Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2912c (2026)

Action alleging medical malpractice; filing affidavit certifying noninvolvement; dismissal of claim; reinstatement of party; discovery.

✓ 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


600.2912c Action alleging medical malpractice; filing affidavit certifying noninvolvement; dismissal of claim; reinstatement of party; discovery.

Sec. 2912c.

    (1) In an action alleging medical malpractice, a party named as a defendant in the action may, instead of answering or otherwise pleading, file with the court an affidavit certifying that he or she was not involved, either directly or indirectly, in the occurrence alleged in the action. Unless the affidavit is opposed pursuant to subsection (2), the court shall order the dismissal of the claim, without prejudice, against the affiant.

    (2) Any party to the action may oppose the dismissal or move to vacate an order of dismissal and reinstate the party who filed the affidavit if it can be shown that the party filing the affidavit was involved in the occurrence alleged in the action. Reinstatement of a party to the action under this subdivision shall not be barred by any statute of limitations defense that was not valid at the time the action was originally commenced against the affiant. The opposing party may obtain discovery regarding the involvement or noninvolvement of the party filing the affidavit. The discovery shall be completed within 90 days after the date the affidavit is filed.

History: Add. 1986, Act 178, Eff. Oct. 1, 1986

Compiler's Notes:

    Section 3 of Act 178 of 1986 provides:

    “(1) Sections 2925b, 5805, 5838, and 5851 of Act No. 236 of the Public Acts of 1961, as amended by this amendatory act, shall not apply to causes of action arising before October 1, 1986.

    “(2) Sections 1483, 5838a, and 6304 of Act No. 236 of the Public Acts of 1961, as added by this amendatory act, shall apply to causes of action arising on or after October 1, 1986.

    “(3) Sections 1629, 1653, 2169, 2591, 2912c, 2912d, 2912e, 6098, 6301, 6303, 6305, 6306, 6307, 6309, and 6311 of Act No. 236 of the Public Acts of 1961, as added by this amendatory act, shall apply to cases filed on or after October 1, 1986.

    “(4) Sections 1651 and 6013 of Act No. 236 of the Public Acts of 1961, as amended by this amendatory act, shall not apply to cases filed before October 1, 1986.

    “(5) Chapter 49 of Act No. 236 of the Public Acts of 1961, as added by this amendatory act, shall apply to cases filed on or after January 1, 1987.

    “(6) Chapter 49a of Act No. 236 of the Public Acts of 1961, as added by this amendatory act, shall apply to cases filed in judicial circuits which are comprised of more than 1 county on or after July 1, 1990 and shall apply to cases filed in judicial circuits which are comprised of 1 county on or after October 1, 1988.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2005–2026 · leading case: Ligons v. Crittenton Hosp., 803 N.W.2d 271 (Mich. 2011).
Ligons v. Crittenton Hosp., 803 N.W.2d 271 (Mich. 2011). · cites it 2× “” MCL 600.2912c(1). 66 Miller v Allstate Ins Co, 481 Mich 601, 613 ; 751 NW2d 463 (2008).”
Saffian v. Simmons, 704 N.W.2d 722 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “MCL 600.2912c(1) provides, in pertinent part: In an action alleging medical malpractice, a party named as a defendant in the action may, instead of answering or otherwise pleading, file with the court an affidavit certifying that he or she was not involved, either directly or…”
20241230_C367213_51_367213.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 17× “, and Abigail Ignagni, PA, and to codefendant Hospital Medicine Associates, LLC (doing business as “Teamhealth”) on those same grounds, and under MCL 600.2912c. Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed on the basis that her appointment as personal representative did not relate back to…”
Est. of Glenn Steven Brooker v. Trinity Health Michigan (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 4× “On April 24, 2023, defendants filed affidavits of noninvolvement, pursuant to MCL 600.2912c. On August 10, 2023, defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice, arguing that: (1) plaintiff failed to rebut defendants’ affidavits of noninvolvement, and (2)…”
Harrison v. Munson Healthcare, Inc., 304 Mich. App. 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “4 Burgett, represented by Hall, responded by filing an affidavit of noninvolvement pursuant to MCL 600.2912c, averring that he did not “use, hold, holster, or otherwise handle the Bovie device” during the surgery.”
Krystal Lowrey v. Lmps & Lmpj Inc (Mich. 2016). “A request for dismissal without prejudice under MCL 600.2912c must be made by motion under MCR 2.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2912c(1) — 3 cases
Ligons v. Crittenton Hosp., 803 N.W.2d 271 (Mich. 2011). “” MCL 600.2912c(1). 66 Miller v Allstate Ins Co, 481 Mich 601, 613 ; 751 NW2d 463 (2008).”
Saffian v. Simmons, 704 N.W.2d 722 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “MCL 600.2912c(1) provides, in pertinent part: In an action alleging medical malpractice, a party named as a defendant in the action may, instead of answering or otherwise pleading, file with the court an affidavit certifying that he or she was not involved, either directly or…”
Est. of Glenn Steven Brooker v. Trinity Health Michigan (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). “On April 24, 2023, defendants filed affidavits of noninvolvement, pursuant to MCL 600.2912c. On August 10, 2023, defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice, arguing that: (1) plaintiff failed to rebut defendants’ affidavits of noninvolvement, and (2)…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2912c(2) — 1 case
20241230_C367213_51_367213.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “, and Abigail Ignagni, PA, and to codefendant Hospital Medicine Associates, LLC (doing business as “Teamhealth”) on those same grounds, and under MCL 600.2912c. Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed on the basis that her appointment as personal representative did not relate back to…”
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.