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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5838a (2026)

Claim based on medical malpractice; accrual; definitions; commencement of action; burden of proof; applicability of subsection (2); limitations.

✓ 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


600.5838a Claim based on medical malpractice; accrual; definitions; commencement of action; burden of proof; applicability of subsection (2); limitations.

Sec. 5838a.

    (1) For purposes of this act, a claim based on the medical malpractice of a person or entity who is or who holds himself or herself out to be a licensed health care professional, licensed health facility or agency, or an employee or agent of a licensed health facility or agency who is engaging in or otherwise assisting in medical care and treatment, whether or not the licensed health care professional, licensed health facility or agency, or their employee or agent is engaged in the practice of the health profession in a sole proprietorship, partnership, professional corporation, or other business entity, 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. As used in this subsection:

    (a) "Licensed health facility or agency" means a health facility or agency licensed under article 17 of the public health code, Act No. 368 of the Public Acts of 1978, being sections 333.20101 to 333.22260 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.

    (b) "Licensed health care professional" means an individual licensed or registered under article 15 of the public health code, Act No. 368 of the Public Acts of 1978, being sections 333.16101 to 333.18838 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, and engaged in the practice of his or her health profession in a sole proprietorship, partnership, professional corporation, or other business entity. However, licensed health care professional does not include a sanitarian or a veterinarian.

    (2) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, an action involving a claim based on medical malpractice may be commenced at any time within the applicable period prescribed in section 5805 or sections 5851 to 5856, or within 6 months after the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the existence of the claim, whichever is later. However, except as otherwise provided in section 5851(7) or (8), the claim shall not be commenced later than 6 years after the date of the act or omission that is the basis for the claim. The burden of proving that the plaintiff, as a result of physical discomfort, appearance, condition, or otherwise, neither discovered nor should have discovered the existence of the claim at least 6 months before the expiration of the period otherwise applicable to the claim is on the plaintiff. A medical malpractice action that is not commenced within the time prescribed by this subsection is barred. This subsection does not apply, and the plaintiff is subject to the period of limitations set forth in subsection (3), under 1 of the following circumstances:

    (a) If discovery of the existence of the claim was prevented by the fraudulent conduct of the health care professional against whom the claim is made or a named employee or agent of the health professional against whom the claim is made, or of the health facility against whom the claim is made or a named employee or agent of a health facility against whom the claim is made.

    (b) There has been permanent loss of or damage to a reproductive organ resulting in the inability to procreate.

    (3) An action involving a claim based on medical malpractice under circumstances described in subsection (2)(a) or (b) may be commenced at any time within the applicable period prescribed in section 5805 or sections 5851 to 5856, or within 6 months after the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the existence of the claim, whichever is later. The burden of proving that the plaintiff, as a result of physical discomfort, appearance, condition or otherwise, neither discovered nor should have discovered the existence of the claim at least 6 months before the expiration of the period otherwise applicable to the claim is on the plaintiff. A medical malpractice action that is not commenced within the time prescribed by this subsection is barred.

History: Add. 1986, Act 178, Eff. Oct. 1, 1986 ;-- Am. 1993, Act 78, Eff. Apr. 1, 1994

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 185 cases (41 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · 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 24× “31 MCL 600.5838a(1). 32 MCL 600.5838a(2) (emphasis added).”
Trentadue v. Buckler Automatic Lawn Sprinkler Co., 479 Mich. 378 (Mich. 2007). · cites it 20× “The scheme also explicitly supersedes the common law as can be seen in the area of medical malpractice, for instance, where this Court’s prestatutory applications of the common-law discovery rule were superseded by MCL 600.5838a, in which the Legislature codified the discovery…”
Potter v. McLeary, 774 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2009). · cites it 25× “MCL 600.5838a delineates those health care providers and facilities against which claims of medical malpractice may be asserted.”
Bryant v. Oakpointe Villa Nursing Centre, Inc, 684 N.W.2d 864 (Mich. 2004). · cites it 8× “§ 600.5838a refers to "the medical malpractice of .”
Vanslembrouck v. Halperin, 747 N.W.2d 311 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 18× “5851(7) provides: Except as otherwise provided in subsection (8),[ [3] ] if, at the time a claim alleging medical malpractice accrues to a person under [MCL 600.5838a] the person has not reached his or her eighth birthday, a person shall not bring an action based on the claim…”
Vanslembrouck v. Halperin, 763 N.W.2d 919 (Mich. 2009). · cites it 12× “As § 5851(7) itself acknowledges, the statutory scheme defines accrual in a distinct statute: MCL 600.5838a. Because § 5851(7) is not a statute of limitations, the time during which plaintiff was required to file suit under § 5851(7) was not tolled during the statutory waiting…”
Kuznar v. Raksha Corp., 750 N.W.2d 121 (Mich. 2008). · cites it 9× “5 It pointed out that, under MCL 600.5838a(l), a medical malpractice claim can be brought against a “licensed health facility or agency” as defined in article 17 of the *175 Public Health Code.”
Sills v. Oakland Gen. Hosp., 559 N.W.2d 348 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 13× “116(C)(7) because plaintiffs’ complaint was untimely under MCL 600.5838a(2); MSA 27A.5838(1)(2). We affirm.”
Cox v. Flint Bd. of Hosp. Managers, 651 N.W.2d 356 (Mich. 2002). · cites it 6× “[19] A survey of our case law reveals that the standard of care at common law was the degree of skill and care ordinarily possessed and exercised by practitioners of the profession in similar localities.”
Taylor v. Kurapati, 600 N.W.2d 670 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 14× “" MCL 600.5838a(1); MSA 27A.5838(1)(1); Solowy, supra at 220 , 561 N.”
Ward v. Siano, 730 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 14× “" Adding to this perception of the statute's role was the generally accepted view of limitations on special rights. Legal authorities recognize that statutes that create new rights in derogation of the common law traditionally contain their own time limits, and those limits are…”
Levy v. Martin, 620 N.W.2d 292 (Mich. 2001). · cites it 9× “5838(1), which concerns medical malpractice], a claim based on the malpractice of a person who is, or holds himself or herself out to be, a member of a state licensed profession accrues at the time that person discontinues serving the plaintiff in a professional or…”
Show all 185 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5838a(1) — 76 cases
Driver v. Naini, 802 N.W.2d 311 (Mich. 2011). “31 MCL 600.5838a(1). 32 MCL 600.5838a(2) (emphasis added).”
Potter v. McLeary, 774 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2009). “MCL 600.5838a delineates those health care providers and facilities against which claims of medical malpractice may be asserted.”
Bryant v. Oakpointe Villa Nursing Centre, Inc, 684 N.W.2d 864 (Mich. 2004). “§ 600.5838a refers to "the medical malpractice of .”
Taylor v. Kurapati, 600 N.W.2d 670 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). “" MCL 600.5838a(1); MSA 27A.5838(1)(1); Solowy, supra at 220 , 561 N.”
Cox v. Flint Bd. of Hosp. Managers, 651 N.W.2d 356 (Mich. 2002). “[19] A survey of our case law reveals that the standard of care at common law was the degree of skill and care ordinarily possessed and exercised by practitioners of the profession in similar localities.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5838a(1)(a) — 4 cases
Est. of Aaron Kelly Miller v. Angels' Place Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
Est. of John Swanzy v. Edward J Kryshak Md (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
Khaled Sabbagh v. Hamilton Psychological Servs. Plc (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
Eva Lafave v. All. Healthcare Servs. Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5838a(1)(b) — 13 cases
Potter v. McLeary, 774 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2009). “MCL 600.5838a delineates those health care providers and facilities against which claims of medical malpractice may be asserted.”
Cox v. Flint Bd. of Hosp. Managers, 651 N.W.2d 356 (Mich. 2002). “[19] A survey of our case law reveals that the standard of care at common law was the degree of skill and care ordinarily possessed and exercised by practitioners of the profession in similar localities.”
Roberts v. Salmi, 866 N.W.2d 460 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
Lockwood v. Mobile Med. Response, Inc., 809 N.W.2d 403 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).
Bates v. Gilbert, 479 Mich. 451 (Mich. 2007).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5838a(2) — 99 cases
Driver v. Naini, 802 N.W.2d 311 (Mich. 2011). “31 MCL 600.5838a(1). 32 MCL 600.5838a(2) (emphasis added).”
Trentadue v. Buckler Automatic Lawn Sprinkler Co., 479 Mich. 378 (Mich. 2007). “The scheme also explicitly supersedes the common law as can be seen in the area of medical malpractice, for instance, where this Court’s prestatutory applications of the common-law discovery rule were superseded by MCL 600.5838a, in which the Legislature codified the discovery…”
Sills v. Oakland Gen. Hosp., 559 N.W.2d 348 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). “116(C)(7) because plaintiffs’ complaint was untimely under MCL 600.5838a(2); MSA 27A.5838(1)(2). We affirm.”
Vanslembrouck v. Halperin, 747 N.W.2d 311 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “5851(7) provides: Except as otherwise provided in subsection (8),[ [3] ] if, at the time a claim alleging medical malpractice accrues to a person under [MCL 600.5838a] the person has not reached his or her eighth birthday, a person shall not bring an action based on the claim…”
Ward v. Siano, 730 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “" Adding to this perception of the statute's role was the generally accepted view of limitations on special rights. Legal authorities recognize that statutes that create new rights in derogation of the common law traditionally contain their own time limits, and those limits are…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5838a(2)(a) — 6 cases
Sills v. Oakland Gen. Hosp., 559 N.W.2d 348 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). “116(C)(7) because plaintiffs’ complaint was untimely under MCL 600.5838a(2); MSA 27A.5838(1)(2). We affirm.”
Est. of John a Doyle v. Covenant Med. Ctr. Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
Ricky W McLeod v. Se. Mich Colon & Rectal Surgery Pllc (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
Charmia Wyrick v. Dan J Castro Md (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
Myles Robertson v. William Beaumont Hosp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5838a(3) — 6 cases
Turner v. Mercy Hospitals & Health Servs., 533 N.W.2d 365 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).
Est. of John a Doyle v. Covenant Med. Ctr. Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
Charmia Wyrick v. Dan J Castro Md (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
Est. of Eric Gerrity v. Women's & Child.'s Health Servs. (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
Candi Ottgen v. Abdalmaijid Katranji Md (Mich. 2023).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5838a(l) — 29 cases
Kuznar v. Raksha Corp., 750 N.W.2d 121 (Mich. 2008). “5 It pointed out that, under MCL 600.5838a(l), a medical malpractice claim can be brought against a “licensed health facility or agency” as defined in article 17 of the *175 Public Health Code.”
Potter v. McLeary, 774 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2009). “MCL 600.5838a delineates those health care providers and facilities against which claims of medical malpractice may be asserted.”
Bryant v. Oakpointe Villa Nursing Centre, Inc, 684 N.W.2d 864 (Mich. 2004). “§ 600.5838a refers to "the medical malpractice of .”
Sanders v. Perfecting Church, 840 N.W.2d 401 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
Taylor v. Kurapati, 600 N.W.2d 670 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). “" MCL 600.5838a(1); MSA 27A.5838(1)(1); Solowy, supra at 220 , 561 N.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5838a(l)(a) — 3 cases
Kuznar v. Raksha Corp., 750 N.W.2d 121 (Mich. 2008). “5 It pointed out that, under MCL 600.5838a(l), a medical malpractice claim can be brought against a “licensed health facility or agency” as defined in article 17 of the *175 Public Health Code.”
Lockwood v. Mobile Med. Response, Inc., 809 N.W.2d 403 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).
Kuznar v. Raksha Corp., 724 N.W.2d 493 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5838a(l)(b) — 7 cases
Potter v. McLeary, 774 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2009). “MCL 600.5838a delineates those health care providers and facilities against which claims of medical malpractice may be asserted.”
Kuznar v. Raksha Corp., 750 N.W.2d 121 (Mich. 2008). “5 It pointed out that, under MCL 600.5838a(l), a medical malpractice claim can be brought against a “licensed health facility or agency” as defined in article 17 of the *175 Public Health Code.”
Cox v. Flint Bd. of Hosp. Managers, 651 N.W.2d 356 (Mich. 2002). “[19] A survey of our case law reveals that the standard of care at common law was the degree of skill and care ordinarily possessed and exercised by practitioners of the profession in similar localities.”
Roberts v. Salmi, 866 N.W.2d 460 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
Kuznar v. Raksha Corp., 724 N.W.2d 493 (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.