Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
186 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2026 53 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Bryant v. Oakpointe Villa Nursing Centre, Incgreen2 sentences2026In Bryant v Oakpointe Villa Nursing Centre, Inc, 471 Mich 411, 422-423 ; 684 NW2d 864 (2004), the Michigan Supreme Court explained that a medical malpractice claim differs from ordinary negligence because it includes (1) conduct occurring during the course of a professional relationship and (2) raises questions involving medical judgment, not ordinary negligence, which typically requires a jury to be aided by expert witness testimony. 2026In Bryant v Oakpointe Villa Nursing Centre, Inc, 471 Mich 411, 422-423 ; 684 NW2d 864 (2004), the Michigan Supreme Court explained that a medical malpractice claim differs from ordinary negligence because it includes (1) conduct occurring during the course of a professional relationship and (2) raises questions involving medical judgment, not ordinary negligence, which typically requires a jury to be aided by expert witness testimony. | 8 | 35 |
Cox v. Flint Board of Hospital Managersgreen2 sentences2007ANALYSIS A medical malpractice claim can be brought against any “licensed health care professional,” defined to include “an individual licensed or registered under article 15 of the public health code ... .” MCL 600.5838a(l)(b); MCL 600.2912(1); 2 Cox v Flint Bd of Hosp Managers, 467 Mich 1, 19 ; 651 NW2d 356 (2002). 2007ANALYSIS A medical malpractice claim can be brought against any “licensed health care professional,” defined to include “an individual licensed or registered under article 15 of the public health code ... .” MCL 600.5838a(l)(b); MCL 600.2912(1); 2 Cox v Flint Bd of Hosp Managers, 467 Mich 1, 19 ; 651 NW2d 356 (2002). | 4 | 11 |
Wischmeyer v. Schanzgreen2 sentences2016I would think that in that setting more than likely the patient would have been salvaged. 10 See Wischmeyer v Schanz, 449 Mich 469, 484 (1995) (stating that failure to prove any one of the elements of a medical malpractice claim is fatal). 2016MARKMAN, J., joins the statement of ZAHRA, J. 10 See Wischmeyer v Schanz, 449 Mich 469, 484 (1995) (stating that failure to prove any one of the elements of a medical malpractice claim is fatal). | 3 | 6 |
Dorris v. Detroit Osteopathic Hospital Corp.green2 sentences2024If, on the other hand, the reasonableness of the action can be evaluated by a jury only after having been presented the standards of care pertaining to the medical issue before the jury explained by experts, a medical malpractice claim is involved. [Id. at 423.] This depends on “ ‘whether the facts allegedly raise issues that are within the common knowledge and experience of the jury or, alternatively, raise questions involving medical judgment.’ ” [Id. at 423-424, quoting Dorris v Detroit Osteopathic Hosp Corp, 460 Mich 26, 46 ; 594 NW2d 455 (1999).] In his response to defendants’ motion for 2024If, on the other hand, the reasonableness of the action can be evaluated by a jury only after having been presented the standards of care pertaining to the medical issue before the jury explained by experts, a medical malpractice claim is involved. [Id. at 423.] This depends on “ ‘whether the facts allegedly raise issues that are within the common knowledge and experience of the jury or, alternatively, raise questions involving medical judgment.’ ” [Id. at 423-424, quoting Dorris v Detroit Osteopathic Hosp Corp, 460 Mich 26, 46 ; 594 NW2d 455 (1999).] In his response to defendants’ motion for | 2 | 12 |
Locke v. Pachtmangreen2 sentences2024To establish a prima facie case of medical malpractice, a plaintiff must show: “(1) the applicable standard of care, (2) breach of that standard of care by the defendant, (3) injury, and (4) proximate causation between the alleged breach and the injury.” 1 As a general matter, a medical malpractice claim must be 1 Locke v Pachtman, 446 Mich 216, 222 ; 521 NW2d 786 (1994), citing MCL 600.2912a, the statutory corollary of MRE 702. supported by expert testimony. 2024To establish a prima facie case of medical malpractice, a plaintiff must show: “(1) the applicable standard of care, (2) breach of that standard of care by the defendant, (3) injury, and (4) proximate causation between the alleged breach and the injury.” 1 As a general matter, a medical malpractice claim must be 1 Locke v Pachtman, 446 Mich 216, 222 ; 521 NW2d 786 (1994), citing MCL 600.2912a, the statutory corollary of MRE 702. supported by expert testimony. | 2 | 8 |
Waltz v. Wysegreen2 sentences2026Thus, Ligons has little, if any, remaining practical effect. 21 See MCL 600.5838a(2) (referring to the period provided in MCL 600.5805); MCL 600.5805(8) (providing a general period of limitations for any malpractice claim as two years from accrual); MCL 600.5838a(1) (stating that a medical malpractice claim “accrues at the time of the act or omission that is the basis for the claim”). 22 See, e.g., MCL 600.5851 (including multiple provisions addressing when a minor or a person declared to be insane may file a claim); MCL 600.5855 (providing extra time to bring a civil action if the defendant f 2026Thus, Ligons has little, if any, remaining practical effect. 21 See MCL 600.5838a(2) (referring to the period provided in MCL 600.5805); MCL 600.5805(8) (providing a general period of limitations for any malpractice claim as two years from accrual); MCL 600.5838a(1) (stating that a medical malpractice claim “accrues at the time of the act or omission that is the basis for the claim”). 22 See, e.g., MCL 600.5851 (including multiple provisions addressing when a minor or a person declared to be insane may file a claim); MCL 600.5855 (providing extra time to bring a civil action if the defendant f | 2 | 5 |
Skinner v. Square D Co.red2 sentences2010But this is unimportant because the new majority now only requires causation for the increased risk of injury. 32 Id. (emphasis added). 18 Simply stated, the plaintiff has not asserted, and neither Justice HATHAWAY’s opinion nor Justice CAVANAGH’s concurring opinion assert—that the alleged medical malpractice increased his chance of suffering a stroke by the more than 50 percentage points required to prove proximate causation.33 This fact irrefutably establishes that the plaintiff asserts a lost opportunity claim, not a traditional medical malpractice claim. 2004Moreover, MCL 600.6304(6) expressly acknowledges that a plaintiff may be determined “to have fault” in “a medical malpractice claim ....” See, also, Skinner v Square D Co, 445 Mich 153, 162-163 ; 516 NW2d 475 (1994), and M Civ JI 15.01 which provides the following definition of proximate cause: When I use the words “proximate cause” I mean first, that the negligent conduct must have been a cause of plaintiffs injury, and second, that the plaintiffs injury must have been a natural and probable result of the negligent conduct. | 2 | 5 |
Stone v. Williamsongreen2 sentences2010If a plaintiff cannot meet the burden for a traditional medical malpractice claim, I would hold that the plaintiff may still pursue a loss-of-opportunity claim if the plaintiff can meet the requirements for those claims provided in MCL 600.2912a(2) and Falcon , as explained in my opinion in Stone v Williamson, 482 Mich 144, 170-179 ; 753 NW2d 106 (2008). 2010If a plaintiff cannot meet the burden for a traditional medical malpractice claim, I would hold that the plaintiff may still pursue a loss-of-opportunity claim if the plaintiff can meet the requirements for those claims provided in MCL 600.2912a(2) and Falcon , as explained in my opinion in Stone v Williamson, 482 Mich 144, 170-179 ; 753 NW2d 106 (2008). | 2 | 4 |
McLeod v. Plymouth Court Nursing Homegreen2 sentences2003The Court held: The determination whether a claim will be held to the standards of proof and procedural requirements of a medical malpractice claim as opposed to an ordinary negligence claim depends on whether the facts allegedly raise issues that are within the common knowledge and experience of the jury or, alternatively, raise questions involving medical judgment. [Id. at 46, citing Wilson v Stilwill, 411 Mich 587, 611 ; 309 NW2d 898 (1981); McLeod, supra at 115 .] The Court ruled that the plaintiffs allegations involving staffing decisions and patient monitoring involved questions of profe 2003The Court held: The determination whether a claim will be held to the standards of proof and procedural requirements of a medical malpractice claim as opposed to an ordinary negligence claim depends on whether the facts allegedly raise issues that are within the common knowledge and experience of the jury or, alternatively, raise questions involving medical judgment. [ Id. at 46, 594 N.W.2d 455 , citing Wilson v. Stilwill, 411 Mich. 587, 611 , 309 N.W.2d 898 (1981); McLeod, supra at 115 .] The Court ruled that the plaintiff's allegations involving staffing decisions and patient monitoring invo | 2 | 3 |
| Khaled Sabbagh v. Hamilton Psychological Services Plcgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Taylor v. Kent Radiology, PCgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Crown Technology Park v. D&N Bank, FSBgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Burris v. Kam Transport, Inc.green | 2 | 2 |
| Joseph v. Auto Club Insurance Associationgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Gibson v. Moskowitzgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Costa v. Community Emergency Medical Services, Incgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Bates v. Gilbertgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Johnnie F Shinholster v. Annapolis Hospgreen | 2 | 2 |
Trowell v. Providence Hosp. & Med. Ctrs., Inc.green2 sentences2024“A medical malpractice claim is sometimes difficult to distinguish from an ordinary negligence claim,” but “the distinction is often critical.” Trowell v Providence Hosp and Med Ctrs, Inc, 502 Mich 509, 517-518 ; 918 NW2d 645 (2018). 2024“A medical malpractice claim is sometimes difficult to distinguish from an ordinary negligence claim,” but “the distinction is often critical.” Trowell v Providence Hosp and Med Ctrs, Inc, 502 Mich 509, 517-518 ; 918 NW2d 645 (2018). | 1 | 5 |
Miller v. Mercy Memorial Hospitalgreen2 sentences2026Thus, Ligons has little, if any, remaining practical effect. 21 See MCL 600.5838a(2) (referring to the period provided in MCL 600.5805); MCL 600.5805(8) (providing a general period of limitations for any malpractice claim as two years from accrual); MCL 600.5838a(1) (stating that a medical malpractice claim “accrues at the time of the act or omission that is the basis for the claim”). 22 See, e.g., MCL 600.5851 (including multiple provisions addressing when a minor or a person declared to be insane may file a claim); MCL 600.5855 (providing extra time to bring a civil action if the defendant f 2026Thus, Ligons has little, if any, remaining practical effect. 21 See MCL 600.5838a(2) (referring to the period provided in MCL 600.5805); MCL 600.5805(8) (providing a general period of limitations for any malpractice claim as two years from accrual); MCL 600.5838a(1) (stating that a medical malpractice claim “accrues at the time of the act or omission that is the basis for the claim”). 22 See, e.g., MCL 600.5851 (including multiple provisions addressing when a minor or a person declared to be insane may file a claim); MCL 600.5855 (providing extra time to bring a civil action if the defendant f | 1 | 4 |
Kincaid v. Cardwellgreen2 sentences2019Under MCL 600.5838a, a medical malpractice claim “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.” “[A] plaintiff must plead facts that are sufficient to place the defendant physician on notice of the specific acts or omissions that the plaintiff believes caused his or her injuries.” Kincaid v Cardwell, 300 Mich App 513, 530 ; 834 NW2d 122 (2013). 2019Under MCL 600.5838a, a medical malpractice claim “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.” “[A] plaintiff must plead facts that are sufficient to place the defendant physician on notice of the specific acts or omissions that the plaintiff believes caused his or her injuries.” Kincaid v Cardwell, 300 Mich App 513, 530 ; 834 NW2d 122 (2013). | 1 | 4 |
Ykimoff v. W a Foote Memorial Hospitalgreen2 sentences2023On the other hand, if there is evidence which points to any 1 theory of causation, indicating a logical sequence of cause and effect, then there is a juridical basis for such a determination, notwithstanding the existence of other plausible theories with or without support in the evidence. [Ykimoff v W A Foote Mem Hosp, 285 Mich App 80, 88 ; 776NW2d 114 (2009) (quotation marks and citations omitted).] Ultimately, to succeed on a medical malpractice claim, the plaintiff must bring forth proof that amounts to “a reasonable likelihood of probability rather than a possibility. 2023On the other hand, if there is evidence which points to any 1 theory of causation, indicating a logical sequence of cause and effect, then there is a juridical basis for such a determination, notwithstanding the existence of other plausible theories with or without support in the evidence. [Ykimoff v W A Foote Mem Hosp, 285 Mich App 80, 88 ; 776NW2d 114 (2009) (quotation marks and citations omitted).] Ultimately, to succeed on a medical malpractice claim, the plaintiff must bring forth proof that amounts to “a reasonable likelihood of probability rather than a possibility. | 1 | 3 |
Omelenchuk v. City of Warrenred2 sentences2009Accordingly, plaintiff’s vicarious liability claim against defendant Huron is a medical malpractice claim. 6 See Omelenchuk v City of Warren, 461 Mich 567 , 571 n 11; 609 NW2d 177 (2000). 2009Accordingly, plaintiff’s vicarious liability claim against defendant Huron is a medical malpractice claim. 6 See Omelenchuk v City of Warren, 461 Mich 567 , 571 n 11; 609 NW2d 177 (2000). | 1 | 3 |
Bronson v. Sisters of Mercy Health Corp.green2 sentences2004In that case, this Court held: “ ‘The key to a medical malpractice claim is whether it is alleged that the negligence occurred within the course of a professional relationship.’ ” Id. at 45 , quoting Bronson v Sisters of Mercy Health Corp, 175 Mich App 647, 652 ; 438 NW2d 276 (1989). 2004In that case, this Court held: “ ‘The key to a medical malpractice claim is whether it is alleged that the negligence occurred within the course of a professional relationship.’ ” Id. at 45 , quoting Bronson v Sisters of Mercy Health Corp, 175 Mich App 647, 652 ; 438 NW2d 276 (1989). | 1 | 3 |
| Zdrojewski v. Murphygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Boyd v. City of Wyandottegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Tobin v. Providence Hospitalgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sanders v. Perfecting Churchgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Associated Builders and Contractors v. City of Lansinggreen | 1 | 1 |
| Estate of Linda Horn v. Michael J Swofford Dogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Elher v. Misra
green
2 sentences2025Four elements must be established for a plaintiff to prove a medical malpractice claim: (1) the applicable standard of care, (2) breach of that standard of care by the defendant, (3) injury, and (4) proximate causation between the alleged breach and the injury. [Elher v Misra, 499 Mich 11, 21 ; 878 NW2d 790 (2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted).] “Expert testimony is required to establish the standard of care and to demonstrate the defendant’s alleged failure to conform to that standard.” Decker v Rochowiak, 287 Mich App 666, 685 ; 791 NW2d 507 (2010). 2025Four elements must be established for a plaintiff to prove a medical malpractice claim: (1) the applicable standard of care, (2) breach of that standard of care by the defendant, (3) injury, and (4) proximate causation between the alleged breach and the injury. [Elher v Misra, 499 Mich 11, 21 ; 878 NW2d 790 (2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted).] “Expert testimony is required to establish the standard of care and to demonstrate the defendant’s alleged failure to conform to that standard.” Decker v Rochowiak, 287 Mich App 666, 685 ; 791 NW2d 507 (2010). | 8 | 2019–2025 |
Craig v. Oakwood Hospital
green
2 sentences2021The elements of a medical malpractice claim are “(1) the appropriate standard of care governing the defendant’s conduct at the time of the purported negligence, (2) that the defendant breached that standard of care, (3) that the plaintiff was injured, and (4) that the plaintiff’s injuries -10- were the proximate result of the defendant’s breach of the applicable standard of care.” Craig v Oakwood Hosp, 471 Mich 67, 86 ; 684 NW2d 296 (2004). 2021The elements of a medical malpractice claim are “(1) the appropriate standard of care governing the defendant’s conduct at the time of the purported negligence, (2) that the defendant breached that standard of care, (3) that the plaintiff was injured, and (4) that the plaintiff’s injuries -10- were the proximate result of the defendant’s breach of the applicable standard of care.” Craig v Oakwood Hosp, 471 Mich 67, 86 ; 684 NW2d 296 (2004). | 7 | 2009–2026 |
Lockwood v. Mobile Medical Response, Inc.
green
2 sentences2023A medical-malpractice claim “arises during the course of a professional relationship and involves a question of medical judgment.” Lockwood v Mobile Med Response, Inc, 293 Mich App -5- 17, 23; 809 NW2d 403 (2011), citing Dorris v Detroit Osteopathic Hosp Corp, 460 Mich 26, 43 ; 594 NW2d 455 (1999). 2019“A medical-malpractice claim is defined as a claim that arises during the course of a professional relationship and involves a question of medical judgment.” Lockwood v Mobile Med Response, Inc, 293 Mich App 17, 23 ; 809 NW2d 403 (2011). | 6 | 2016–2023 |
Kalaj v. Khan
green
2 sentences2023Four elements must be established to sustain a medical malpractice claim: (1) the appropriate standard of care governing the defendant’s conduct at the time of the purported negligence, (2) that the defendant breached that standard of care, (3) that the plaintiff was injured, and (4) that the plaintiff’s injuries were the proximate result of the defendant’s breach of the applicable standard of care. [Kalaj v Khan, 295 Mich App 420, 429 ; 820 NW2d 223 (2012).] Expert testimony is necessary in a medical malpractice action to establish the applicable standard of care and the defendant’s breach of 2023Four elements must be established to sustain a medical malpractice claim: (1) the appropriate standard of care governing the defendant’s conduct at the time of the purported negligence, (2) that the defendant breached that standard of care, (3) that the plaintiff was injured, and (4) that the plaintiff’s injuries were the proximate result of the defendant’s breach of the applicable standard of care. [Kalaj v Khan, 295 Mich App 420, 429 ; 820 NW2d 223 (2012).] Expert testimony is necessary in a medical malpractice action to establish the applicable standard of care and the defendant’s breach of | 5 | 2015–2024 |
Solowy v. Oakwood Hospital Corp.
green
2 sentences2021In an opinion by Justice CLEMENT, joined by Chief Justice MCCORMACK and Justices BERNSTEIN, CAVANAGH, and WELCH, the Supreme Court held: Under Solowy v Oakwood Hosp Corp, 454 Mich 214 (1997), discovering the existence of a medical malpractice claim requires knowing a possible cause of the underlying injury. 2021In an opinion by Justice CLEMENT, joined by Chief Justice MCCORMACK and Justices BERNSTEIN, CAVANAGH, and WELCH, the Supreme Court held: Under Solowy v Oakwood Hosp Corp, 454 Mich 214 (1997), discovering the existence of a medical malpractice claim requires knowing a possible cause of the underlying injury. | 4 | 1999–2021 |
Trowell v. Providence Hospital and Medical Centers, Inc
green
2 sentences2018Trowell v Providence Hosp & Med Centers, Inc, 316 Mich App 680 , 695–96; 893 NW2d 112 (2016). 2018Trowell v Providence Hosp & Med Centers, Inc, 316 Mich App 680 , 695–96; 893 NW2d 112 (2016). | 4 | 2017–2018 |
Wilson v. Stilwill
green
2 sentences2004As we stated in Dorris : The determination whether a claim will be held to the standards of proof and procedural requirements of a medical malpractice claim as opposed to an ordinary negligence claim depends on whether the facts allegedly raise issues that are within the common knowledge and experience of the jury or, alternatively, raise questions involving medical judgment. [ Dorris, supra at 46 , 594 N.W.2d 455 , citing Wilson v. Stilwill, 411 Mich. 587, 611 , 309 N.W.2d 898 (1981).] Contributing to an understanding of what constitutes a "medical judgment" is Adkins v. Annapolis Hosp., 116 2004As we stated in Dorris : The determination whether a claim will be held to the standards of proof and procedural requirements of a medical malpractice claim as opposed to an ordinary negligence claim depends on whether the facts allegedly raise issues that are within the common knowledge and experience of the jury or, alternatively, raise questions involving medical judgment. [ Dorris, supra at 46 , 594 N.W.2d 455 , citing Wilson v. Stilwill, 411 Mich. 587, 611 , 309 N.W.2d 898 (1981).] Contributing to an understanding of what constitutes a "medical judgment" is Adkins v. Annapolis Hosp., 116 | 4 | 1999–2004 |
Decker v. Rochowiak
green
2 sentences2025Four elements must be established for a plaintiff to prove a medical malpractice claim: (1) the applicable standard of care, (2) breach of that standard of care by the defendant, (3) injury, and (4) proximate causation between the alleged breach and the injury. [Elher v Misra, 499 Mich 11, 21 ; 878 NW2d 790 (2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted).] “Expert testimony is required to establish the standard of care and to demonstrate the defendant’s alleged failure to conform to that standard.” Decker v Rochowiak, 287 Mich App 666, 685 ; 791 NW2d 507 (2010). 2025Four elements must be established for a plaintiff to prove a medical malpractice claim: (1) the applicable standard of care, (2) breach of that standard of care by the defendant, (3) injury, and (4) proximate causation between the alleged breach and the injury. [Elher v Misra, 499 Mich 11, 21 ; 878 NW2d 790 (2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted).] “Expert testimony is required to establish the standard of care and to demonstrate the defendant’s alleged failure to conform to that standard.” Decker v Rochowiak, 287 Mich App 666, 685 ; 791 NW2d 507 (2010). | 3 | 2020–2025 |
Lucas v. Awaad
green
2 sentences2021In Bryant v Oakpointe Villa Nursing Centre, 471 Mich 411, 422 ; 684 NW2d 864 (2004), our Supreme Court “set forth a two-part test to determine whether an alleged claim is a medical malpractice claim, regardless of the labels the plaintiff uses.” Lucas v Awaad, 299 Mich App 345, 360 ; 830 NW2d 141 (2013). 2021In Bryant v Oakpointe Villa Nursing Centre, 471 Mich 411, 422 ; 684 NW2d 864 (2004), our Supreme Court “set forth a two-part test to determine whether an alleged claim is a medical malpractice claim, regardless of the labels the plaintiff uses.” Lucas v Awaad, 299 Mich App 345, 360 ; 830 NW2d 141 (2013). | 3 | 2021–2024 |
McMaster v. Dte Energy Co.
neutral
2 sentences2022The Court therefore reversed the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion for summary disposition and remanded for further proceedings. 5 Plaintiff sought leave to appeal in our Court, and we ordered argument on the application, requiring briefing on “(1) whether the proposed claim based on a violation of the standing order sounds in medical malpractice or ordinary negligence; and (2) whether evidence of the standing order is admissible at trial.” Meyers v Rieck, 507 Mich 958 (2021). 2022Plaintiff sought leave to appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court, and the Court ordered and heard oral argument on whether to grant plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal or take other action. 507 Mich 958 (2021). | 3 | 2022–2022 |
Tipton v. William Beaumont Hospital
green
2 sentences2021See Lucas, 299 Mich at 360-364 (applying the Bryant test to determine whether the plaintiff’s claims of intentional infliction of emotion distress and fraud actually sounded in medical malpractice); Tipton v William Beaumont Hosp, 266 Mich App 27, 34 ; 697 NW2d 552 (2005) (“Although our Supreme Court applied this test in the context of determining whether an ordinary negligence claim actually sounded in medical malpractice, the test succinctly sets forth the ‘two defining characteristics’ of a medical malpractice claim. 2021See Lucas, 299 Mich at 360-364 (applying the Bryant test to determine whether the plaintiff’s claims of intentional infliction of emotion distress and fraud actually sounded in medical malpractice); Tipton v William Beaumont Hosp, 266 Mich App 27, 34 ; 697 NW2d 552 (2005) (“Although our Supreme Court applied this test in the context of determining whether an ordinary negligence claim actually sounded in medical malpractice, the test succinctly sets forth the ‘two defining characteristics’ of a medical malpractice claim. | 3 | 2015–2021 |
Scarsella v. Pollak
green
2 sentences2018In Scarsella v. Pollak , 461 Mich. 547 , 549, 607 N.W.2d 711 (2000), our Supreme Court held that the plaintiff's failure to adhere to the statutory requirements for filing a medical malpractice claim meant that the filing was void, thereby making any attempt to amend the initial complaint futile. 2018In Scarsella v. Pollak , 461 Mich. 547 , 549, 607 N.W.2d 711 (2000), our Supreme Court held that the plaintiff's failure to adhere to the statutory requirements for filing a medical malpractice claim meant that the filing was void, thereby making any attempt to amend the initial complaint futile. | 3 | 2017–2018 |
Falcon v. Memorial Hospital
red
2 sentences2010After today’s shift, therefore, all 33 See Falcon v Mem Hosp, 436 Mich 443, 450 ; 462 NW2d 44 (1990) (opinion by LEVIN, J.) (characterizing the traditional approach to “but for” causation as “measured as more than fifty percent” and concluding that a 37.5 percentage point reduction in the opportunity for surviving could not prove “but for” causation). 2010After today’s shift, therefore, all 33 See Falcon v Mem Hosp, 436 Mich 443, 450 ; 462 NW2d 44 (1990) (opinion by LEVIN, J.) (characterizing the traditional approach to “but for” causation as “measured as more than fifty percent” and concluding that a 37.5 percentage point reduction in the opportunity for surviving could not prove “but for” causation). | 3 | 2008–2010 |
Antal v. Porretta
green
2 sentences1989Finally, we note that, even in her appellate brief, plaintiff concedes that, all along, she had "a vague notion that she should not have received certain shots during her hospital stay.” In order for a medical malpractice claim to be deemed discovered under the six-month discovery rule, a plaintiff need only have reason to believe that his or her treatment was improper. 'This *350 does not require the advice of an attorney, but merely requires a subjective belief that a malpractice claim is possible.” Antal v Porretta, 165 Mich App 238, 242 ; 418 NW2d 395 (1987). 1989Finally, we note that, even in her appellate brief, plaintiff concedes that, all along, she had "a vague notion that she should not have received certain shots during her hospital stay.” In order for a medical malpractice claim to be deemed discovered under the six-month discovery rule, a plaintiff need only have reason to believe that his or her treatment was improper. 'This *350 does not require the advice of an attorney, but merely requires a subjective belief that a malpractice claim is possible.” Antal v Porretta, 165 Mich App 238, 242 ; 418 NW2d 395 (1987). | 3 | 1989–1990 |
Candi Ottgen v. Abdalmaijid Katranji Md
green
2 sentences2026The statute of limitations for a medical malpractice claim generally is two years, Ottgen v Katranji, 511 Mich 223 , 231; 999 NW2d 359 (2023), while the statute of limitations for a claim of ordinary negligence is three years, Stephens v Worden Ins Agency, LLC, 307 Mich App 220, 234 ; 859 NW2d 723 (2014). 2026The statute of limitations for a medical malpractice claim generally is two years, Ottgen v Katranji, 511 Mich 223 , 231; 999 NW2d 359 (2023), while the statute of limitations for a claim of ordinary negligence is three years, Stephens v Worden Ins Agency, LLC, 307 Mich App 220, 234 ; 859 NW2d 723 (2014). | 2 | 2024–2026 |
| Boodt v. Borgess Medical Center green | 2 | 2009–2024 |
| Estate of Dale v. Robinson green | 2 | 2024–2024 |
| Cox v. Eric J. Hartman, M.D., & Blue Water Obstetrics & Gynecology Prof'l Corp. green | 2 | 2020–2024 |
| Potter v. McLeary green | 2 | 2021–2021 |
| Eschenbacher v. Hier green | 2 | 2021–2021 |
| O'Neal v. St. John Hospital & Medical Center neutral | 2 | 2018–2018 |
| McCardel v. Smolen green | 2 | 2018–2018 |
| Gonzalez v. St John Hospital & Medical Center green | 2 | 2018–2018 |
| Shivers v. Schmiege green | 2 | 2018–2018 |
| Ivan Frank v. Joshua Linkner green | 2 | 2017–2018 |
| Bahr v. Harper-Grace Hospitals green | 2 | 2017–2017 |
| Kidder v. Ptacin green | 2 | 2017–2017 |
| Adkins v. Annapolis Hospital green | 2 | 2004–2016 |
| McKiney v. Clayman green | 2 | 2002–2016 |
| Furr v. McLeod green | 2 | 2014–2015 |
| Tyra v. Organ Procurement Agency green | 2 | 2015–2015 |
| Ligons v. Crittenton Hospital green | 2 | 2010–2012 |
| Fulton v. William Beaumont Hospital green | 2 | 2009–2010 |
| Velez v. Tuma green | 2 | 2009–2009 |
| Salter v. Patton green | 2 | 2007–2007 |
| Simonelli v. Cassidy green | 2 | 1986–2007 |
| Attorney General v. Bruce green | 2 | 2004–2004 |
| Gallagher v. Detroit-Macomb Hospital Ass'n green | 2 | 2004–2004 |
| In Re Investigation of Lieberman neutral | 2 | 2004–2004 |
| Griffith v. Brant neutral | 2 | 1990–1993 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.