In Solowy v. Oakwood Hosp Corp, 454 Mich 214, 216; 561 NW2d 843 (1997), the Supreme Court of Michiganheld that the "possible cause of action" standard announced in Moll v. Abbott Laboratories, 444 Mich 1, 18; 506 NW2d 816 (1993), applies to medical malpractice claims. The Court explained that "the discovery rule period begins to run when, on the basis of objective facts, the plaintiff should have known of a possible cause of action." Solowy, supra at 222. "Once a claimant is aware of an injury and its possible cause, the plaintiff is aware of a possible cause of action." Moll, supra at 23-24. The Solowy Court further explained that "courts should be guided by the doctrine of reasonableness and the standard of due diligence, and must consider the totality of information available to the plaintiff concerning the injury and its possible causes." Solowy, supra at 232. The Court set forth other rules which aid our analysis. First, the discovery rule applies to discovery of the injury, not to the discovery of the consequences of the injury which are subsequently realized. Id. at 223-224. Second, the standard does not require the plaintiff to know that the injury "was in fact or even likely caused by the defendant doctors' alleged omissions," nor does the standard require that the plaintiff is aware of the "full extent of the injury before the clock begins to run." Id. at 224. Finally, in considering whether objective facts exist such that the plaintiff should know that a possible cause of action exists, a court must consider "the totality of the information available to the plaintiff, including his own observations of physical discomfort and appearance, his familiarity with the condition through past experience or otherwise, and his physician's explanations of possible causes or diagnoses of his condition. " Id. at 227. The Supreme Court of Michigan explained: The six-month discovery rule period begins to run in medical malpractice cases when the plaintiff, on the basis of objective facts, is aware of a possible cause of action. This occurs when the plaintiff is aware of an injury and a possible causal link between the injury and an act or omission of the physician. When the cause of the plaintiff's injury is difficult to determine because of a delay in diagnosis, the "possible cause of action" standard should be applied with a substantial degree of flexibility. In such cases, courts should be guided by the doctrine of reasonableness and the standard of due diligence, and must consider the totality of information available to the plaintiff concerning the injury and its possible causes. Solowy at 232.