In VandenBerg v. VandenBerg, 231 Mich App 497; 586 NW2d 570 (1998), the plaintiffs filed a medical malpractice claim in September 1995, but did not file an affidavit of merit until December 1995. Id. at 498. The defendants were served with the summons, complaint, and affidavit at the same time. Id. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary disposition because the plaintiff had failed to comply with MCL 600.2912d; MSA 27A.2912(4). The Court held that "the purpose of the statute was served in this case when defendants received service of the affidavit of merit along with the complaint. Defendants did not suffer any prejudice here where they had access to the affidavit of merit from the moment they received the complaint." Id. at 502-503. Therefore, the Court concluded that dismissal was inappropriate. The Court found that the purpose of the statute was to prevent frivolous medical malpractice claims. In that case, the plaintiff did not file an affidavit of merit with the complaint, but provided the affidavit at the time the complaint was served. The Court held that dismissal was inappropriate under those circumstances where defendant was not prejudiced. Id. at 502-503. In VandenBerg, the plaintiffs filed the complaint in a medical malpractice action without the required affidavit of merit, but served the defendant with both the complaint and the affidavit of merit. The VandenBerg Court held that the purpose of the statutory requirement was fulfilled because defendants were served with the affidavit along with the complaint. The Court also held that the statute did not mandate dismissal for noncompliance, and that dismissal was too harsh a sanction where the purpose of the statute had been fulfilled. The Court noted that, while the statutory requirement of an affidavit of merit was mandatory, the statute "does not indicate the action may not be commenced without the affidavit." Id. at 502.