- Call 24/7 (800) 525-6386 Tap Here to Call Us
Michigan’s Notice of Intent Does Not Restart the Clock
A Michigan medical malpractice claim runs on a two-year limitations period that begins at the act or omission rather than at the moment a patient learns something went wrong. The mandatory notice of intent interacts with that period in a way that surprises people, because serving the notice does not restart the clock and under some circumstances does not stop it at all.
MCL 600.5856(c) tolls the limitations period when notice is given, subject to three conditions written into the same sentence. The notice must be given in compliance with the applicable notice period under MCL 600.2912b, the claim must be one that would be barred during that period, and the tolling runs no longer than the number of days remaining in the notice period after the date notice was given.
When the Claim Accrues and When It Is Discovered
A malpractice claim accrues at the time of the act or omission that is its basis, regardless of when the plaintiff discovers or otherwise has knowledge of it, under MCL 600.5838a(1). The limitations period is two years under MCL 600.5805(8).
Subsection (2) adds a discovery route. An action may be commenced within the otherwise applicable period, or within six months after the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the existence of the claim, whichever is later. The burden of proving that the plaintiff neither discovered nor should have discovered the claim at least six months before the period expired sits with the plaintiff.
A six-year repose closes the outside edge. The claim may not be commenced later than six years after the act or omission, except where MCL 600.5851(7) or (8) applies, or where discovery was prevented by fraudulent conduct of the professional or facility. Our Michigan medical malpractice page sets out how those periods apply across different kinds of claims.
Whether the Claim Is Malpractice at All
The notice and affidavit requirements attach to medical malpractice claims, so the threshold question is whether a claim is one. MCL 600.5838a(1) defines the field by reference to who is being sued rather than to how badly the care went.
It reaches a licensed health care professional, a licensed health facility or agency, and an employee or agent of such a facility who is engaging in or assisting in medical care and treatment. A licensed health care professional means an individual licensed or registered under article 15 of the Public Health Code and engaged in the practice of their profession, and the statute expressly excludes a sanitarian and a veterinarian. A licensed health facility or agency means one licensed under article 17.
The distinction decides which rules apply. A claim that is ordinary negligence rather than malpractice carries no notice requirement and no affidavit, and runs on a different limitations analysis. Getting that characterization wrong at the outset produces either an unnecessary six-month delay or a complaint dismissed for skipping a step.
What the Notice Buys and What It Does Not
The tolling provision is narrower than it first reads. It applies where a claim would be barred during the notice period, which means it is a rescue for a claim already close to its deadline rather than an extension available to every claimant who serves a notice.
The cap is the part worth reading twice. Tolling lasts no longer than the days remaining in the applicable notice period after the notice was given. A claimant with 10 days left on the limitations period who serves a compliant notice gets the notice period tolled and then has those 10 days back. The clock is paused, not reset, and the days that were spent are gone.
Serving late therefore compresses everything that follows. Investigation, expert review, and the affidavit that must accompany the complaint all have to happen inside whatever remained when the notice went out.
A Defective Notice Tolls Nothing
The statute conditions tolling on notice given in compliance with MCL 600.2912b. A notice that does not comply is not a notice that tolls, and the consequence of that lands after the limitations period has already run.
The content requirements are specific. The notice states the factual basis of the claim, the standard of practice or care alleged, the manner in which it was breached, the action that should have been taken to comply, and the manner in which the breach caused the injury. Each is a place a notice can fall short.
The practical effect is that a claim can be timely when the notice is mailed and untimely by the time a court rules the notice inadequate. That sequence is the reason notices in this area are drafted with more care than their length suggests.
The Affidavit of Merit Is a Separate Requirement
Compliance with the notice does not end the filing obligations. Under MCL 600.2912d, the complaint must be filed with an affidavit of merit signed by a health professional the plaintiff’s attorney reasonably believes meets the expert requirements of MCL 600.2169.
That affidavit certifies the professional has reviewed the notice and the medical records supplied, and it states the applicable standard of practice or care, the opinion that it was breached, and the actions that should have been taken or omitted to comply with it. Securing a qualified reviewer takes time that the tolling cap does not create.
A calendar is more useful than a summary of the law when a malpractice deadline is close, and mapping those dates is something we do on a first call. If that is where your situation sits, call us at (800) 525-6386.
Mapping the Dates on a Malpractice Claim
The notice requirement and the limitations period are separate rules that fail together, and by the time the failure is visible it is usually not fixable. At Neumann Law Group, we represent patients and families in Michigan personal injury and malpractice claims from Traverse City, Grand Rapids, and Detroit. Call our office at (800) 525-6386, or contact us online, and we will talk it through with you.