If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

FOR PUBLICATION

October 15, 2019

v No. 343272

Kent Circuit Court

ERIC ANDERSON, LC No. 17-010295-AR

Defendant-Appellee.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v No. 343273

Kent Circuit Court

JASMINE FERRER, LC No. 17-010296-AR

Defendant-Appellee.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v No. 343274

Kent Circuit Court

CARY GERENCER, LC No. 17-010297-AR

Defendant-Appellee.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,
-2-

v No. 343275

Kent Circuit Court

LOLITTA SHANTILLIA JACKSON, LC No. 17-010298-AR

Defendant-Appellee.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v No. 343276

Kent Circuit Court

EMINA KAHRIMAN, LC No. 17-010299-AR

Defendant-Appellee.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v No. 343277

Kent Circuit Court

DORIS PENNY, LC No. 17-010300-AR

Defendant-Appellee.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v No. 343278

Kent Circuit Court

SEQUOYAH LASHAWN MARIE THOMAS, LC No. 17-010301-AR

Defendant-Appellee.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v No. 343279

Kent Circuit Court
-3-

TYISHA MONIKA TOLIVER, LC No. 17-010302-AR

Defendant-Appellee.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v No. 343280

Kent Circuit Court

ROCONDA J. SINGLETON, LC No. 17-011547-AR

Defendant-Appellee.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v No. 343281

Kent Circuit Court

SHERYL ANNE HILLYER, LC No. 18-000250-AR

Defendant-Appellee.

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 do 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.]
-4-

I am not persuaded that the false statements placed on the location sheets that “member location 

checks” had been completed when they had not regarded “the diagnosis, treatment, or cause of a 

patient’s condition” as required by the statute. Indeed, the circuit court in the first-tier appeal, in 

its analyzing whether these are medical records, 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 available and used for a physician to diagnosis a patient’s condition, to 

determine a course of treatment, or to ascertain the cause of the 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 in 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