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

FOOD TOWN DRUGS,

Appellant, UNPUBLISHED August 11, 2022

v No. 356651 Ingham Circuit Court

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, LC No. 19

- 000719

- AA

Appellee.

Before: S WARTZLE

, P .J., and R ONAYNE K RAUSE and G ARRETT , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

.

The Department of Health and Human Services made Medicaid payments to Food Town Drugs, a pharmacy. The Department later conducted an audit and determined that it overpaid Food Town. Food Town contested the Department’s decision, but an administrative law judge sided with the Department, concluding in a proposal for decision that Food Town must reimburse the Department for the Medicaid overpayments. Food Town did not file an exception to the proposal

for decision and the Department’s director adopted the proposal for decision without elaboration.

The proposal for decision was entered before the director reviewed the record for this case.

Food Town appealed th e director’s decision to the circuit court. The circuit court upheld

the director’s decision and dismissed Food Town’s appeal , although it concluded that Food Town was not required to file an exception to the ALJ ’s proposal for decision. This appeal followed, by leave granted. Food Town Drugs v Dep’t of Health and Human Servs , unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered June 23, 2021 (Docket No. 356651). Since that time, this Court decided ER Drugs v Dep’t of Health and Human Servs , ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2022) (Docket No. 355108 ), lv den ___ Mich ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2022) (Dock et No. 164340 ) . In ER Drugs , this Court concluded that the appellant pharmacy challenging an ALJ ’s proposal for decision regarding Medicaid overpayments was required to file an exception to that decision in order to challenge the Department’s ultimate dec ision in court. Id . at 2

- 4. Because the pharmacy

in ER Drugs failed to do so, this Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the pharmacy’s appeal on that basis alone (although the ER Drugs Court did address other issues “ for the sake of completeness ”). Id . at 4. Our Supreme Court denied t he application for leave to appeal this Court’s- 2

-

decision in ER Drugs

. ER Drugs v Dep’t of Health and Human Servs , ___ Mich ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2022) (Docket No. 164340 ).

This case presents the exact same issue as in ER Drugs . Food Town did not file an exception to the proposal for decision. Because it failed to do so, it could not challenge the Department’s final decision in circuit court. Although the trial court did not dismiss Food Town’s appeal on this basis , it nevertheless reached the right result so we affirm its order dismissing Food Town’s appeal. See Forest Hills Co

- operative v City of Ann Arbor , 305 Mich App 572, 615; 854 NW2d 172 (2014). Given that ER Drugs dictates the result in this case, we find if unnecessary to address the remaining issues raised on appeal.

Affirmed. The Department, as the prevailing party, may tax costs under MCR 7.219

.

/s/ Brock A. Swartzle /s/ Amy Ronayne Krause

/s/ Kristina Robinson Garrett