Medical malpractice cases in Michigan are rarely decided based on sympathy, injury severity, or even whether a medical mistake occurred. They are decided first on compliance with Michigan medical malpractice law and procedure. Michigan law front-loads malpractice claims with mandatory procedural requirements that control whether a lawsuit is allowed to be filed and heard at all. Courts routinely dismiss Michigan medical malpractice lawsuits at the threshold when those requirements are not met precisely, without ever reaching questions of negligence, causation, or damages.
This page explains the procedural framework that governs malpractice claims before any case reaches discovery, expert testimony, or trial. It focuses on the statutory gates that determine whether a claim is permitted to exist, including pre-suit notice requirements, affidavit and expert qualification rules, and strict filing deadlines. It is not an evaluation of case strength or value.
Michigan has one of the most procedurally restrictive medical malpractice frameworks in the country, by design. The Legislature structured malpractice law to control how malpractice cases are evaluated under Michigan law before they ever reach discovery, expert depositions, or trial, shifting the focus to compliance at the outset of a case. As a result, statutory requirements often determine whether a lawsuit is allowed to proceed at all, regardless of injury severity or the apparent outcome of medical treatment.
Unlike ordinary personal injury cases, a Michigan medical malpractice claim cannot simply be filed and litigated on the evidence. Plaintiffs must satisfy multiple pre-suit conditions, meet exacting expert qualification standards, and navigate overlapping limitation and repose periods. Courts routinely dismiss malpractice cases at the threshold based on procedural defects, often without addressing negligence, causation, or damages. Under this framework, a valid injury does not guarantee a viable claim. The procedural rules discussed below determine whether a case is permitted to exist before its merits are ever evaluated.
The Notice of Intent Requirement
Before any medical malpractice lawsuit may be filed in Michigan, the claimant must comply with the Notice of Intent requirement. This step is not a formality and it is not curable after the fact. The Notice of Intent operates as the first and most consequential procedural gate in Michigan malpractice law, controlling both when a case may be filed and whether the statute of limitations is preserved at all. Courts regularly dismiss malpractice claims based on defects in the Notice of Intent, often without reaching questions of negligence or injury, making proper compliance at this stage essential to a claim’s survival.
What the Notice of Intent Is and Why It Exists
The Notice of Intent is a mandatory pre-suit requirement in Michigan medical malpractice cases. A lawsuit may not be filed until the Notice of Intent has been properly served on each potential defendant and the statutory waiting period has expired. Courts treat this requirement as a threshold condition to suit, not a formality, and filing a complaint without first complying typically results in dismissal.
Michigan law uses the Notice of Intent to force malpractice claims into a pre-litigation screening phase before any court involvement begins. The notice provides healthcare providers advance warning of the claim and time to evaluate it, but its function is procedural rather than persuasive. If the Notice of Intent is defective, improperly served, or missing required information, the statute of limitations may continue to run and the claim may be barred before its merits are ever considered.
Mandatory Notice of Intent Content Under Michigan Law
Michigan law requires that every Notice of Intent include specific, substantive disclosures about the alleged malpractice. These requirements are not technical formalities. Courts evaluate whether the notice meaningfully describes the claim, and missing or inadequately stated elements can invalidate the Notice of Intent entirely, preventing tolling of the statute of limitations.
Each required element serves a distinct purpose in the pre-suit screening process. The Notice of Intent must explain what happened, what should have happened, how the standard of care was allegedly violated, and how that violation caused harm. Notices that rely on boilerplate language, general accusations, or conclusory statements are routinely challenged and, in some cases, rejected.
Required elements of a valid Notice of Intent include:
Each element must be stated with enough specificity to satisfy the statute and give meaningful notice of the claim being asserted. Courts do not excuse vague, generic, or placeholder language, and deficiencies in any one element can undermine the validity of the entire notice.
Notice of Intent Timing, Tolling, and Dismissal Risk
A Notice of Intent must be served at least 182 days before a medical malpractice complaint may be filed, and no lawsuit may be initiated during that waiting period. When properly served and compliant with statutory requirements, the Notice of Intent tolls the statute of limitations, temporarily pausing the filing deadline while the notice period runs. Tolling, however, is not automatic. If the Notice of Intent is defective, incomplete, or improperly served, the statute of limitations may continue to run uninterrupted, creating a risk that the claim will expire permanently even though notice was technically sent.
Table 1: Notice of Intent Timing and Consequences
The Affidavit of Merit Requirement
In Michigan, filing a medical malpractice complaint requires more than allegations or medical records. A plaintiff must file an Affidavit of Merit at the same time the complaint is filed, supported by a qualified medical expert who attests that the claim has medical support and meets Michigan’s statutory requirements. Courts treat the Affidavit of Merit as a mandatory condition to suit, not a procedural formality, and its purpose is to ensure that malpractice claims are supported by appropriate expert review before litigation begins. A complaint filed without a compliant affidavit is subject to dismissal, often without an opportunity to cure, making proper execution at the outset critical.
What an Affidavit of Merit Must Contain
The Affidavit of Merit must be signed by a healthcare professional who meets Michigan’s expert qualification standards. The expert must attest that they have reviewed the relevant medical records and that, in their opinion, the defendant failed to meet the applicable standard of care. The affidavit must connect that failure to the injury alleged, rather than relying on general assertions or conclusory opinions.
Specifically, the affidavit must address:
The Affidavit of Merit is not evidence for trial and does not resolve disputed facts. It functions solely as a procedural gatekeeping requirement. Courts evaluate whether the affidavit satisfies statutory criteria, not whether the expert’s conclusions are ultimately correct.
When the Affidavit of Merit Must Be Filed
The Affidavit of Merit must be filed with the complaint, and filing it even one day late can result in dismissal. Michigan courts routinely dismiss malpractice cases when the affidavit is missing at the time of filing. Although Michigan law allows a limited 28-day extension for good cause, that exception is narrow and discretionary. It is not a safety net and is rarely granted for routine delays, oversight, or attorney error.
The Matching Specialty Rule
Michigan law requires that the medical expert signing the Affidavit of Merit practice in the same specialty as the defendant healthcare provider, and if the defendant is board-certified, the expert must hold the same board certification. This requirement is strictly enforced and leaves little room for interpretation. Courts do not permit near matches, overlapping expertise, or generalized medical opinions, even where an expert may be otherwise qualified. If the expert does not meet Michigan’s specialty-matching requirements, the Affidavit of Merit is invalid and the case is subject to dismissal at the outset.
Common Affidavit of Merit Failure Scenarios:
Statutes of Limitation, Discovery, and Repose
Michigan medical malpractice claims are governed by multiple, overlapping timing rules that operate together to control whether a lawsuit may ever be filed. These deadlines do not function independently, and compliance with one does not excuse failure to comply with another. Missing any applicable deadline can permanently bar a claim, even where malpractice is clear and injury is severe. Because these rules interact with pre-suit notice requirements and tolling provisions, timing errors are one of the most common reasons Michigan malpractice cases are dismissed before reaching the merits.
The Standard Two-Year Deadline
In most Michigan medical malpractice cases, a lawsuit must be filed within two years of the date of the alleged act or omission that caused the injury. This two-year period is the default statute of limitations and applies even if the injury is not immediately apparent. Unless a statutory exception applies, the deadline is measured from when the malpractice occurred, not when the harm was discovered.
The Six-Month Discovery Rule
Michigan law provides a limited discovery exception when medical malpractice could not reasonably have been discovered within the standard two-year period. In those situations, a claim may be filed within six months of the date the plaintiff discovered, or should have discovered, the existence of the malpractice. This rule does not replace the two-year statute of limitations and does not apply automatically. It functions as a narrow extension that is closely scrutinized and frequently litigated.
The Six-Year Statute of Repose
Michigan’s statute of repose imposes an absolute deadline on medical malpractice claims that operates independently of discovery or knowledge of the injury. Regardless of when malpractice is discovered, no claim may be filed more than six years after the date of the alleged act or omission, subject only to very narrow statutory exceptions. Once the repose period expires, the claim is permanently barred, even if the injury was concealed, undiscovered, or could not reasonably have been detected earlier.
Table 2: Michigan Medical Malpractice Filing Deadlines
The Wrongful Death Savings provision operates independently of the Notice of Intent process. Serving a Notice of Intent does not toll or extend the savings period, and the statutory time limits imposed by the savings provision remain fixed. Plaintiffs who assume that an NOI preserves wrongful death timing may find that the claim is barred despite compliance with notice requirements.
Expert Qualification Rules That Bar Claims Before Trial
Michigan medical malpractice law imposes strict statutory requirements on who may serve as a qualified medical expert, and failure to meet those requirements can end a case before trial begins. These rules are applied independently of whether malpractice occurred and are enforced at the pleading and motion stages. Experts who would be permitted to testify in many other jurisdictions are frequently disqualified under Michigan law, making expert eligibility a primary gatekeeping issue rather than an evidentiary one.
Courts apply Michigan’s expert qualification standards mechanically. Judicial discretion is limited, and equitable considerations such as experience, reputation, or prior clinical history do not override statutory requirements. If an expert does not meet the qualification rules at the time required by statute, the expert’s opinions cannot support the claim and the case is subject to dismissal.
The One-Year Majority of Time Rule
To qualify as an expert in a Michigan medical malpractice case, a physician must have devoted a majority of their professional time during the one year immediately preceding the alleged malpractice to active clinical practice or teaching within the same specialty as the defendant. This requirement is strictly time-bound and specialty-specific.
The rule is applied without regard to career length or prior accomplishments. Courts do not consider expertise gained outside the statutory window, and even brief deviations from qualifying practice can be disqualifying. A physician who retired or shifted away from qualifying practice shortly before the alleged malpractice, even by a matter of months, will typically be barred from serving as an expert.
Expert Qualification Disqualifiers Include:
Common Procedural Reasons Michigan Malpractice Claims Are Dismissed
Michigan medical malpractice claims are frequently dismissed for procedural noncompliance before any court evaluates negligence, causation, or damages. These dismissals typically occur at the pleadings stage and are driven by strict enforcement of notice requirements, filing deadlines, expert qualification rules, and party identification standards. Because many of these defects cannot be corrected after the fact, procedural errors often result in permanent dismissal, regardless of the underlying medical issues involved.
Table 3: Procedural Failures That End Claims Early
How These Procedural Rules Fit Into the Larger Framework
The procedural rules governing Michigan medical malpractice cases operate independently of whether malpractice actually occurred. A claim may involve serious injury, apparent error, or compelling facts and still be barred if these requirements are not satisfied. Compliance with procedural rules determines whether a case is allowed to move forward at all.
This page explains the legal framework that controls access to the court system in Michigan medical malpractice litigation. It does not evaluate liability, causation, or damages. Those questions are addressed only after a claim clears the procedural gates described above, at which point the analysis may turn on medical malpractice damages caps and recovery limits in Michigan.
In Michigan, procedure functions as the gatekeeper. Merit becomes relevant only after that gate opens. Understanding that distinction is essential to understanding how Michigan’s medical malpractice system operates as a whole.
