AI Misdiagnosis in Michigan: Who Pays When Software Errs
Hospitals and clinics across Michigan now run patient images, lab values, and symptoms through artificial intelligence tools that flag strokes, read scans, and triage risk. When one of those tools points the wrong way and a patient is harmed, the injury is real even though part of the decision came from a machine. Michigan has no statute written for medical AI, so a claim is built from the law already on the books: the medical malpractice standard of care, product liability for a defective tool, and the rules that allocate fault and cap damages. This guide explains how those pieces fit when an algorithm contributes to a missed or wrong diagnosis.
AI Is Now Inside the Diagnostic Decision
Software that helps detect tumors, identify bleeds, or score sepsis risk is increasingly cleared for clinical use and built into the workflow at the point of care. These tools assist a human clinician; they do not replace the physician’s judgment. That distinction is the heart of every Michigan claim. The law still expects a licensed professional to exercise independent judgment, and a known hazard of these systems, sometimes called automation bias, is the tendency to defer to a confident-looking output instead of checking it. When deference replaces judgment and a patient is hurt, the question is not whether a computer was involved. The question is who failed to meet the duty the law already imposed.
Two Tracks of Liability, Often at Once
An AI-related injury usually opens two separate paths, and a well-built case examines both. The first is the human and institutional track: the physician, the radiologist, the nursing staff, and the hospital. The second is the product track: the company that designed, trained, and sold the software. The two are governed by different statutes and different proofs, and a defendant on one track will frequently try to point at the other.
The Physician and Hospital Side
A claim against the treating providers is a medical malpractice claim. Under MCL 600.2912a, a general practitioner must meet the recognized standard of acceptable professional practice in the community, and a specialist must meet the standard of that specialty. The statute places the burden on the plaintiff to prove that the provider’s failure more probably than not proximately caused the injury. An AI tool does not lower that bar. A physician who accepts a flawed AI reading without the review a reasonable practitioner would perform can still be found negligent, and a physician who overrides a correct warning can be too. The tool is evidence about what a careful clinician should have seen, not a shield.
Hospitals enter through vicarious liability for their staff and through their own choices about which tools to adopt, how to validate them, and how to train people to use them. These claims carry the same procedural gates as any Michigan malpractice case, including the notice of intent and the affidavit of merit. We cover those requirements in our guide to the notice of intent and affidavit of merit.
The Software Maker Side
A claim against the company behind the tool is a product liability claim. Michigan defines these actions in MCL 600.2945 and sets the standards and defenses in MCL 600.2946. A plaintiff must show the software was defective in a way that caused the harm, whether through a design that produces unreliable outputs, inadequate validation, or a failure to warn clinicians about known limitations.
Defendants often reach for an FDA-compliance defense, but Michigan law gives them less cover than it once did. The near-absolute immunity that former MCL 600.2946(5) gave to FDA-approved drugs was repealed by 2023 Senate Bill 410, effective February 13, 2024. What remains under MCL 600.2946 is a rebuttable presumption that a product is not defective if it complied with the government standards that applied when it was sold, a presumption the injured person can overcome with proof. That immunity never reached medical devices in any event, and AI diagnostic software is regulated as a device rather than a drug. So an AI vendor cannot claim drug immunity, because none survives after February 2024, and can at most raise FDA clearance as rebuttable evidence that its product met the applicable standard, not as a bar to suit.
A vendor may also raise federal preemption, but whether that defense works depends on the FDA pathway the tool went through. Claims against a device that received full FDA premarket approval are broadly preempted under Riegel v Medtronic, 552 US 312 (2008). Most AI diagnostic software, however, reaches the market through the faster 510(k) clearance route, and the Supreme Court held in Medtronic v Lohr, 518 US 470 (1996), that 510(k) clearance does not preempt state claims. Establishing which pathway the specific tool used is an early and important question in any vendor case.
The Damage Caps Reach Both Tracks
Michigan limits noneconomic damages on each path, and for 2026 the figures line up. The medical malpractice cap under MCL 600.1483 and the product liability cap under MCL 600.2946a are both indexed by the State Treasurer and both stand at $596,400 for most cases, rising to $1,065,000 for the narrow categories of permanent, life-altering injury. We explain how the medical malpractice ceiling is applied, and when the higher figure unlocks, in our guide to the 2026 medical malpractice damages cap.
| Liability track | Governing statutes | 2026 noneconomic cap |
|---|---|---|
| Physician / hospital (malpractice) | MCL 600.2912a; cap MCL 600.1483 | $596,400 (or $1,065,000 for the enumerated permanent injuries) |
| Software maker (product liability) | MCL 600.2945, 600.2946; cap MCL 600.2946a; exception MCL 600.2949a | $596,400 (or $1,065,000), removable on proof of actual knowledge and willful disregard |
Economic losses such as added medical care, lost income, and the cost of future treatment are not subject to these noneconomic limits on either track, which is why proving the full economic picture matters so much in a serious case.
Allocating Fault Between the Doctor and the Vendor
When both a clinician and a tool contributed, Michigan’s comparative fault rules decide how responsibility is divided. The fact finder assigns a percentage of fault to each party, and the plaintiff’s own conduct, if any, is weighed too. The mechanics of that allocation, including the line past which a plaintiff’s own fault bars pain and suffering recovery, are set out in our guide to the 51 percent comparative fault bar under MCL 600.2959. The practical effect is that the physician and the software company each have an incentive to blame the other, and the injured patient benefits from a case that pursues both rather than letting one escape.
Two pieces of evidence often decide these cases. The first is the electronic health record audit trail, the system metadata showing what the AI output was, when it appeared, and whether the clinician opened or overrode it. The second is the contract between the hospital and the vendor, which frequently contains indemnification terms that shape who ultimately pays. Both should be preserved and requested early.
Frequently Asked Questions
If an AI tool caused my misdiagnosis, can I still sue the doctor?
Yes. Under MCL 600.2912a the treating physician must meet the recognized standard of care, and relying on a flawed AI output without the review a careful clinician would perform can be negligence. The presence of software does not move the duty off the doctor.
Can the software company be held responsible too?
Potentially, through a product liability claim under MCL 600.2945 and MCL 600.2946 if the tool was defective in design, validation, or its warnings. These claims run alongside, not instead of, a malpractice claim against the providers.
Does FDA clearance protect the AI maker from liability?
No. Michigan repealed its drug-manufacturer immunity (former MCL 600.2946(5)) effective February 13, 2024, leaving only a rebuttable presumption that an FDA-compliant product is not defective. AI diagnostic software is a device, not a drug, so FDA clearance is rebuttable evidence about the standard the product met, not a bar to suit.
Are damages capped in these cases?
Noneconomic damages are. For 2026 both the medical malpractice cap (MCL 600.1483) and the product liability cap (MCL 600.2946a) are $596,400, rising to $1,065,000 for certain permanent injuries. Economic losses are not capped, and the product cap can be removed under MCL 600.2949a on proof of actual knowledge and willful disregard.
How is fault split between the hospital and the software company?
A jury assigns each party a percentage of fault under Michigan’s comparative fault rules. Because each defendant tends to blame the other, a case that pursues both the providers and the maker usually serves the injured person best.
What deadlines apply?
A claim against providers follows the medical malpractice timeline, including the notice of intent and affidavit of merit. A product claim follows the product liability limitations period. Both can run quickly, so an early case review protects your rights.
Hurt by a misdiagnosis where AI was in the loop? Find out who is responsible.
Attorney Manny Chahal investigates both the providers and the technology behind a medical error. Free statewide review. No fee unless we recover.
Call 1-844-624-2425