Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 600 / Act 236 of 1961
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2912 (2026)

Actions for malpractice; member of state licensed profession.

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Aug. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961


Act 236 of 1961


600.2912 Actions for malpractice; member of state licensed profession.

Sec. 2912.

    (1) A civil action for malpractice may be maintained against any person professing or holding himself out to be a member of a state licensed profession. The rules of the common law applicable to actions against members of a state licensed profession, for malpractice, are applicable against any person who holds himself out to be a member of a state licensed profession.

    (2) Malpractice may be given in evidence in defense to any action for services rendered by the member of a state licensed profession, or person holding himself out to be a member of a state licensed profession.

History: 1961, Act 236, Eff. Jan. 1, 1963

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 56 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1970–2026 · leading case: Sam v. Balardo, 308 N.W.2d 142 (Mich. 1981).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sam v. Balardo, 308 N.W.2d 142 (Mich. 1981). · cites it 18× “5838, and MCL 600.2912; MSA 27A.2912, amicus submits that malpractice, as it is used in MCL 600.”
Ligons v. Crittenton Hosp., 803 N.W.2d 271 (Mich. 2011). · cites it 3× “THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AOM STATUTE At issue is whether plaintiffs AOMs met the require *98 ments of MCL 600.2912(1(1), the AOM statute. To correctly resolve this issue, we must first examine the language of the AOM statute and determine its correct interpretation.”
In re Bradley Est., 835 N.W.2d 545 (Mich. 2013). · cites it 2× “48 These would be issues worthy of consideration on remand if my position prevailed and they provide 41 MCL 600.2912. 42 MCL 600.2911. 43 MCL 600.”
Burton v. Reed City Hosp. Corp., 691 N.W.2d 424 (Mich. 2005). · cites it 2× “116(C)(8) or (C)(10), alleging that plaintiff failed to comply with the notice provisions of MCL 600.2912 et seq. [2] Defendants' motion pointed out that plaintiff's complaint was filed only 115 days after the date the notice of intent was sent.”
O’neal v. St John Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 791 N.W.2d 853 (Mich. 2010). · cites it 2× “See MCL 600.2912(1) which provides: A civil action for malpractice may be maintained against any person professing or holding himself out to be a member of a state licensed profession.”
Kambas v. St. Joseph's Mercy Hosp. of Detroit, 189 N.W.2d 879 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 12× “MCLA § 600.2912 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27A.”
Bates v. Gilbert, 736 N.W.2d 566 (Mich. 2007). · cites it 4× “5838a(1)(b); MCL 600.2912(1);2 Cox v Flint Bd of Hosp Managers, 467 Mich 1, 19 ; 651 NW2d 356 (2002).”
Stone v. Williamson, 753 N.W.2d 106 (Mich. 2008). · cites it 2× “" Accordingly, plaintiff satisfied the requirements of MCL 600.2912(a)(2). Therefore, I would affirm the result of the Court of Appeals judgment.”
Saffian v. Simmons, 727 N.W.2d 132 (Mich. 2007). “2912e(l) provides that a defendant in a medical malpractice action “shall” answer the complaint within 21 days after the plaintiff has filed “an affidavit in compliance with section 2912d.” Similarly, MCR 2.108(A)(6) states that a defendant must answer *13 within 21 days after…”
McElhaney v. Harper-Hutzel Hosp., 711 N.W.2d 795 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT: SECTION 2912d(l) A medical malpractice claim may be brought against any licensed health care professional, which includes an individual licensed or registered under article 15 of the Public Health Code.”
Robert F Broz v. Plante & Moran PLLC, 928 N.W.2d 292 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 3× “The rules of the common law applicable to actions against members of a state licensed profession, for malpractice, are applicable against any person who holds himself out to be a member of a state licensed profession.”
Local 1064, Rwdsu Afl-cio v. Ernst & Young, 535 N.W.2d 187 (Mich. 1995). · cites it 2× “In Kambas v St Joseph's Mercy Hosp of Detroit, 389 Mich 249, 253 ; 205 NW2d 431 (1973), the defendant hospital, relying on MCL 600.2912; MSA 27A.2912, another provision of the Revised Judicature Act of 1961, asserted that nursing was a licensed profession that was protected by…”
Show all 56 citing cases →
Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2912(1): 10 cases
O’neal v. St John Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 791 N.W.2d 853 (Mich. 2010). “See MCL 600.2912(1) which provides: A civil action for malpractice may be maintained against any person professing or holding himself out to be a member of a state licensed profession.”
Bates v. Gilbert, 736 N.W.2d 566 (Mich. 2007). “5838a(1)(b); MCL 600.2912(1);2 Cox v Flint Bd of Hosp Managers, 467 Mich 1, 19 ; 651 NW2d 356 (2002).”
Saffian v. Simmons, 727 N.W.2d 132 (Mich. 2007). “2912e(l) provides that a defendant in a medical malpractice action “shall” answer the complaint within 21 days after the plaintiff has filed “an affidavit in compliance with section 2912d.” Similarly, MCR 2.108(A)(6) states that a defendant must answer *13 within 21 days after…”
Robert F Broz v. Plante & Moran PLLC, 928 N.W.2d 292 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “The rules of the common law applicable to actions against members of a state licensed profession, for malpractice, are applicable against any person who holds himself out to be a member of a state licensed profession.”
Francisco v. Parchment Med. Clinic P.C., 272 N.W.2d 736 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).
Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2912(1)(a): 1 case
Est. of Amos Jones v. Botsford Continuing Care Corp., No. 317573 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2015).
Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2912(1)(b): 1 case
Est. of Amos Jones v. Botsford Continuing Care Corp., No. 317573 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2015).
Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2912(2): 1 case
Diana Lynn Cook v. Sparrow Hosp., No. 364095 (Mich. Ct. App. Sept. 21, 2023).
Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2912(4): 1 case
Sovereign O'Dell v. Balwant Singh DVM, No. 357356 (Mich. Ct. App. May 19, 2022).
Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2912(5): 1 case
James Wade v. William McCadie Do, No. 317531 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2015).
Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2912(a): 1 case
LeBlanc v. Lentini, 266 N.W.2d 643 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).
Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2912(a)(2): 2 cases
Stone v. Williamson, 753 N.W.2d 106 (Mich. 2008). “" Accordingly, plaintiff satisfied the requirements of MCL 600.2912(a)(2). Therefore, I would affirm the result of the Court of Appeals judgment.”
Est. of Patricia Benigni v. Samir Alsawah Md, 996 N.W.2d 821 (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2912(b): 3 cases
Est. of Stephen Stiles v. Nasim Yacob Md, No. 332933 (Mich. Ct. App. June 13, 2017).
Est. of Stephen Stiles v. Nasim Yacob Md, No. 332933 (Mich. Ct. App. June 13, 2017).
Est. of Bernard Francis O'Brien III v. Trinity Health-Michigan, No. 376148 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2026).
Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2912(b)(1): 1 case
Est. of Xavier Ray Joe v. Cmty. Emergency Med. Serv., No. 323276 (Mich. Ct. App. May 26, 2016).
Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2912(b)(4): 1 case
Ligons v. Crittenton Hosp., 776 N.W.2d 361 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).
Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2912(b)(7): 1 case
Nusbaum v. Enlighten Fam. Chiropractic, LLC, No. 2:19-cv-10223 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 19, 2023).
Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2912(c): 1 case
20241230_C367213_51_367213.Opn.Pdf, No. 20241230 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2024).
Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2912(d): 2 cases
Ligons v. Crittenton Hosp., 803 N.W.2d 271 (Mich. 2011). “THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AOM STATUTE At issue is whether plaintiffs AOMs met the require *98 ments of MCL 600.2912(1(1), the AOM statute. To correctly resolve this issue, we must first examine the language of the AOM statute and determine its correct interpretation.”
DERFINY v. Bouchard, 128 F. Supp. 2d 450 (E.D. Mich. 2001).
Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2912(d)(1): 2 cases
Morrison v. McCann, 301 F. Supp. 2d 647 (E.D. Mich. 2003).
Est. of Xavier Ray Joe v. Cmty. Emergency Med. Serv., No. 323276 (Mich. Ct. App. May 26, 2016).
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.