The Michigan Supreme Court issued its decision in *Webster v. Osguthorpe*, a dental malpractice case that raised questions about Michigan's case evaluation process and sanctions available to successful plaintiffs. The court heard oral arguments on January 22, 2025, and decided the case on May 27, 2025.
Giorgio Webster brought the lawsuit in Macomb Circuit Court against Dr. Jeffrey Osguthorpe and Summit Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, PC, alleging dental malpractice in connection with care provided during a biopsy procedure. The case proceeded through Michigan's mandatory case evaluation process under Michigan Court Rule 2.403.
On December 8, 2020, the parties participated in the then-mandatory case evaluation. The case evaluation panel issued an award in favor of Webster, which he accepted. However, the defendants rejected the panel's evaluation award, setting the stage for continued litigation.
Following the case evaluation, the parties engaged in extensive settlement discussions. Court records show they participated in at least five separate settlement conferences and two court-ordered facilitations in attempts to resolve the dispute without trial. These efforts were unsuccessful, and the case proceeded to trial.
At trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Webster. Following the jury's decision, the defendants filed post-trial motions seeking judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, alternatively, a remittitur to reduce the verdict amount.
Webster responded by moving for entry of judgment and requesting additional relief including costs, statutory interest, and attorney fees as sanctions under Michigan Court Rule 2.403(O). This rule provision allows successful plaintiffs to recover attorney fees when defendants reject case evaluation awards and fail to improve their position at trial.
However, the case was complicated by changes to the court rules during the litigation. Michigan Court Rule 2.403 was amended while the case was pending, creating questions about which version of the rule applied to Webster's request for sanctions. The previous version of MCR 2.403(O) had permitted certain sanctions that may have differed from the amended rule.
The case evaluation process in Michigan serves as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism designed to encourage settlements and reduce court congestion. Under the process, panels of attorneys evaluate cases and issue awards. If parties accept the evaluation, the case settles. If one party rejects the evaluation and fails to improve their position at trial, they may face sanctions including payment of the other party's attorney fees and costs.
The *Webster* case highlights the intersection between Michigan's case evaluation system and the evolving nature of court rules. When rules change during pending litigation, courts must determine which version applies and whether parties should be held to standards that may have changed after their initial case evaluation.
Dental malpractice cases like *Webster* often involve complex medical testimony and questions about the standard of care in specialized procedures. Biopsy procedures, while routine, can involve complications that lead to disputes about whether proper care was provided.
The Michigan Supreme Court's decision in *Webster v. Osguthorpe* addresses these procedural questions that affect how case evaluations are conducted and what sanctions may be available to successful parties. The ruling provides guidance to trial courts handling similar situations where rule amendments occur during pending litigation.
For medical malpractice practitioners, the decision clarifies important procedural requirements under Michigan's case evaluation system. The ruling may affect how defendants approach case evaluation decisions and whether to accept or reject panel awards.
The case also demonstrates the extensive settlement efforts that often occur in medical malpractice litigation. The five settlement conferences and two court-ordered facilitations show the significant resources devoted to resolving such disputes outside of trial.
Webster was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings, while Dr. Osguthorpe and Summit Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery were also represented by legal counsel. The case involved docket numbers 166627 and 166628 at the Michigan Supreme Court level.
The decision comes as Michigan courts continue to refine their case evaluation processes. The amendments to MCR 2.403 reflect ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency and fairness of the case evaluation system.
Medical malpractice cases involving dental procedures have increased in recent years as patients become more aware of their rights and as dental procedures have become more complex. The *Webster* decision provides important guidance for similar future cases.
The Michigan Supreme Court's ruling will be closely watched by medical malpractice attorneys, healthcare providers, and legal scholars interested in alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. The decision clarifies important procedural requirements that will guide future case evaluations in Michigan courts.