Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5856 (2026)

Tolling of statute of limitations or repose.

✓ 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

600.5856 Tolling of statute of limitations or repose.

Sec. 5856.

The statutes of limitations or repose are tolled in any of the following circumstances:

(a) At the time the complaint is filed, if a copy of the summons and complaint are served on the defendant within the time set forth in the supreme court rules.

(b) At the time jurisdiction over the defendant is otherwise acquired.

(c) At the time notice is given in compliance with the applicable notice period under section 2912b, if during that period a claim would be barred by the statute of limitations or repose; but in this case, the statute is tolled not longer than the number of days equal to the number of days remaining in the applicable notice period after the date notice is given.

History: 1961, Act 236, Eff. Jan. 1, 1963 ;-- Am. 1993, Act 78, Eff. Apr. 1, 1994 ;-- Am. 2004, Act 87, Imd. Eff. Apr. 22, 2004

Compiler's Notes:

Enacting section 1 of Act 87 of 2004 provides:

“Enacting section 1. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), this amendatory act applies to civil actions filed on or after the effective date of this amendatory act.

“(2) This amendatory act does not apply to a cause of action if the statute of limitations or repose for that cause of action has expired before the effective date of this amendatory act.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 341 cases (65 in the last 5 years), 1965–2026 · leading case: Bush v. Shabahang, 772 N.W.2d 272 (Mich. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bush v. Shabahang, 772 N.W.2d 272 (Mich. 2009). · cites it 49× “We conclude that the 2004 amendments of MCL 600.5856 have significantly clarified the proper role of an NOI provided pursuant to MCL 600.”

Roberts v. Mecosta Cnty. Gen. Hosp., 642 N.W.2d 663 (Mich. 2002). · cites it 33× “5856 provides an additional reason why waiver is inapplicable to the present case. The plain language of § 5856(d) clearly requires a medical malpractice plaintiff to comply with the provisions of § 2912b in order to toll the limitation period.”

Ligons v. Crittenton Hosp., 803 N.W.2d 271 (Mich. 2011). · cites it 28× “37 MCL 600.5856 provides, in pertinent part: The statutes of limitations or repose are tolled in any of the following circumstances: (a) At the time the complaint is filed, if a copy of the summons and complaint are served on the defendant within the time set forth in the…”

Potter v. McLeary, 774 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2009). · cites it 24× “" [22] If the statute of limitations was not tolled under former subsection (d) of the tolling statute, MCL 600.5856, then plaintiff's claim against defendant Huron was filed after the period of limitations expired and defendant Huron would be entitled to dismissal with…”

Waltz v. Wyse, 677 N.W.2d 813 (Mich. 2004). · cites it 20× “Thus, § 5852 provides an exception to the otherwise-applicable limitation periods by permitting the personal representative of a decedent's estate to file a wrongful death action up to two years after letters of authority are issued, subject to a three-year ceiling.”

Mazumder v. Univ. of Michigan Bd. of Regents, 715 N.W.2d 96 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 51× “5852, expired during the required 182-day statutory notice period for filing a medical malpractice action, MCL 600.”

Kirkaldy v. Rim, 734 N.W.2d 201 (Mich. 2007). · cites it 24× “Therefore, the Court held that a defective affidavit of merit does not toll the period of limitations under MCL 600.5856. [4] Because the issue presented in Scarsella is distinct from the issues presented in Mouradian and Geralds , the Court of Appeals erred in extending…”

Driver v. Naini, 802 N.W.2d 311 (Mich. 2011). · cites it 18× “”31 However, when a plaintiff discovers a claim two or more years after the alleged negligent act occurred, then the plaintiff must commence an action “within 6 months after the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the existence of the claim, whichever is later.”

Lisa Tyra v. Organ Procurement Agency of Michigan, 498 Mich. 68 (Mich. 2015). · cites it 22× “8 MCL 600.5856 provides, in pertinent part: The statutes of limitations or repose are tolled in any of the following circumstances: (a) At the time the complaint is filed, if a copy of the summons and complaint are served on the defendant within the time set forth in the supreme…”

Hoffman v. Boonsiri, 801 N.W.2d 385 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 28× “Before it was amended by 2004 PA 87 , effective April 22, 2004, MCL 600.5856 provided, in pertinent part: The statutes of limitations or repose are tolled: *41 (d) If, during the applicable notice period under section 2912b, a claim would be barred by the statute of limitations…”

Burton v. Reed City Hosp. Corp., 691 N.W.2d 424 (Mich. 2005). · cites it 14× “The Court of Appeals held that a prematurely filed complaint invokes the tolling provisions of MCL 600.5856(a). We disagree. MCL 600.2912b(1) unambiguously states that a person "shall not" commence an action alleging medical malpractice until the expiration of the statutory…”

Gladych v. New Fam. Homes, Inc, 664 N.W.2d 705 (Mich. 2003). · cites it 12× “[4] In Buscaino , after holding that § 5856 dealt only with prior lawsuits between the parties that were not adjudicated on the merits, the Court stated: Even the Committee Comment recognizes this function of MCLA § 600.5856.... The Committee Comment reads: "In the event of the…”

Show all 341 citing cases →

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5856(1) — 7 cases

Newson v. Monsanto Co., 869 F. Supp. 1255 (E.D. Mich. 1994).

Andrews v. Allstate Ins., 479 F. Supp. 481 (E.D. Mich. 1979).

Twp. Oil Co. v. State Bank, 413 N.W.2d 94 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987).

Clark v. Esser, 821 F. Supp. 1230 (E.D. Mich. 1993).

Progress Michigan v. Attorney Gen. (Mich. 2020).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5856(2) — 11 cases

Barczak v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 244 N.W.2d 24 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976).

Cronin v. Minster Press, 224 N.W.2d 336 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974).

Liddell v. Detroit Auto. Inter-Ins. Exch., 302 N.W.2d 260 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981).

Badger State Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Auto-owners Ins. Co., 339 N.W.2d 713 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983).

James v. Logee, 388 N.W.2d 294 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5856(3) — 7 cases

Conrad v. Ward, 190 N.W.2d 361 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).

Lausman v. Benton Twp., 426 N.W.2d 729 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).

Andrews v. Allstate Ins., 479 F. Supp. 481 (E.D. Mich. 1979).

Cont'l Ins. v. B & B Educator Sales, Inc., 192 N.W.2d 126 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).

DiGiovanni v. Yacenick, 157 N.W.2d 785 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5856(D) — 1 case

Potter v. McLeary, 774 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2009). “" [22] If the statute of limitations was not tolled under former subsection (d) of the tolling statute, MCL 600.5856, then plaintiff's claim against defendant Huron was filed after the period of limitations expired and defendant Huron would be entitled to dismissal with…”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5856(a) — 69 cases

Ligons v. Crittenton Hosp., 803 N.W.2d 271 (Mich. 2011). “37 MCL 600.5856 provides, in pertinent part: The statutes of limitations or repose are tolled in any of the following circumstances: (a) At the time the complaint is filed, if a copy of the summons and complaint are served on the defendant within the time set forth in the…”

Kirkaldy v. Rim, 734 N.W.2d 201 (Mich. 2007). “Therefore, the Court held that a defective affidavit of merit does not toll the period of limitations under MCL 600.5856. [4] Because the issue presented in Scarsella is distinct from the issues presented in Mouradian and Geralds , the Court of Appeals erred in extending…”

Bryant v. Oakpointe Villa Nursing Centre, Inc, 684 N.W.2d 864 (Mich. 2004).

Burton v. Reed City Hosp. Corp., 691 N.W.2d 424 (Mich. 2005). “The Court of Appeals held that a prematurely filed complaint invokes the tolling provisions of MCL 600.5856(a). We disagree. MCL 600.2912b(1) unambiguously states that a person "shall not" commence an action alleging medical malpractice until the expiration of the statutory…”

Lisa Tyra v. Organ Procurement Agency of Michigan, 498 Mich. 68 (Mich. 2015). “8 MCL 600.5856 provides, in pertinent part: The statutes of limitations or repose are tolled in any of the following circumstances: (a) At the time the complaint is filed, if a copy of the summons and complaint are served on the defendant within the time set forth in the supreme…”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5856(b) — 7 cases

Ashley Ann Arbor, LLC v. Pittsfield Charter Twp., 829 N.W.2d 299 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).

Roger Turunen v. Dep't of Nat. Resources (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).

Christopher Foltz v. Julie Fox (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).

Hoekstra v. Bose, 655 N.W.2d 298 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).

Wendell MacKey v. Jeff Rising (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5856(c) — 82 cases

Bush v. Shabahang, 772 N.W.2d 272 (Mich. 2009). “We conclude that the 2004 amendments of MCL 600.5856 have significantly clarified the proper role of an NOI provided pursuant to MCL 600.”

Driver v. Naini, 802 N.W.2d 311 (Mich. 2011). “”31 However, when a plaintiff discovers a claim two or more years after the alleged negligent act occurred, then the plaintiff must commence an action “within 6 months after the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the existence of the claim, whichever is later.”

Hoffman v. Boonsiri, 801 N.W.2d 385 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “Before it was amended by 2004 PA 87 , effective April 22, 2004, MCL 600.5856 provided, in pertinent part: The statutes of limitations or repose are tolled: *41 (d) If, during the applicable notice period under section 2912b, a claim would be barred by the statute of limitations…”

Johanna Woodard v. Univ. of Mich Med. Ctr, 476 Mich. 545 (Mich. 2006).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5856(d) — 52 cases

Roberts v. Mecosta Cnty. Gen. Hosp., 642 N.W.2d 663 (Mich. 2002). “5856 provides an additional reason why waiver is inapplicable to the present case. The plain language of § 5856(d) clearly requires a medical malpractice plaintiff to comply with the provisions of § 2912b in order to toll the limitation period.”

Waltz v. Wyse, 677 N.W.2d 813 (Mich. 2004). “Thus, § 5852 provides an exception to the otherwise-applicable limitation periods by permitting the personal representative of a decedent's estate to file a wrongful death action up to two years after letters of authority are issued, subject to a three-year ceiling.”

Bush v. Shabahang, 772 N.W.2d 272 (Mich. 2009). “We conclude that the 2004 amendments of MCL 600.5856 have significantly clarified the proper role of an NOI provided pursuant to MCL 600.”

Mazumder v. Univ. of Michigan Bd. of Regents, 715 N.W.2d 96 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “5852, expired during the required 182-day statutory notice period for filing a medical malpractice action, MCL 600.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5856(e) — 1 case

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.