In this action for malpractice by a licensed pharmacist, defendant appeals by leave granted from the triаl court’s denial of its motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C) (7) (claim barred by the statute of limitations). We reverse.
On Decembеr 10, 1988, plaintiff presented a prescription for Tepanil Tentabs (an appetite suppressant) to a pharmаcist at one of defendant’s stores. The prescription was filled but, allegedly as a result of defendant’s negligence, рlaintiff instead received another medication, Tofranil (an antidepressant). On February 8, 1989, plaintiff suffered an adverse rеaction to the Tofranil. Within the following few months, he engaged an attorney and negotiated with defendant regarding a possible claim, but he did not file suit until December 18, 1990.
Defendant moved for summary disposition, citing MCL 600.5838a; MSA 27A.5838(1), on the ground that plaintiff’s claim was untimely. Thе court denied the motion and defendant sought *252 leave to appeal to this Court. Defendant’s application wаs granted and the proceedings in the lower court were stayed pending the resolution of this appeal.
The applicable standard of review under MCR 2.116(C)(7) requires us to accept plaintiffs well-pleaded allegations as true and tо construe them most favorably to the plaintiff.
Beauregard-Bezou v Pierce,
The period of limitation is two years for an action charging malpractice for claims arising after October 1, 1986. MCL 600.5805(4); MSA 27A.5805(4). The accrual date for malpractice claims is detеrmined by MCL 600.5838a; MSA 27A.5838G):
(1) A claim based on the medical malpractice of a person who is ... a licensed health care professional . . . accrues at the time of the act or omission which is the basis for the claim of medical malpraсtice, regardless of the time the plaintiff discovers or otherwise has knowledge of the claim. As used in this subsection:
(b) "Licensеd health care professional” means an individual licensed under [MCL 333.16101-333.18838; MSA 14.15(16101)-14.15(18838)]. [Emphasis added.]
*253
Pharmacists are considered health care providers for the purposes of our malpractice statutes.
Becker v Meyer Rexall Drug Co,
The cases plaintiff relies on are inapposite. Plaintiff’s action accrued after October 1, 1986, and, thus, is governed by the present version of MCL 600.5838a; MSA 27A.5838(1). That statute explicitly provides that a claim for medical malpractice accruеs "at the time of the act or omission which is the basis for the claim.” Decisions relating to cases that arose before October 1, 1986, then, are inapplicable.
Plaintiff also attempts to avoid the bar of § 5805(4) by characterizing defendant’s alleged negligence as something other than professional malpractice. This maneuver will not succeed. A plаintiff may not evade the appropriate limitation period by artful drafting.
MacDonald v Barbarotto,
The key to a malpractice claim is whether it is alleged that the negligence occurred within the course of a professional, relationship.
Bronson v
*254
Sisters of Mercy Health Corp,
Plaintiff also attempts to characterize his action as one alleging products liability, to which a three-year period of limitation would apply. MCL 600.5805(9); MSA 27A.5805(9). Plaintiffs anаlysis is incorrect. This is not an action alleging the sale of a defective product. As in
Atkins v Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co,
Summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) should not be granted if there are factual disputes regarding when discovery occurred or reasonably should have occurred.
Griffith v Brant,
It cannot reasonably be disputed that plaintiff discovered his claim against defendant any later than February 8, 1989. He suffered a reaction to the Tofranil and was hospitalized. Furthermore, he began "negotiating his claim” with defendant’s representatives in the summer of 1989. No additional discovery could change these facts or thе conclusion that the court must draw from them. MCL 600.5838a(l); MSA 27A.5838(1)(1) provides that a claim accrues "at the time of the act or omissiоn which is the basis for the claim of medical malpractice.” Plaintiff, therefore, had either two years from the date on which his claim accrued (when the wrong drug was dispensed), December 10, 1988, or six months after he discovered the claim on February 8, 1989. Plaintiff filed suit on December 18, 1990, i.e., more than two years after December 10, 1988. His complaint was untimely. The circuit court should have granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition.
Reversed.