Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.5510 (2026)

Revocation of patient advocate designation.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

ESTATES AND PROTECTED INDIVIDUALS CODE


Act 386 of 1998


700.5510 Revocation of patient advocate designation.

Sec. 5510.

    (1) A patient advocate designation is revoked by 1 or more of the following:

    (a) The patient's death, except that part of the patient advocate designation, if any, that authorizes the patient advocate to make an anatomical gift of all or part of the deceased patient's body in accordance with this act and part 101 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.10101 to 333.10123.

    (b) An order of removal by the probate court under section 5511(5).

    (c) The patient advocate's resignation or removal by the court, unless a successor patient advocate has been designated.

    (d) The patient's revocation of the patient advocate designation. Subject to section 5515, even if the patient is unable to participate in medical treatment decisions, a patient may revoke a patient advocate designation at any time and in any manner by which he or she is able to communicate an intent to revoke the patient advocate designation. If there is a dispute as to the intent of the patient to revoke the patient advocate designation, the court may make a determination on the patient's intent to revoke the patient advocate designation. If the revocation is not in writing, an individual who witnesses a revocation of a patient advocate designation shall describe in writing the circumstances of the revocation, must sign the writing, and shall notify, if possible, the patient advocate of the revocation. If the patient's physician, mental health professional, or health facility has notice of the patient's revocation of a patient advocate designation, the physician, mental health professional, or health facility shall note the revocation in the patient's records and bedside chart and shall notify the patient advocate.

    (e) A subsequent patient advocate designation that revokes the prior patient advocate designation either expressly or by inconsistency.

    (f) The occurrence of a provision for revocation contained in the patient advocate designation.

    (g) If a patient advocate designation is executed during a patient's marriage naming the patient's spouse as the patient advocate, the patient advocate designation is suspended during the pendency of an action for separate maintenance, annulment, or divorce and is revoked upon the entry of a judgment of separate maintenance, annulment, or divorce, unless the patient has named a successor individual to serve as a patient advocate. If a successor patient advocate is named, that individual acts as the patient advocate.

    (2) The revocation of a patient advocate designation under subsection (1) does not revoke or terminate the agency as to the patient advocate or other person who acts in good faith under the patient advocate designation and without actual knowledge of the revocation. Unless the action is otherwise invalid or unenforceable, an action taken without knowledge of the revocation binds the patient and his or her heirs, devisees, and personal representatives. A sworn statement executed by the patient advocate stating that, at the time of doing an act in accordance with the patient advocate designation, he or she did not have actual knowledge of the revocation of the patient advocate designation is, in the absence of fraud, conclusive proof that the patient advocate did not have actual knowledge of the revocation at the time of the act.

History: 1998, Act 386, Eff. Apr. 1, 2000 ;-- Am. 2003, Act 63, Imd. Eff. July 22, 2003 ;-- Am. 2004, Act 532, Imd. Eff. Jan. 3, 2005 ;-- Am. 2008, Act 41, Imd. Eff. Mar. 17, 2008

PopularName Notes:

EPIC
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2005–2015 · leading case: Echelon Homes, LLC v. Carter Lumber Co., 694 N.W.2d 544 (Mich. 2005).
Echelon Homes, LLC v. Carter Lumber Co., 694 N.W.2d 544 (Mich. 2005). · cites it 2× “5505(1) ("the attorney in fact did not have actual knowledge of the principal's death"); MCL 700.5510(2) ("did not have actual knowledge"); MCL 700.”
Est. of Margaret Marie Roush v. Laurels of Carson City LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “5509(2) based on Roush’s regained ability to participate in medical decisions, and whether Roush validly revoked Gallagher’s patient advocate designation on November 15, 2012, pursuant to MCL 700.5510(1)(d) and MCL 700.5507(7). All of these unresolved factual issues are material…”
Est. of Margaret Marie Roush v. Laurels of Carson City LLC (Mich. 2015). “5506, and whether Roush subsequently revoked her patient advocate designation, see MCL 700.5510(1)(d); (2) whether the Court of Appeals erred in relying on an affidavit submitted by the plaintiff’s attorney pursuant to MCR 2.”
Hardy v. Laurels of Carson City, LLC, 498 Mich. 879 (Mich. 2015). “5506, and whether Roush subsequently revoked her patient advocate designation, see MCL 700.5510(l)(d); (2) whether the Court of Appeals erred in relying on an affidavit submitted by the plaintiffs attorney pursuant to MCR 2.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.5510(1)(d) — 2 cases
Est. of Margaret Marie Roush v. Laurels of Carson City LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “5509(2) based on Roush’s regained ability to participate in medical decisions, and whether Roush validly revoked Gallagher’s patient advocate designation on November 15, 2012, pursuant to MCL 700.5510(1)(d) and MCL 700.5507(7). All of these unresolved factual issues are material…”
Est. of Margaret Marie Roush v. Laurels of Carson City LLC (Mich. 2015). “5506, and whether Roush subsequently revoked her patient advocate designation, see MCL 700.5510(1)(d); (2) whether the Court of Appeals erred in relying on an affidavit submitted by the plaintiff’s attorney pursuant to MCR 2.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.5510(2) — 1 case
Echelon Homes, LLC v. Carter Lumber Co., 694 N.W.2d 544 (Mich. 2005). “5505(1) ("the attorney in fact did not have actual knowledge of the principal's death"); MCL 700.5510(2) ("did not have actual knowledge"); MCL 700.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.5510(l)(d) — 1 case
Hardy v. Laurels of Carson City, LLC, 498 Mich. 879 (Mich. 2015). “5506, and whether Roush subsequently revoked her patient advocate designation, see MCL 700.5510(l)(d); (2) whether the Court of Appeals erred in relying on an affidavit submitted by the plaintiffs attorney pursuant to MCR 2.”
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.