Committee hears bills to let physicians shorten Michigan license suspensions after epileptic seizures

The House Health Policy Committee heard testimony on two bills that would allow the Michigan Secretary of State to reduce standard driver’s‑license suspensions imposed after epileptic seizures.

Representative Vanderwall introduced House Bills 4306 and 4307 as measures to “restore the important tool to those who suffer from epilepsy,” saying the condition affects about 1 percent of Michigan residents. He told the committee the bills would let the Secretary of State use a three‑month suspension standard if an individual supplies a treating clinician’s note indicating seizures are under control, and would allow shorter or waived suspensions in some special circumstances such as medication changes or seizures that occur only at night.

Supporters told the committee the bills aim to balance public safety with the independence of people whose seizures are controlled. Andrea Shodefer, president of the Epilepsy Foundation of Michigan, said the foundation supports HB 4306 and HB 4307 and that driving eligibility should “be based on a person’s unique medical history, their seizure control, and input from the treating health care practitioner,” not a rigid, one‑size‑fits‑all rule. She noted, and committee members did as well, that Michigan’s laws governing seizure‑related suspensions have not been updated in decades.

Nicole Fitzpatrick, community program specialist with the Epilepsy Foundation of Michigan and a parent of a person with epilepsy, described how regained driving freedom can affect employment and access to health care, and said that for people in rural areas driving is often the only practical transportation option. Dr. Gregory Barclay, MD, co‑founder of the Henry Ford Epilepsy Program, said the bills would give physicians a mechanism to provide medical context to the Secretary of State and “strike a balance between protecting patients with epilepsy while keeping the secretary of state in control of the key decision.”

Patient testimony underscored hesitation to seek care because of suspension risk. Scott Christoffel, an epilepsy patient advocate, described delaying medical care and self‑adjusting medication because he feared losing his license for six months, saying the current process discouraged honest communication with clinicians and could worsen safety by keeping people untreated.

The Michigan Department of State opposed the bills as written. David Hanzer, legislative liaison for the Department of State, told the committee the bills would carve out an exception in the vehicle code that “doesn’t exist elsewhere” and would change the current sequence whereby driver assessment occurs before a hearing. He said the department relies on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s driver fitness medical guidelines and urged retaining the six‑month standard for seizures that result in loss of awareness or control of a vehicle.

Committee members pressed both sides on safety and process. Representative Carter asked how public safety would be guaranteed under the proposed exceptions; Representative Thompson and others asked for clinical examples and operational details about driver assessment and hearings. Witnesses and staff described the existing driver assessment process — physician statements, vision and written testing, and on‑road evaluation — and said the department currently restores licenses only after required documentation and review is provided following a suspension.

No formal committee vote on HB 4306 or HB 4307 was taken during the hearing. The bills received testimony from medical specialists, patient advocates, the Epilepsy Foundation of Michigan and the Michigan Department of State.

Why this matters: testimony framed the bills as an attempt to allow individualized decisions that could preserve employment and independence for people whose seizures are controlled, while opponents cautioned the change could reduce the department’s ability to take immediate action when a driver’s ability to safely operate a vehicle is in question.

What’s next: Committee members did not vote on the bills during this session and continued hearing other items on the agenda.