Opinion
No. 343272 No. 343273 No. 343274 No. 343275 No. 343276 No. 343277 No. 343278 No. 343279 No. 343280 No. 343281
10-15-2019
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ERIC ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellee. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JASMINE FERRER, Defendant-Appellee. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CARY GERENCER, Defendant-Appellee. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOLITTA SHANTILLIA JACKSON, Defendant-Appellee. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EMINA KAHRIMAN, Defendant-Appellee. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DORIS PENNY, Defendant-Appellee. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SEQUOYAH LASHAWN MARIE THOMAS, Defendant-Appellee. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TYISHA MONIKA TOLIVER, Defendant-Appellee. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROCONDA J. SINGLETON, Defendant-Appellee. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SHERYL ANNE HILLYER, Defendant-Appellee.
If this opinion indicates that it is "FOR PUBLICATION," it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. FOR PUBLICATION Kent Circuit Court
LC No. 17-010295-AR Kent Circuit Court
LC No. 17-010296-AR Kent Circuit Court
LC No. 17-010297-AR Advance Sheets Version Kent Circuit Court
LC No. 17-010298-AR Kent Circuit Court
LC No. 17-010299-AR Kent Circuit Court
LC No. 17-010300-AR Kent Circuit Court
LC No. 17-010301-AR Advance Sheets Version Kent Circuit Court
LC No. 17-010302-AR Kent Circuit Court
LC No. 17-011547-AR Kent Circuit Court
LC No. 18-000250-AR Advance Sheets Version Before: SAWYER, P.J., and BORRELLO and SHAPIRO, JJ. SAWYER, P.J. (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
The majority engages in an extensive analysis regarding whether the "member location sheets" constitute a "medical record" under MCL 750.492a(1). While I am not persuaded by the majority's conclusion that the location sheets are medical records, more fundamentally, I do not find it necessary to even answer that question. Rather, I conclude that even if the location sheets are considered medical records, the falsification of those sheets does not fall within the scope of the statute.
MCL 750.492a(1) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3), a health care provider or other person, knowing that the information is misleading or inaccurate, shall not intentionally, willfully, or recklessly place or direct another to place in a patient's medical record or chart misleading or inaccurate information regarding the diagnosis, treatment, or cause of a patient's condition. [Emphasis added.]I am not persuaded that the false statements placed on the location sheets—indicating that "member location checks" had been completed when they had not been—were statements "regarding the diagnosis, treatment, or cause of a patient's condition" as required by the statute. Indeed, the circuit court, in the first-tier appeal, analyzed whether these were medical records and observed that the information was not so used:
No information about the patient's condition, location, or incontinence is located on the sheet. Additionally, there is no blank space for this treatment information to be provided.
As stipulated, these sheets are stored in a central location and not in the individual member's file.
Accordingly, the available evidence would not support the conclusion that the information was used by a physician to diagnose a patient's condition, to determine a course of treatment, or to ascertain the cause of a patient's condition. Rather, the evidence would only support a conclusion that the member location checks were conducted as a safety measure. While this is certainly an important aspect of the operation of the facility, it is not included in the scope of MCL 750.492a.
In sum, in the absence of evidence that the data collected was to be used by a medical professional to diagnose or treat a patient's condition, or to ascertain the cause of the condition, I cannot conclude that there is probable cause to believe that defendants violated MCL 750.492a. And, in the absence of evidence supporting a finding of probable cause, I cannot say that the examining magistrate abused her discretion by refusing to bind defendants over for trial on this charge. People v Hudson, 241 Mich App 268, 276; 615 NW2d 784 (2000).
For these reasons, I would affirm the decisions of the lower courts.
/s/ David H. Sawyer