified nonparty to a suit. "Upon motion of a party within 91 days after identification of a nonparty, the court shall grant leave to the moving party to file and serve an amended pleading alleging 1 or more causes of action against that nonparty."7 Further, the statute sets forth a framework to allow a plaintiff to bring a claim that may otherwise be barred by a statute of limitations. "A cause of action added under this subsection is not barred by a period of limitation unless the cause of action would have been barred by a period of limitation at the time of the filing of the original action."8 Thus, for purposes of calculating the period of limitations, a plaintiff who adds a nonparty as a named defendant stands in the same position as he would have on the date of the original filing.

There is no dispute in this case that plaintiff met the first requirement of the NNPF statute when he filed a motion to add CCA as a party within 91 days of CCA being identified as a nonparty at fault. The first disputed issue is whether the period of limitations applicable to plaintiff's claim against CCA had already expired when plaintiff's original action was filed. The majority holds that the suit against CCA was time barred because it would have been untimely when plaintiff's original action was filed. I disagree because the majority errs in its calculation of the applicable periods of limitations. The correct calculations require three separate analyses.

Medical malpractice actions are governed by a two-year statute of limitations9 and the period of limitations is tolled when an NOI is mailed.10 Plaintiff's claim against CCA is premised on CCA's alleged vicarious liability for the acts of Dr. Naini.11 According to the medical records in this case, plaintiff's treatment with Dr. Naini spanned a 22-year period ending on Oct 18, 2005. Plaintiff provided CCA with an NOI on February 1, 2007. Thus, plaintiff may proceed with a claim of malpractice for any acts of negligence occurring after February 1, 2005, by virtue of the two-year period of limitations without relying on the discovery rule or the NNPF statute.

According to the medical records, Dr. Naini treated plaintiff on three occasions between February 1, 2005, and November 2005, at which time plaintiff's cancer was diagnosed.12 Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Naini committed malpractice by failing to perform screening on each date that he treated plaintiff. Thus, the majority errs by assuming that the general two-year period of limitations had expired with regard to all of plaintiff's claims at the time the original action was filed. While claims arising from treatments before February 1, 2005, may have been barred by the two-year statute of limitations, claims for acts of negligent treatment after that date are not. Accordingly, there is no question that at least portions of plaintiff's claim against CCA were timely.

Further, MCL 600.5838a(2) provides an extension of the period of limitations when a claim is newly discovered:

A newly discovered claim is afforded its own six-month period of limitations that begins to run at the time the claim is discovered, assuming the plaintiff meets the requirements of the statute.13 In this case, plaintiff alleges that he was unaware of the claim against CCA until he received the NNPF on January 15, 2007. Assuming plaintiff meets his burden of proving that he "should not have discovered" the existence of the claim against CCA at an earlier date, plaintiff's claim against CCA is governed by the six-month period of limitations, subject to a six-year statute of repose.14

Importantly, however, the issue of whether plaintiff should have known of the existence of the claim against CCA before January 15, 2007, has not yet been considered or decided by the trial court. At the hearing on CCA's motion for summary disposition, the trial court only ruled on whether plaintiff was able to rely on the NNPF statute when filing his claim against CCA. The trial court did not rule on the question whether plaintiff should have known of the claim against CCA at an earlier date. Thus, it is premature for this Court to decide whether plaintiff can avail himself of the discovery rule without remanding this issue to the trial court for further fact-finding.15

Moreover, the NNPF statute creates its own 91-day window in which a plaintiff can bring a claim against the identified nonparty at fault, as long as the claim would have been timely on the date that the original action was filed. This 91-day window is applicable whether the claim is known or unknown. In this case, the original action against Dr. Naini and MCA was filed on October 23, 2006. Using the date of the original filing, any claims arising out of malpractice committed after October 23, 2004, are timely. The medical records show that plaintiff treated with Dr. Naini four times after October 23, 2004.16 Clearly, portions of plaintiff's claim are timely in light of the NNPF look-back period and the two-year statute of limitations.

Further, an additional analysis is required under the NNPF statute because plaintiff's original claim was based in part on the discovery rule.17 Therefore, we must also determine whether the NNPF 91-day window allowed plaintiff to rely on the discovery rule, applicable to his original claim, in order to avoid the statute-of-limitations defense with regard to his claim against CCA.

The majority erroneously asserts that plaintiff cannot use the NNPF 91-day window because plaintiff did not provide an NOI to CCA six months before filing the original action. However, the majority errs in this analysis. Under this reasoning, no plaintiff who brings a malpractice lawsuit under the discovery rule can ever use the NNPF statute to bring a claim against an identified nonparty at fault because no plaintiff will ever have provided an NOI to a nonparty at fault six months before filing the original suit.18 This reasoning renders an entire provision of the NNPF statute, the provision allowing plaintiffs to file claims against nonparties at fault, nugatory. This clearly was not the intent of the Legislature and violates the basic tenets of statutory construction.

The majority fails to recognize that the NNPF statute creates it own 91-day window in which to bring claims against identified nonparties at fault. If the majority's reasoning were correct, and a plaintiff were not afforded the opportunity to start his or her claim by providing an NOI to the nonparty at fault during the 91-day window, the NNPF and NOI statutes would be in irreconcilable conflict.19 If the statutes conflict, as the Court of Appeals held, we would need to determine which statute is more specific.20 If the NOI statute is the more specific statute, the proper resolution is to disallow use of the NNPF statute in malpractice cases altogether, not just to limit use of the NNPF statute to one party. If the NNPF statute is the more specific statute, we would need to consider whether the NOI waiting periods are applicable to malpractice claims because the Legislature failed to address them in the NNPF statute. However, before declaring that an irreconcilable conflict exists, we must determine whether there is a way to harmonize these statutes in the case before us.21

To determine whether there is a way to read the statutes harmoniously, we must examine whether plaintiff was required to provide CCA an NOI and, if so, what the applicable waiting period was. We must also resolve whether dismissal is required because plaintiff's complaint was filed too early, as the Court of Appeals concluded.22 I find that these statutes can be read harmoniously, but only when read in concert with MCL 600.2301.23 Therefore, I disagree with the Court of Appeals' conclusion that, because plaintiff filed "too early" against CCA, his complaint must be dismissed.

The NOI statute, MCL 600.2912b, requires that plaintiffs must provide medical malpractice defendants an NOI before filing suit. It also mandates different waiting periods, depending on the circumstances, before a plaintiff may file suit. Providing an NOI does not pose a conflict with the NNPF statute on its face however, under the majority's analysis, the waiting periods do. The NOI statute provides a waiting period of 182 days for defendants known before the plaintiff files suit,24 a 91-day waiting period when suit is filed against a newly discovered defendant during the pendency of the suit,25 and a 154-day waiting period if the defendant fails to respond to the NOI. Importantly, the statute also allows the defendant to forgo the waiting period altogether by indicating in writing that he or she does not wish to settle the claim. MCL 600.2912b(9) provides:

The NNPF statute contains its own time limitation. "Upon motion of a party within 91 days after identification of a nonparty, the court shall grant leave to the moving party to file and serve an amended pleading alleging 1 or more causes of action against that nonparty."26 The majority opines that this statute only requires that a motion be filed within 91 days and that the amended pleading adding the nonparty may be filed at some later date. However, this holding is at odds with how this Court has previously interpreted the NNPF statute. Following the adoption of the NNPF statute, this Court adopted MCR 2.112(K)(4) to guide parties on the proper procedure to implement the NNPF statute. The rule provides: "Amendment Adding Party. A party served with a notice under this subrule may file an amended pleading stating a claim or claims against the nonparty within 91 days of service of the first notice identifying that nonparty." (Emphasis added.) Because litigants and lower courts are expected to follow these rules, they should also be able to rely on the rules as an accurate representation of this Court's interpretation of the statute that the rule is designed to implement.27

Given the lack of clarity in the NNPF statute, the apparent conflict between the NNPF statute and the court rule, and assuming plaintiff's complaint was filed too early, the next question becomes what the appropriate penalty or remedy should be in this circumstance While the Court of Appeals held that plaintiff's complaint against CCA was filed too early and, that it must be dismissed with prejudice, I disagree. The Court of Appeals failed to consider the mandates of MCL 600.2301, which clearly apply in this situation.

MCL 600.2301 provides:

The plain language of this statute imposes a duty, which cannot be ignored, on all courts. 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." (Emphasis added.) This is not a discretionary provision, but a legislative mandate that courts must follow. In determining whether relief is available under MCL 600.2301, we analyze the two § 2301 factors allowing for a cure.28 First, we must decide whether a substantial right of a party is implicated. Second, we must decide whether a cure is in the furtherance of justice.

In this instance, plaintiff appears to have attempted to follow the applicable procedural requirements. He timely filed a motion to add CCA as a party. He timely provided an NOI to CCA within the period of limitations. The alleged defect or error in the proceeding is that plaintiff filed his complaint against CCA too soon. However, there is simply no substantial right of a party at stake in this circumstance. At most, CCA was deprived of a short period of time in which it could have attempted to settle the claim. However, CCA has not demonstrated any intent or desire to settle this claim. Furthermore, CCA was not deprived of a substantial right because, as previously demonstrated, plaintiff's suit was not barred by any statute of limitations. Thus, CCA could not have raised a valid statute of limitations defense.

Next, this Court must decide whether a cure would be in the furtherance of justice. I believe that it would be. In Bush, we held that the plaintiff's good-faith attempt to comply with the NOI content requirements of MCL 600.2912b justified a cure. Like the plaintiff in Bush, plaintiff in this case attempted to follow the procedural requirements for adding a nonparty at fault. Given the complexity of the requirements, it can hardly be said that plaintiff intentionally disregarded the applicable statutes. Accordingly, a cure would be in the furtherance of justice. Therefore, MCL 600.2301 can be applied, and plaintiff's claim should not be dismissed with prejudice. Instead, because no substantial right of the parties has been impacted, the error should be disregarded under the plain language of MCL 600.2301.

For these reasons, the majority errs in holding that CCA is entitled to summary disposition and that plaintiff's lawsuit must be dismissed with prejudice. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

MARILYN KELLY, J., agrees.

MICHAEL F. CAVANAGH, J.

I concur in the result proposed by Justice HATHAWAY's dissent.