Michigan medical malpractice claims are governed by a statutory framework that combines a two-year filing deadline, a limited discovery extension, and an absolute statute of repose. These timing rules operate within a broader system of state-specific filing deadlines that vary across jurisdictions and control when malpractice actions may be brought.
This article explains Michigan’s medical malpractice statute of limitations framework, including how the two-year period applies, when the six-month discovery extension becomes available, and how courts enforce the six-year repose deadline. It also summarizes key judicial interpretations and places Michigan’s timing rules alongside nationwide punitive damage caps that affect claim exposure but do not alter filing deadlines.
Core Rules for the Medical Malpractice Statute of Limitations in Michigan
Michigan medical malpractice claims are governed by MCL § 600.5805(8) and MCL § 600.5838a, which establish a dual-deadline framework combining a base statute of limitations, a limited discovery extension, and an absolute statute of repose.
Two-Year Statute of Limitations
Medical malpractice actions must be filed within two years of accrual under MCL § 600.5805(8). This two-year period applies to all actions charging medical malpractice and serves as the default filing deadline.
Accrual of a Medical Malpractice Claim
Under MCL § 600.5838a(1), a claim accrues:
- At the time of the act or omission that forms the basis of the malpractice claim.
- Regardless of when the plaintiff discovers the injury or has knowledge of the claim.
This occurrence-based rule determines when both the two-year limitations period and the six-year statute of repose begin to run.
Six-Month Discovery Extension
When a medical malpractice claim is not discovered within the initial two-year period, MCL § 600.5838a(2) allows filing within six months after the plaintiff discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, the existence of the claim.
Discovery requires:
- Awareness of an injury.
- Knowledge of a possible causal connection between the injury and the healthcare provider's conduct.
Courts apply an objective, reasonable-person standard when evaluating discovery timing.
Six-Year Statute of Repose
Michigan imposes an absolute six-year statute of repose, measured from the date of the alleged act or omission. Claims filed more than six years after the malpractice occurred are barred:
- Regardless of when the injury is discovered.
- Even when the injury was inherently undiscoverable.
The statute of repose operates independently of the discovery rule and cannot be extended by delayed discovery.
How the Deadlines Apply Together
Michigan’s medical malpractice framework requires compliance with all applicable deadlines, with the earliest controlling:
- The two-year statute of limitations.
- The six-month discovery extension (if applicable).
- The six-year statute of repose.
This structure distinguishes professional medical negligence under Michigan’s specialized statutory scheme from ordinary negligence claims governed by general limitation provisions. Related limits on recoverable damages are addressed separately under Michigan medical malpractice caps, which affect compensation but not filing deadlines.
Tolling Exceptions That Affect the Medical Malpractice Statute of Limitations in Michigan
Michigan applies a restrictive approach to tolling exceptions in medical malpractice cases, recognizing only three doctrines with significant limitations while explicitly excluding commonly available provisions in general civil litigation.
1. Minority Tolling
General minority tolling does not apply to medical malpractice claims in Michigan. Claims involving minors are governed by the same statutory timing rules that apply to adult plaintiffs, subject to limited statutory accommodations.
2. Incapacity Provisions
Tolling may apply when a plaintiff is legally incapacitated and unable to pursue a claim during the limitations period. This exception is applied narrowly and does not extend filing deadlines beyond the six-year statute of repose.
3. Fraudulent Concealment
Fraudulent concealment may toll the statute of limitations when a healthcare provider actively prevents the discovery of the claim. This exception does not apply to delayed diagnosis or nondisclosure alone and does not extend deadlines absent qualifying concealment.
4. Foreign Object Exception
Claims involving foreign objects unintentionally left in a patient’s body may qualify for limited tolling. This exception applies only to objects wrongfully retained during treatment and does not include devices or materials intentionally placed as part of medical care.
5. Continuous Treatment Doctrine
Michigan does not recognize the continuous treatment doctrine as a basis for tolling. Ongoing care by the same provider does not suspend or extend medical malpractice filing deadlines.
How Michigan Courts Interpret Medical Malpractice Statute of Limitations Rules
Michigan appellate courts have established precedents for applying timing rules in medical malpractice cases, particularly regarding when claims accrue, how discovery affects filing deadlines, and the absolute nature of the six-year statute of repose.
Chase v. Sabin — Discovery Rule Foundation
The Michigan Supreme Court in Chase v. Sabin, 445 Mich. 190 (1994), established that discovery requires knowledge of both the injury and a possible causal link to the defendant's conduct, applying an objective "reasonable person" standard.
Claims accrue at the time of the act or omission constituting malpractice per MCL § 600.5838a(1), regardless of when the plaintiff discovers the injury. However, under MCL § 600.5838a(2), an action may be commenced within two years or within six months after the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the existence of the claim, whichever is later.
Ottgen v. Katranji — Tolling During Notice Period
In Ottgen v. Katranji, 511 Mich. 223 (2023), the Michigan Supreme Court overruled 23 years of precedent by holding that filing an Affidavit of Merit is not required to toll the statute of limitations during Michigan's mandatory 182-day notice period. Tolling occurs upon filing and serving complaints, providing procedural flexibility for practitioners facing tight limitation deadlines.
Estate of Mashike v. Riverview Medical Investors — Accrual Timing for Multiple Acts
The Court of Appeals in Estate of Patricia Mashike v. Riverview Medical Investors, No. 354851 (2021) clarified that claims accrue at the time of the last wrongful act constituting malpractice under MCL § 600.5838a(1), regardless of discovery timing.
This decision emphasizes that accrual occurs at the date of specific wrongful conduct rather than when damages manifest.
Recent Updates to Michigan Medical Malpractice Statute of Limitations Laws
As of 2026, Michigan’s medical malpractice statute of limitations framework remains unchanged. The two-year statute of limitations, six-month discovery extension, and six-year statute of repose under MCL § 600.5838a continue to govern filing deadlines without legislative modification.
Recent appellate and supreme court decisions have clarified how existing statutes apply in practice, particularly with respect to discovery timing and the operation of tolling provisions. These decisions reinforce Michigan’s restrictive approach to extending filing deadlines while preserving the statute’s absolute repose period.
No enacted legislation has altered the fundamental timing structure for medical malpractice claims during this period.
Meeting Medical Malpractice Filing Deadlines in Michigan
Michigan’s medical malpractice filing deadlines are governed by the interaction between the two-year statute of limitations, the six-month discovery extension, and the six-year statute of repose. Claims must be filed within the applicable limitations period, but no later than six years after the alleged act or omission.
Because accrual and discovery often depend on treatment timelines and when a causal connection becomes reasonably knowable, accurate medical documentation is critical. Clear treatment histories and organized timelines—such as a medical chronology—help clarify when claims accrue, while efficient medical record retrieval can reveal gaps or delays affecting filing deadlines.
Explore Tavrn’s legal technology solutions.
