Michigan
Medical Malpractice Laws in Michigan (2026): Deadlines & Caps
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 17, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 17, 2026. · 8 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Michigan medical malpractice law combines a relatively short filing deadline with several mandatory pre-suit steps that catch many patients off guard. A claim generally must be filed within 2 years, the state caps noneconomic (pain and suffering) damages on a two-tier schedule that the Michigan Department of Treasury re-indexes for inflation every January, and a written notice of intent must be served on the provider 182 days before suit. The figures and rules below are drawn from the Michigan Compiled Laws and the Treasury's 2026 notice. This page is general legal information, not legal advice.
Statute of Limitations in Michigan
Under MCL 600.5805 and MCL 600.5838a, a medical malpractice action must generally be filed within 2 years after the act or omission that is the basis of the claim. Michigan also allows a discovery alternative: a claim may be filed within 6 months after the plaintiff discovers, or should have discovered, the existence of the claim. The plaintiff gets whichever of the two periods ends later.
The discovery rule is narrow and does not extend the deadline indefinitely. The 6-month window starts when a reasonable person would have known of a possible claim, not when an attorney confirms one.
Serving a notice of intent to sue does not automatically add 182 days to the deadline. Under MCL 600.5856(c), the limitations period is tolled only if the claim would be barred by the statute of limitations or repose during the notice period, and even then the tolling lasts no longer than the number of days remaining in the notice period after the date the notice was given. A plaintiff who serves the notice well inside the 2-year window therefore gets no tolling at all, so the notice must be timed against the underlying deadline rather than treated as an extension of it.
Statute of Repose
Michigan has an absolute outer deadline, called a statute of repose. Under MCL 600.5838a, a medical malpractice claim generally cannot be brought more than 6 years after the date of the act or omission, even if the injury was not discovered until later.
There are limited exceptions to the 6-year repose, including cases involving fraudulent concealment and certain claims involving a person's reproductive system. Because the repose can cut off a claim before a patient even realizes harm occurred, the timing of any potential case should be reviewed early.
Damage Caps in Michigan
Michigan caps noneconomic damages (pain, suffering, disfigurement, loss of companionship) in medical malpractice cases under MCL 600.1483. There is no dollar cap on economic damages such as future medical expenses or lost earnings. Past medical expenses are treated differently: under MCL 600.1482, effective April 10, 2017, damages for past medical or rehabilitation service expenses cannot exceed the actual damages for medical care, meaning the amounts actually paid by or on behalf of the patient (insurer payments included) plus any amount the plaintiff remains liable to pay. Contractual discounts, price reductions, and write-offs are excluded, and the plaintiff cannot introduce evidence of the higher billed amounts at trial. The cap uses a two-tier structure that the State Treasurer adjusts annually for inflation based on the consumer price index.
According to the Michigan Department of Treasury notice dated January 30, 2026, the 2026 figures are a standard cap of $596,400 and a higher cap of $1,065,000. Because the figures are re-indexed every January, the amount that applies depends on the year the case is governed by, and these dollar figures will change in future years.
The higher 2026 cap of $1,065,000 applies only when the plaintiff proves one of three catastrophic conditions defined in MCL 600.1483: paralysis (hemiplegia, paraplegia, or quadriplegia) from brain or spinal cord injury, permanently impaired cognitive capacity, or permanent loss of or damage to a reproductive organ resulting in the inability to procreate. All other cases fall under the standard cap.
Affidavit of Merit
Michigan requires an affidavit of merit. Under MCL 600.2912d, the plaintiff (or the plaintiff's attorney) must file an affidavit of merit with the complaint, signed by a health professional the attorney reasonably believes meets the statute's expert-witness qualifications.
The affidavit must certify that the expert reviewed the records, state that the applicable standard of care was breached, and specify what the provider should have done differently. This requirement is meant to screen out claims that lack expert support before they proceed.
Pre-Suit Notice of Intent
Before filing, a plaintiff must serve a written notice of intent to sue on each prospective defendant at least 182 days in advance, under MCL 600.2912b. The notice must describe the factual basis of the claim, the standard of care the plaintiff alleges applied, how it was breached, and the injuries claimed.
The 182-day notice period tolls the statute of limitations only in the narrow circumstance set out in MCL 600.5856(c), where the claim would otherwise be barred during that period, and then only for the number of days left in the notice period after the notice was given. If the provider does not give timely access to medical records, MCL 600.2912d allows an additional period to file the affidavit of merit. Missing or defective notice can be fatal to a claim, so the notice content and timing matter.
Standard of Care and Who May Be Liable
Medical malpractice claims in Michigan turn on whether a health professional or health facility breached the applicable standard of care and caused injury. Potentially liable parties can include physicians, nurses, other licensed providers, hospitals, and clinics, depending on the facts.
Expert testimony is generally required to establish both the standard of care and that a breach caused the injury. Michigan applies specific qualification rules for malpractice experts, including matching the defendant's specialty.
Comparative Negligence
Michigan follows a modified comparative fault rule. Under MCL 600.2959, a damages award is reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of fault. If the plaintiff is found to be more than 50 percent at fault, noneconomic damages are not awarded at all, although reduced economic damages may still be recoverable.
This means a patient's own conduct, such as not following medical instructions, can reduce or in some cases eliminate part of a recovery.
Wrongful Death Medical Malpractice
When malpractice causes death, the claim is brought by the personal representative of the estate. Michigan's wrongful death saving provision, MCL 600.5852, can allow the personal representative to file within 2 years after letters of authority are issued, but generally no later than 3 years after the malpractice limitations period would otherwise have run.
The same noneconomic damage caps under MCL 600.1483 apply to wrongful death medical malpractice claims. Because the saving-provision math interacts with the underlying 2-year and 6-year deadlines, estates should confirm the applicable dates early.
Evaluating and Preserving a Potential Claim
If you suspect malpractice, request complete medical records promptly and write down what happened while details are fresh. Michigan's short deadlines, mandatory notice, and affidavit requirement mean that waiting can foreclose an otherwise valid claim.
Most medical malpractice attorneys offer a free initial consultation and work on a contingency fee, meaning they are paid a percentage only if the case results in a recovery. No attorney can guarantee an outcome or a dollar amount, and every case depends on its specific facts and medical evidence.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the deadline to sue for medical malpractice in Michigan?
Generally 2 years from the act or omission, or 6 months from when you discovered or should have discovered the claim, whichever is later (MCL 600.5805 and 600.5838a). A separate 6-year statute of repose bars most claims filed more than 6 years after the act. Deadlines are strict and fact-specific, so confirm yours with a licensed Michigan attorney.
Does Michigan cap medical malpractice damages?
Yes. Under MCL 600.1483 the noneconomic (pain and suffering) cap is two-tier and adjusted for inflation each January. For 2026 the standard cap is $596,400 and the higher cap for catastrophic injuries is $1,065,000, per the Michigan Department of Treasury. Economic damages have no dollar cap, but MCL 600.1482 limits past medical and rehabilitation expenses to what was actually paid or is still owed rather than what was billed.
Do I need an expert affidavit in Michigan?
Yes. MCL 600.2912d requires the complaint to be filed with an affidavit of merit signed by a qualified health professional certifying that the standard of care was breached. Michigan also requires a 182-day pre-suit notice of intent under MCL 600.2912b.
What is a notice of intent to sue in Michigan?
It is a written notice that must be served on the provider at least 182 days before filing suit, under MCL 600.2912b. It must describe the factual basis, the applicable standard of care, how it was breached, and the injuries. Under MCL 600.5856(c) the notice period pauses the statute of limitations only if the claim would otherwise be barred during that period, and then only for the days remaining in the notice period after the notice was given, so serving the notice does not simply add 182 days to your deadline.
How much is a Michigan medical malpractice case worth?
There is no set value. Recovery depends on the specific injuries, economic losses, evidence, and how the noneconomic cap applies. Economic damages have no dollar cap in Michigan, although MCL 600.1482 limits past medical and rehabilitation expenses to the amounts actually paid or still owed, while noneconomic damages are limited by the MCL 600.1483 schedule. No attorney can promise a particular outcome or amount.
What if I was partly at fault for my own injury?
Michigan uses modified comparative fault under MCL 600.2959. Your damages are reduced by your percentage of fault, and if you are found more than 50 percent at fault you cannot recover noneconomic damages, though reduced economic damages may still be available.
How long do families have to file a wrongful death malpractice claim in Michigan?
The estate's personal representative may use the saving provision in MCL 600.5852, which can allow filing within 2 years after letters of authority are issued, but generally no later than 3 years after the underlying malpractice deadline would have run. The same noneconomic caps apply.
Are Michigan's malpractice damage caps still in effect?
Yes. The two-tier noneconomic caps under MCL 600.1483 remain in force in 2026, and the Michigan Department of Treasury publishes inflation-adjusted figures each January. Their constitutionality has been litigated, but the caps currently apply.
Harmed by medical care in Michigan? Get a free case review
If a medical provider's negligence caused a serious injury, you may be owed compensation, but medical malpractice cases have strict deadlines and special filing rules that vary by state. Get a free, confidential review from a Michigan medical malpractice attorney. Most work on contingency, so there is no upfront cost.
Updates
Corrected the description of how a notice of intent affects the filing deadline, which is tolled only in the narrow circumstance set out in MCL 600.5856(c) and only for the days left in the notice period, and added the MCL 600.1482 limit capping past medical and rehabilitation expenses at the amounts actually paid or still owed.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Michigan Compiled Laws
§ 600.2912aAction alleging malpractice; burden of proofIn force
(1) Subject to subsection (2), in an action alleging malpractice, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that in light of the state of the art existing at the time of the alleged malpractice: (a) The defendant, if a general practitioner, failed to provide the plaintiff the recognized standard of acceptable professional practice or care in the community in which the defendant practices or in a similar community, and that as a proximate result of the defendant failing to provide that standard, the plaintiff suffered an injury. (b) The defendant, if a specialist, failed to provide the recognized standard of practice or care within that specialty as reasonably applied in light of the facilities available in the community or other facilities reasonably available under the circumstances, and as a proximate result of the defendant failing to provide that standard, the plaintiff suffered an injury. (2) In an action alleging medical malpractice, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that he or she suffered an injury that more probably than not was proximately caused by the negligence of the defendant or defendants.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-07 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
§ 600.2912bAction alleging medical malpractice; notice; mailing; notice period; statement; access to medical records; tacking successive notice periods; response; failure to receive response; health professional or facility not intending to settleIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person shall not commence an action alleging medical malpractice against a health professional or health facility unless the person has given the health professional or health facility written notice under this section not less than 182 days before the action is commenced. (2) The notice of intent to file a claim required under subsection (1) shall be mailed to the last known professional business address or residential address of the health professional or health facility who is the subject of the claim. Proof of the mailing constitutes prima facie evidence of compliance with this section. If no last known professional business or residential address can reasonably be ascertained, notice may be mailed to the health facility where the care that is the basis for the claim was rendered. (3) The 182-day notice period required in subsection (1) is shortened to 91 days if all of the following conditions exist: (a) The claimant has previously filed the 182-day notice required in subsection (1) against other health professionals or health facilities involved in the claim.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 254 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Roberts v. Mecosta County General Hospital (Michigan Supreme Court 2002, 466 Mich. 57)“…notice is given in compliance with all the provisions of MCL 600.2912b. We further hold that MCL 600.2912b p…”
- Bryant v. Oakpointe Villa Nursing Centre, Inc (Michigan Supreme Court 2004, 471 Mich. 411)“…notice of intent to sue in medical malpractice pursuant to MCL 600.2912b and, in February…”
- Bush v. Shabahang (Michigan Supreme Court 2009, 484 Mich. 156)“…provided to a medical malpractice defendant pursuant to MCL 600.2912b, precludes the tolling of the statute…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Statute of Limitations: Filing Deadlines by Case Type
§ 600.2912dAction alleging medical malpractice; complaint to be accompanied by affidavit of merit; filing extension; failure to allow access to medical recordsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) Subject to subsection (2), the plaintiff in an action alleging medical malpractice or, if the plaintiff is represented by an attorney, the plaintiff's attorney shall file with the complaint an affidavit of merit signed by a health professional who the plaintiff's attorney reasonably believes meets the requirements for an expert witness under section 2169. The 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 and shall contain a statement of each of the following: (a) The applicable standard of practice or care. (b) 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. (c) 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. (d) The manner in which the breach of the standard of practice or care was the proximate cause of the injury alleged in the notice.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 212 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Johanna Woodard v. University of Mich Medical Ctr (Michigan Supreme Court 2006, 476 Mich. 545)“…reasonably believes meets the requirements of MCL 600.2169. MCL 600.2912d(l); Grossman v Brown, 470 Mich 593…”
- Saffian v. Simmons (Michigan Supreme Court 2007, 477 Mich. 8)“…anied by a technically deficient affidavit of merit under MCL 600.2912d(1), could be defaulted. The second ques…”
- Cox v. Eric J. Hartman, M.D., & Blue Water Obstetrics & Gynecology Prof'l Corp. (Michigan Court of Appeals 2017, 322 Mich. App. 292)“…or the alleged negligence of its nursing staff. Pursuant to MCL 600.2912d(1), the plaintiff attached to its compl…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 600.5838aClaim based on medical malpractice; accrual; definitions; commencement of action; burden of proof; applicability of subsection (2); limitationsIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
(1) For purposes of this act, a claim based on the medical malpractice of a person or entity who is or who holds himself or herself out to be a licensed health care professional, licensed health facility or agency, or an employee or agent of a licensed health facility or agency who is engaging in or otherwise assisting in medical care and treatment, whether or not the licensed health care professional, licensed health facility or agency, or their employee or agent is engaged in the practice of the health profession in a sole proprietorship, partnership, professional corporation, or other business entity, accrues at the time of the act or omission that is the basis for the claim of medical malpractice, regardless of the time the plaintiff discovers or otherwise has knowledge of the claim. As used in this subsection: (a) "Licensed health facility or agency" means a health facility or agency licensed under article 17 of the public health code, Act No. 368 of the Public Acts of 1978, being sections 333.20101 to 333.22260 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 168 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Bryant v. Oakpointe Villa Nursing Centre, Inc (Michigan Supreme Court 2004, 471 Mich. 411)“…In addressing this issue, defendant argues that, because MCL 600.5838a refers to “the medical malpractice of .…”
- Cox v. Flint Board of Hospital Managers (Michigan Supreme Court 2002, 467 Mich. 1)“…urses do not engage in the practice of medicine. MCL 600.5838a(1) provides that a medical malpractice…”
- Trentadue v. Buckler Automatic Lawn Sprinkler Company (Michigan Supreme Court 2007, 479 Mich. 378)“…ce, MCL 600.5838(2); actions alleging medical malpractice, MCL 600.5838a(2); actions brought against certain de…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 600.1483Claim for damages alleging medical malpractice; limitation on noneconomic damages; exceptions; itemizing damages into economic and noneconomic loss; "noneconomic loss" defined; adjusting limitations on noneconomic lossIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
(1) In a claim for damages alleging medical malpractice by or against a person or party, the total amount of damages for noneconomic loss recoverable by all plaintiffs, resulting from the medical malpractice of all defendants, shall not exceed $280,000.00 unless, as the result of the negligence of 1 or more of the defendants, 1 or more of the following exceptions apply as determined by the court pursuant to section 6304, in which case damages for noneconomic loss shall not exceed $500,000.00: (a) The plaintiff is hemiplegic, paraplegic, or quadriplegic resulting in a total permanent functional loss of 1 or more limbs caused by 1 or more of the following: (i) Injury to the brain. (ii) Injury to the spinal cord. (b) The plaintiff has permanently impaired cognitive capacity rendering him or her incapable of making independent, responsible life decisions and permanently incapable of independently performing the activities of normal, daily living. (c) There has been permanent loss of or damage to a reproductive organ resulting in the inability to procreate.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 55 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Wiley v. Henry Ford Cottage Hospital (Michigan Court of Appeals 2003, 257 Mich. App. 488)“…002). The statutory cap on noneconomic damages set forth in MCL 600.1483 does not violate the Michigan Constitut…”
- Johnnie F Shinholster v. Annapolis Hosp (Michigan Supreme Court 2004)“…whether the medical malpractice noneconomic damages cap of MCL 600.1483 applies to a wrongful death action base…”
- Zdrojewski v. Murphy (Michigan Court of Appeals 2003, 254 Mich. App. 50)“…s, this finding was clearly erroneous. MCR 2.613(C). [7] MCL 600.1483 states, in pertinent part: (1) In an…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Wrongful Death Laws (2026): Deadlines
§ 600.5805Injuries to persons or property; period of limitations; "adjudication," "criminal sexual conduct," and "dating relationship" definedIn forcecited in 19 of our articles
(1) A person shall not bring or maintain an action to recover damages for injuries to persons or property unless, after the claim first accrued to the plaintiff or to someone through whom the plaintiff claims, the action is commenced within the periods of time prescribed by this section. (2) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the period of limitations is 3 years after the time of the death or injury for all actions to recover damages for the death of a person or for injury to a person or property. (3) Subject to subsections (4) to (6), the period of limitations is 2 years for an action charging assault, battery, or false imprisonment. (4) Subject to subsection (6), the period of limitations is 5 years for an action charging assault or battery brought by a person who has been assaulted or battered by his or her spouse or former spouse, an individual with whom he or she has had a child in common, or a person with whom he or she resides or formerly resided.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-08 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 1,140 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Michigan courts enforce Sec. 600.5805 as written: Garg v. MacOmb County Community Mental Health Services (2005) overruled the continuing violations doctrine as inconsistent with it, while Bryant v. Oakpointe Villa Nursing Centre, Inc (2004) let time-barred malpractice claims proceed on the equities of that case and others then pending.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Rory v. Continental Insurance (Michigan Supreme Court 2005, 473 Mich. 457)“…ited to being brought within three years pursuant to former MCL 600.5805(9), now MCL 600.5805(10), which governs…”
- Walters v. Nadell (Michigan Supreme Court 2008, 481 Mich. 377)✓A driver hurt in a 2001 crash could not serve the defendant, a servicemember, before the three-year period expired; the court held he waived the federal tolling provision by never raising it below, reasoning the limitations statute is likewise mandatory yet waivable.
- Garg v. MacOmb County Community Mental Health Services (Michigan Supreme Court 2005, 472 Mich. 263)✓A county psychologist won a $250,000 retaliation verdict resting partly on acts older than three years; the court held the statute requires suit within three years of each adverse act, overruled the continuing violations doctrine, and directed judgment for the employer.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights, Michigan Car Accident Laws: No-Fault, PIP Tiers, and Your Claim, Michigan Defamation Laws: Libel & Slander (2026)
§ 600.2959Comparative fault; reduced damagesIn forcecited in 14 of our articles
In an action based on tort or another legal theory seeking damages for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death, the court shall reduce the damages by the percentage of comparative fault of the person upon whose injury or death the damages are based as provided in section 6306 or 6306a, as applicable. If that person's percentage of fault is greater than the aggregate fault of the other person or persons, whether or not parties to the action, the court shall reduce economic damages by the percentage of comparative fault of the person upon whose injury or death the damages are based as provided in section 6306 or 6306a, as applicable, and noneconomic damages shall not be awarded.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 32 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Johnnie F Shinholster v. Annapolis Hosp (Michigan Supreme Court 2004)“…ercentage “the total fault of 3 See, also, MCL 600.2959, which provides: In an action…”
- Lamp v. Reynolds (Michigan Court of Appeals 2002, 249 Mich. App. 591)“…rative fault attributed to plaintiff. Defendants argue that MCL 600.2959 mandates such a reduction. We disagree.…”
- Susan Blackwell v. Dean Franchi (Michigan Supreme Court 2018, 914 N.W.2d 900)“…1982 PA 147. It was codified in its present form in 1995 in MCL 600.2959. The Legislature, by requiring that a p…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Motorcycle Accident Laws in Michigan (2026): Deadlines & Helmets, Truck Accident Laws in Michigan (2026): Deadlines & Liability, Michigan Slip and Fall Laws: Proving Premises Liability After Kandil-Elsayed
§ 600.5852Death before period of limitations has run or within 30 days thereafter; commencement of action; death or legal incapacitation of personal representative; limitation on commencement of actionIn forcecited in 6 of our articles
(1) If a person dies before the period of limitations has run or within 30 days after the period of limitations has run, an action that survives by law may be commenced by the personal representative of the deceased person at any time within 2 years after letters of authority are issued although the period of limitations has run. (2) If the action that survives by law is an action alleging medical malpractice, the 2-year period under subsection (1) runs from the date letters of authority are issued to the first personal representative of an estate. Except as provided in subsection (3), the issuance of subsequent letters of authority does not enlarge the time within which the action may be commenced. (3) If a personal representative dies or is adjudged by a court to be legally incapacitated within 2 years after his or her letters are issued, the successor personal representative may commence an action alleging medical malpractice that survives by law within 1 year after the personal representative died or was adjudged by a court to be legally incapacitated.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 127 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Bryant v. Oakpointe Villa Nursing Centre, Inc (Michigan Supreme Court 2004, 471 Mich. 411)“…years. MCL 600.5805(6). According to MCL 600.5852, plaintiff had two years from the date…”
- Johanna Woodard v. University of Mich Medical Ctr (Michigan Supreme Court 2006, 476 Mich. 545)“…within three years after the period of limitations has run. MCL 600.5852. (13) A successor personal representa…”
- Trentadue v. Buckler Automatic Lawn Sprinkler Company (Michigan Supreme Court 2007, 479 Mich. 378)“…claims. MCL 600.5805(1); MCL 600.5805(10). Further, while MCL 600.5852 permits an extension of up to three yea…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 600.5856Tolling of statute of limitations or reposeIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
The statutes of limitations or repose are tolled in any of the following circumstances: (a) At the time the complaint is filed, if a copy of the summons and complaint are served on the defendant within the time set forth in the supreme court rules. (b) At the time jurisdiction over the defendant is otherwise acquired. (c) At the time notice is given in compliance with the applicable notice period under section 2912b, if during that period a claim would be barred by the statute of limitations or repose; but in this case, the statute is tolled not longer than the number of days equal to the number of days remaining in the applicable notice period after the date notice is given.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 287 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Roberts v. Mecosta County General Hospital (Michigan Supreme Court 2002, 466 Mich. 57)“…ld that the statute of limitations cannot be tolled under MCL 600.5856(d) unless notice is given in compliance…”
- Bryant v. Oakpointe Villa Nursing Centre, Inc (Michigan Supreme Court 2004, 471 Mich. 411)“…tolled at the time the complaint is filed. MCL 600.5856(a). The period for an…”
- Bush v. Shabahang (Michigan Supreme Court 2009, 484 Mich. 156)“…At issue before this Court is the proper interpretation of MCL 600.5856(c), as amended by 2004 PA 87 , effecti…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Explore the law
The laws cited above reference these related sections in their own text:
- Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.520b — Criminal sexual conduct in the first degree; circumstances; felony; consecutive terms view in our statute record · read at the official source
- Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.520c — Criminal sexual conduct in the second degree; felony view in our statute record · read at the official source
- Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.520d — Criminal sexual conduct in the third degree; felony view in our statute record · read at the official source
- Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.520e — Criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree; misdemeanor view in our statute record · read at the official source
Related law for further reading — not part of this article’s citations.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- MCL 600.5805 - Period of limitations for malpractice actions(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 600.5838a - Medical malpractice accrual, discovery rule, and 6-year statute of repose(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 600.1483 - Limitation on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice actions (two-tier cap, annual CPI adjustment)(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- Michigan Department of Treasury Notice (Jan. 30, 2026): 2026 noneconomic damages limitations - $596,400 standard / $1,065,000 higher(michigan.gov).gov
- MCL 600.2912b - 182-day notice of intent to sue required before a medical malpractice action(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 600.2912d - Affidavit of merit required with the complaint(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 600.2959 - Comparative fault reduction; noneconomic damages barred if plaintiff more than 50 percent at fault(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 600.5852 - Wrongful death saving provision(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 600.5856(c) - Tolling of the limitations period on notice under section 2912b, only if the claim would otherwise be barred and only for the days remaining in the notice period(legislature.mi.gov)
- MCL 600.1482 - Past medical and rehabilitation expenses limited to actual damages for medical care (amounts paid or still owed, excluding write-offs); billed-amount evidence barred(legislature.mi.gov)