PUBLIC HEALTH CODE
Act 368 of 1978
333.20701 General definitions and principles of construction.
Sec. 20701.
(1) As used in this part:
(a) "Certified nurse midwife" means an individual who is licensed as a registered professional nurse under part 172 who has been granted a specialty certification in the health profession specialty field of nurse midwifery by the Michigan board of nursing under section 17210.
(b) "Freestanding birth center" means a facility that provides midwifery care for normal deliveries, well-person reproductive and sexual health care, extended postpartum care, and newborn care, that is within the scope of practice of the health care provider. Freestanding birth center does not include a hospital or freestanding surgical outpatient facility.
(c) "Health care provider" means any of the following:
(i) A physician.
(ii) A physician's assistant licensed under part 170 or 175.
(iii) A certified nurse midwife.
(iv) A midwife.
(d) "Midwife" means that term as defined in section 17101.
(e) "Midwifery care" means the practice of midwifery as that term is defined in section 17101 by a midwife and the practice of nursing by a certified nurse midwife.
(f) "Physician" means that term as defined in section 17001 or 17501.
(g) "Social determinants of health" means the social and economic conditions that influence individual and group differences in health status.
(2) In addition, article 1 contains general definitions and principles of construction applicable to all articles in this code and part 201 contains definitions applicable to this part.
History: Add. 2024, Act 252, Eff. Apr. 2, 2025
Compiler's Notes:
Former MCL 333.20701-333.20773 Expired. 1981, Act 79, Eff. Sept. 30, 1989;—Repealed, 1990, Act 179, Imd. Eff. July 2, 1990.
PopularName Notes:
Act 368
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2021 · leading case:
Jennings v. Southwood, 521 N.W.2d 230 (Mich. 1994).
Jennings v. Southwood, 521 N.W.2d 230 (Mich. 1994).
“1 The emsa, in effect at the time of the alleged wrongs, MCL 333.20701 et seq.; MSA 14.15(20701) et seq.”
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Corby Energy Servs., Inc., 722 N.W.2d 906 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
“Likewise, in Malcolm , the Court noted that the term “person,” as defined under the former emergency medical services act (EMSA), MCL 333.20701 et seq., 8 included governmental entities.”
Pavlov v. Cmty. Emergency Med. Serv., Inc, 491 N.W.2d 874 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “In this negligence action, plaintiff Galena Pavlov appeals as of right from the trial court's grant of summary disposition based on defendants' immunity under the former emergency medical services act (EMSA), MCL 333.20701 et seq. ; MSA 14.15(20701) et seq.”
Malcolm v. City of East Detroit, 468 N.W.2d 479 (Mich. 1991).
“The emergency medical services act (emsa), MCL 333.20701 et seq.-, MSA 14.15(20701) et seq.”
Jennings v. Southwood, 499 N.W.2d 460 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “In Pavlov v Community Emergency Medical Service, Inc, 195 Mich App 711, 718 ; 491 NW2d 874 (1992), a case in which the trial court granted summary disposition to the defendants on the basis of immunity under the former emergency medical services act, MCL 333.20701 et seq. ; MSA…”
Ballard v. Ypsilanti Twp., 549 N.W.2d 885 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996).
“In that case, the now repealed emergency medical services act (EMSA), MCL 333.20701 et seq.-, MSA 14.15(20701) et seq.”
Dedes v. Asch, 521 N.W.2d 488 (Mich. 1994).
· cites it 2× “[6] In Jennings v Southwood, 446 Mich 125 ; 521 NW2d 230 (1994), this Court declined to apply the Gibbard version of gross negligence to the emergency medical services act, MCL 333.20701 et seq.; MSA 14.15(20701) et seq.”
Jennings v. Southwood, 568 N.W.2d 125 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997).
“[3] 3 The emergency medical services act applicable to this action was found at MCL 333.20701 et seq.; MSA 14.15(20701) et seq.”
DOE v. N. Lakes Cmty. Mental Health Auth. (E.D. Mich. 2021).
“1722, by contrast, creates only the “right to pursue injunctive and other appropriate civil relief,” which the Michigan Court of Appeals decided does not include a tort claim against a governmental agency.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.