Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2912b (2026)

Action alleging medical malpractice; notice; mailing; notice period; statement; access to medical records; tacking successive notice periods; response; failure to receive response; health professional or facility not intending to settle.

✓ current as of July 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

600.2912b Action alleging medical malpractice; notice; mailing; notice period; statement; access to medical records; tacking successive notice periods; response; failure to receive response; health professional or facility not intending to settle.

Sec. 2912b.

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person shall not commence an action alleging medical malpractice against a health professional or health facility unless the person has given the health professional or health facility written notice under this section not less than 182 days before the action is commenced.

(2) The notice of intent to file a claim required under subsection (1) shall be mailed to the last known professional business address or residential address of the health professional or health facility who is the subject of the claim. Proof of the mailing constitutes prima facie evidence of compliance with this section. If no last known professional business or residential address can reasonably be ascertained, notice may be mailed to the health facility where the care that is the basis for the claim was rendered.

(3) The 182-day notice period required in subsection (1) is shortened to 91 days if all of the following conditions exist:

(a) The claimant has previously filed the 182-day notice required in subsection (1) against other health professionals or health facilities involved in the claim.

(b) The 182-day notice period has expired as to the health professionals or health facilities described in subdivision (a).

(c) The claimant has filed a complaint and commenced an action alleging medical malpractice against 1 or more of the health professionals or health facilities described in subdivision (a).

(d) The claimant did not identify, and could not reasonably have identified a health professional or health facility to which notice must be sent under subsection (1) as a potential party to the action before filing the complaint.

(4) The notice given to a health professional or health facility under this section shall contain a statement of at least all of the following:

(a) The factual basis for the claim.

(b) The applicable standard of practice or care alleged by the claimant.

(c) The manner in which it is claimed that the applicable standard of practice or care was breached by the health professional or health facility.

(d) The alleged action that should have been taken to achieve compliance with the alleged standard of practice or care.

(e) The manner in which it is alleged the breach of the standard of practice or care was the proximate cause of the injury claimed in the notice.

(f) The names of all health professionals and health facilities the claimant is notifying under this section in relation to the claim.

(5) Within 56 days after giving notice under this section, the claimant shall allow the health professional or health facility receiving the notice access to all of the medical records related to the claim that are in the claimant's control, and shall furnish releases for any medical records related to the claim that are not in the claimant's control, but of which the claimant has knowledge. Subject to section 6013(9), within 56 days after receipt of notice under this section, the health professional or health facility shall allow the claimant access to all medical records related to the claim that are in the control of the health professional or health facility. This subsection does not restrict a health professional or health facility receiving notice under this section from communicating with other health professionals or health facilities and acquiring medical records as permitted in section 2912f. This subsection does not restrict a patient's right of access to his or her medical records under any other provision of law.

(6) After the initial notice is given to a health professional or health facility under this section, the tacking or addition of successive 182-day periods is not allowed, irrespective of how many additional notices are subsequently filed for that claim and irrespective of the number of health professionals or health facilities notified.

(7) Within 154 days after receipt of notice under this section, the health professional or health facility against whom the claim is made shall furnish to the claimant or his or her authorized representative a written response that contains a statement of each of the following:

(a) The factual basis for the defense to the claim.

(b) The standard of practice or care that the health professional or health facility claims to be applicable to the action and that the health professional or health facility complied with that standard.

(c) The manner in which it is claimed by the health professional or health facility that there was compliance with the applicable standard of practice or care.

(d) The manner in which the health professional or health facility contends that the alleged negligence of the health professional or health facility was not the proximate cause of the claimant's alleged injury or alleged damage.

(8) If the claimant does not receive the written response required under subsection (7) within the required 154-day time period, the claimant may commence an action alleging medical malpractice upon the expiration of the 154-day period.

(9) If at any time during the applicable notice period under this section a health professional or health facility receiving notice under this section informs the claimant in writing that the health professional or health facility does not intend to settle the claim within the applicable notice period, the claimant may commence an action alleging medical malpractice against the health professional or health facility, so long as the claim is not barred by the statute of limitations.

History: Add. 1993, Act 78, Eff. Apr. 1, 1994

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 280 cases (54 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: Driver v. Naini, 802 N.W.2d 311 (Mich. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Driver v. Naini, 802 N.W.2d 311 (Mich. 2011). · cites it 101× “14 However, the Court of Appeals concluded that plaintiff’s claim was saved in part by MCL 600.2957(2).15 The Court of Appeals reasoned that because plaintiff’s claim was partially valid under MCL 600.”

Roberts v. Mecosta Cnty. Gen. Hosp., 642 N.W.2d 663 (Mich. 2002). · cites it 58× “§ 600.2912b. We further hold that M.C.L. § 600.”

Bush v. Shabahang, 772 N.W.2d 272 (Mich. 2009). · cites it 64× “We have been asked to consider whether a defect in a timely mailed notice of intent (NOI), provided to a medical malpractice defendant pursuant to MCL 600.2912b, precludes the tolling of the statute of limitations on a plaintiff's medical malpractice claim.”

Potter v. McLeary, 774 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2009). · cites it 70× “The NOI provision, MCL 600.2912b, clearly states that a plaintiff must provide all health professionals and health facilities an NOI before commencing a medical malpractice action.”

Roberts v. Mecosta Cnty. Gen. Hosp., 684 N.W.2d 711 (Mich. 2004). · cites it 71× “Because the Court of Appeals had not addressed the trial court's conclusion that plaintiff's notices of intent did not comply with § 2912b, we remanded the matter to that Court for further proceedings.”

Bush v. Shabahang, 753 N.W.2d 271 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 186× “However, because defendants have failed to demonstrate that the notice was otherwise deficient and plaintiff did not prematurely file suit in contravention of MCL 600.2912b, we affirm the trial court's denial of summary disposition in all other respects.”

Lisa Tyra v. Organ Procurement Agency of Michigan, 498 Mich. 68 (Mich. 2015). · cites it 67× “Tyra sent a notice of intent to sue (NOI) to defendants under MCL 600.2912b, and filed her complaint 112 days later, rather than waiting the 182 days required by MCL 600.”

Burton v. Reed City Hosp. Corp., 691 N.W.2d 424 (Mich. 2005). · cites it 47× “This case presents the question whether a complaint alleging medical malpractice that is filed before the expiration of the notice period provided by MCL 600.2912b tolls the period of limitations.”

Waltz v. Wyse, 677 N.W.2d 813 (Mich. 2004). · cites it 34× “§ 600.2912b. 2. On May 27, 1999, plaintiff was appointed personal representative of Jerrith's estate.”

DeCosta v. Gossage, 782 N.W.2d 734 (Mich. 2010). · cites it 85× “Moreover, it is in the furtherance of justice to disregard any error or defect in the NOI in this instance because to do so is in accord with the purpose of MCL 600.2912b, which is to promote settlement in place of formal litigation, thereby reducing the cost of…”

Boodt v. Borgess Med. Ctr., 751 N.W.2d 44 (Mich. 2008). · cites it 34× “I believe that plaintiff has stated the manner in which the perforation of decedent's artery was the proximate cause of his death and, thus, that her notice of intent meets the requirements of MCL 600.2912b. I also believe that when a notice of intent required by MCL 600.”

Johanna Woodard v. Univ. of Mich Med. Ctr, 476 Mich. 545 (Mich. 2006). · cites it 22× “11 (11) A complaint alleging medical malpractice that is filed before the expiration of the notice period provided by MCL 600.2912b does not toll the period of limitations.”

Show all 280 citing cases →

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2912b(1) — 103 cases

Driver v. Naini, 802 N.W.2d 311 (Mich. 2011). “14 However, the Court of Appeals concluded that plaintiff’s claim was saved in part by MCL 600.2957(2).15 The Court of Appeals reasoned that because plaintiff’s claim was partially valid under MCL 600.”

Potter v. McLeary, 774 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2009). “The NOI provision, MCL 600.2912b, clearly states that a plaintiff must provide all health professionals and health facilities an NOI before commencing a medical malpractice action.”

Lisa Tyra v. Organ Procurement Agency of Michigan, 498 Mich. 68 (Mich. 2015). “Tyra sent a notice of intent to sue (NOI) to defendants under MCL 600.2912b, and filed her complaint 112 days later, rather than waiting the 182 days required by MCL 600.”

Waltz v. Wyse, 677 N.W.2d 813 (Mich. 2004). “§ 600.2912b. 2. On May 27, 1999, plaintiff was appointed personal representative of Jerrith's estate.”

Bush v. Shabahang, 772 N.W.2d 272 (Mich. 2009). “We have been asked to consider whether a defect in a timely mailed notice of intent (NOI), provided to a medical malpractice defendant pursuant to MCL 600.2912b, precludes the tolling of the statute of limitations on a plaintiff's medical malpractice claim.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2912b(1)(4) — 1 case

Robert Hunter v. John M Cilluffo Md (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2912b(2) — 16 cases

DeCosta v. Gossage, 782 N.W.2d 734 (Mich. 2010). “Moreover, it is in the furtherance of justice to disregard any error or defect in the NOI in this instance because to do so is in accord with the purpose of MCL 600.2912b, which is to promote settlement in place of formal litigation, thereby reducing the cost of…”

Nancy Sanders v. McLaren-macomb, 916 N.W.2d 305 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).

Mccormick v. Carrier, 795 N.W.2d 517 (Mich. 2010).

Roberts v. Mecosta Cnty. Gen. Hosp., 642 N.W.2d 663 (Mich. 2002). “§ 600.2912b. We further hold that M.C.L. § 600.”

Farley v. Advanced Cardiovascular Health Specialists, PC, 703 N.W.2d 115 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2912b(3) — 23 cases

Johanna Woodard v. Univ. of Mich Med. Ctr, 476 Mich. 545 (Mich. 2006). “11 (11) A complaint alleging medical malpractice that is filed before the expiration of the notice period provided by MCL 600.2912b does not toll the period of limitations.”

Ligons v. Crittenton Hosp., 803 N.W.2d 271 (Mich. 2011).

Roberts v. Mecosta Cnty. Gen. Hosp., 684 N.W.2d 711 (Mich. 2004). “Because the Court of Appeals had not addressed the trial court's conclusion that plaintiff's notices of intent did not comply with § 2912b, we remanded the matter to that Court for further proceedings.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2912b(3)(c) — 1 case

Tyra v. Organ Procurement Agency, 850 N.W.2d 667 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2912b(3)(d) — 2 cases

Griesbach v. Robert R. Ross, Pa-c., 778 N.W.2d 76 (Mich. 2010).

Est. of Shabaka Greenwood v. Detroit Receiving Hosp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2912b(4) — 58 cases

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2912b(4)(a) — 7 cases

Boodt v. Borgess Med. Ctr., 728 N.W.2d 471 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).

Swanson v. Port Huron Hosp., 290 Mich. App. 167 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).

Sikkema v. Metro Health Hosp., 773 N.W.2d 908 (Mich. 2009).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2912b(4)(b) — 13 cases

Bush v. Shabahang, 753 N.W.2d 271 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “However, because defendants have failed to demonstrate that the notice was otherwise deficient and plaintiff did not prematurely file suit in contravention of MCL 600.2912b, we affirm the trial court's denial of summary disposition in all other respects.”

Boodt v. Borgess Med. Ctr., 728 N.W.2d 471 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2912b(4)(c) — 5 cases

Gulley-Reaves v. Baciewicz, 679 N.W.2d 98 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).

Potter v. McLeary, 748 N.W.2d 599 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).

Swanson v. Port Huron Hosp., 290 Mich. App. 167 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).

Robert Hunter v. John M Cilluffo Md (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2912b(4)(d) — 4 cases

Potter v. McLeary, 748 N.W.2d 599 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).

Swanson v. Port Huron Hosp., 290 Mich. App. 167 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).

Robert Hunter v. John M Cilluffo Md (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2912b(4)(e) — 21 cases

Boodt v. Borgess Med. Ctr., 751 N.W.2d 44 (Mich. 2008). “I believe that plaintiff has stated the manner in which the perforation of decedent's artery was the proximate cause of his death and, thus, that her notice of intent meets the requirements of MCL 600.2912b. I also believe that when a notice of intent required by MCL 600.”

Decker v. Rochowiak, 287 Mich. App. 666 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).

Ligons v. Crittenton Hosp., 803 N.W.2d 271 (Mich. 2011).

Paige v. City of Sterling Heights, 720 N.W.2d 219 (Mich. 2006).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2912b(4)(f) — 2 cases

Robert Hunter v. John M Cilluffo Md (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2912b(5) — 20 cases

Esselman v. Garden City Hosp., 772 N.W.2d 438 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).

Neal v. Oakwood Hosp. Corp., 575 N.W.2d 68 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).

Wade v. McCadie, 868 N.W.2d 913 (Mich. 2015).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2912b(6) — 18 cases

Ligons v. Crittenton Hosp., 803 N.W.2d 271 (Mich. 2011).

Hoffman v. Boonsiri, 801 N.W.2d 385 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).

Mayberry v. Gen. Orthopedics, PC, 474 Mich. 1 (Mich. 2005).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2912b(7) — 32 cases

Roberts v. Mecosta Cnty. Gen. Hosp., 642 N.W.2d 663 (Mich. 2002). “§ 600.2912b. We further hold that M.C.L. § 600.”

Waltz v. Wyse, 677 N.W.2d 813 (Mich. 2004). “§ 600.2912b. 2. On May 27, 1999, plaintiff was appointed personal representative of Jerrith's estate.”

Burton v. Reed City Hosp. Corp., 691 N.W.2d 424 (Mich. 2005). “This case presents the question whether a complaint alleging medical malpractice that is filed before the expiration of the notice period provided by MCL 600.2912b tolls the period of limitations.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2912b(7)(a) — 4 cases

Jones v. Botsford Continuing Care Corp., 871 N.W.2d 15 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).

Omelenchuk v. City of Warren, 609 N.W.2d 177 (Mich. 2000).

Est. of Amos Jones v. Botsford Continuing Care Corp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2912b(7)(d) — 2 cases

Paige v. City of Sterling Heights, 720 N.W.2d 219 (Mich. 2006).

Robinson v. City of Detroit, 613 N.W.2d 307 (Mich. 2000).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2912b(8) — 23 cases

Waltz v. Wyse, 677 N.W.2d 813 (Mich. 2004). “§ 600.2912b. 2. On May 27, 1999, plaintiff was appointed personal representative of Jerrith's estate.”

Vanslembrouck v. Halperin, 747 N.W.2d 311 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2912b(9) — 13 cases

Neal v. Oakwood Hosp. Corp., 575 N.W.2d 68 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2912b(l) — 51 cases

Braverman v. Garden City Hosp., 724 N.W.2d 285 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).

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.