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: S AWYER

, P .J., and B ORRELLO and S HAPIRO , JJ.

S AWYER

, 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 falsi fication 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 misleadin g 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. [Emphasi s 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. Inde ed, 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. Additional ly, 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 t he 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 locati on 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 find ing 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