People v. Anderson
| Citation | 946 N.W.2d 825,330 Mich.App. 189 |
| Decision Date | 15 October 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 343273,No. 343272, No. 343275, No. 343278, No. 343276, No. 343281, No. 343274, No. 343280, No. 343277, No. 343279,343272 |
| Parties | 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. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan (US) |
Dana Nessel, Attorney General, Fadwa A. Hammoud, Solicitor General, and Brendan Maturen, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Gerald R. Lykins, Grand Rapids, for Eric Anderson, Jasmine Ferrer, Cary Gerencer, Lolitta Jackson, Emina Kahriman, Doris Penny, Sequoyah Thomas, Tyisha Toliver, and Sheryl Hillyer.
State Appellate Defender (by Adrienne N. Young) for Roconda Singleton.
Before: Sawyer, P.J., and Borrello and Shapiro, JJ.
Shapiro, J. Defendants are former nursing aids or assistants charged with intentionally falsifying medical records, MCL 750.492a. The district court declined to bind over defendants, concluding that the "member location sheets" that they allegedly falsified were not "medical records" as that term is defined by the Medical Records Access Act (MRAA), MCL 333.26261 et seq. The circuit court agreed and affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss these 10 consolidated cases. The prosecution appeals by leave granted, arguing that the lower courts erred by holding that the member location sheets were not medical records. We agree. The member location checks that defendants were required to perform were part of the healthcare provided to the patients by the facility that employed defendants. Because the member location sheets constitute recorded information pertaining to that care, they are medical records under the MRAA, which we conclude must be read in pari materia with MCL 750.492a. However, we also conclude that to convict defendants of intentionally or willfully falsifying medical records in violation MCL 750.492a, the prosecution must prove that they knew that the member location sheets were medical records. We remand to the district court so that it can determine whether the prosecution can establish probable cause on that element.
Defendants were certified nurse aides (CNA) or certified nursing assistants (CENA)1 employed by a staffing company and assigned to the Grand Rapids Home for Veterans (GRHV), a residential and skilled nursing facility for military veterans and their spouses; these veterans and their spouses were known as "members." Many of the relevant patients in the skilled nursing units suffered from serious psychiatric problems or dementia and, as a result, might elope or create a risk of harm to themselves or others in the facility while unattended. CNAs working at the GRHV were required to perform member location checks for the skilled nursing units at least every two hours to verify that the members were present in their rooms and, if not, to verify that they were elsewhere in the unit.
Member location sheets were a simple grid. The patients’ names were listed vertically and the times at which checks were to be performed were listed horizontally. Thus, for each patient listed there was a box to be completed reflecting whether or not a location check was performed for each time period. Each time a CNA performed a member location check, the CNA was to place his or her initials in the box for the corresponding patient and time. As long as a CNA laid eyes on a member, they could initial the appropriate box on the member location sheet. The parties stipulated prior to the preliminary examination that the member location sheets were not maintained in a member's personal medical chart, but instead in a central location. The parties also stipulated that the GRHV destroyed the location sheets after six months. Under the Public Health Code (PHC), MCL 333.1101 et seq. , a health care facility must retain a patient's records for at least seven years. MCL 333.20175(1).
The member location sheets at issue in this case were filled out completely, appearing to show that all member location checks had been completed. However, during a performance audit of the GRHV, the Michigan Office of the Auditor General determined on the basis of video surveillance tapes that defendants had not performed certain location checks as reported in the corresponding member location sheets.
The statute goes on to provide, "A health care provider who intentionally or willfully violates this subsection is guilty of a felony." MCL 750.492a(1)(a).
The preliminary examination was held over the course of three days. The GRHV's director of nursing, Paula Bixler, testified regarding the varying levels of cognitive impairment and physical restrictions of the members in the skilled nursing units. Bixler explained that the purpose of the member location checks was to ensure the member's health, safety, and well-being; specifically, to ensure that members were not wandering and that they had not eloped off the unit. She testified that the purpose of the member checks was not specifically to look for member incontinence, but CNAs would be expected to address such a situation if they noticed it. Also, if a CNA noticed that a member had fallen or was experiencing a medical emergency, they were required to alert a nurse.
Following the preliminary examination, the district court found probable cause that defendants were healthcare providers, that the information they were recording was "regarding treatment of these patients’ condition," and that "defendants knew that the information that they supplied was misleading or inaccurate." However, the district court did not "find that there's been any evidence to suggest that these location sheets are medical records." In reaching that conclusion, the court considered the definition of medical record found in the MRAA, which provides that a medical record "means information oral or recorded in any form or medium that pertains to a patient's health care, medical history, diagnosis, prognosis, or medical condition and that is maintained by a health care provider or health facility in the process of caring for the patient's health." MCL 333.26263(i). The district court said it was arguable whether member location sheets "pertain to the member[s’] health care." But the court noted that a medical record must be maintained by a healthcare provider or facility, and the testimony at the preliminary examination was that the member location sheets were not treated as medical records by the GRHV. The district court also indicated that the prosecution failed to show probable cause that defendants intentionally or willfully placed misleading or inaccurate information in a medical record.
The prosecution appealed in the circuit court, which affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing with the district court that the MRAA's definition of medical record was applicable to MCL 750.492a(1). The circuit court concluded that the member location sheets did not meet that definition because they contained the names of multiple members, were stored in a central location and were not maintained for seven years as required by MCL 333.20175(1). The prosecution moved for leave to appeal in this Court in each case. We granted the application for leave to appeal and consolidated the 10 cases.
The prosecution argues that the lower courts erred by determining that the member location sheets were not medical records for purposes of MCL 750.492a. We agree.2
The goal of statutory interpretation is to discern and give effect to the Legislature's intent. People v. Flick , 487 Mich. 1, 10, 790 N.W.2d 295 (2010). An initial question we must decide is whether to apply the MRAA's definition of medical record to MCL 750.492a under the doctrine of in pari materia. "Statutes that address the same subject or share a common purpose are in pari materia and must be read together as a whole." People v. Harper , 479 Mich. 599, 621, 739 N.W.2d 523 (2007). This is true even if the statutes do not refer to one another and were enacted on different dates. In re $55,336.17 Surplus Funds , 319 Mich. App. 501, 507, 902 N.W.2d 422 (2017). "The object of the rule in pari materia is to carry into effect the purpose of the legislature as found in harmonious statutes on a subject." Apsey v. Mem. Hosp. , 477 Mich. 120, 129 n. 4, 730 N.W.2d 695 (2007) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
The MRAA, the PHC, and MCL 750.492a work together to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Trugreen Ltd. P'ship v. Dep't of Treasury
......When doing so, we must consider both the meaning of the particular term or phrase at issue as well as its statutory context and history. People v. Pinkney , 501 Mich. 259, 268, 276 n. 41, 912 N.W.2d 535 (2018) ; 2000 Baum Family Trust v. Babel , 488 Mich. 136, 175, 793 N.W.2d 633 (2010). ...Carll , 322 Mich. App. 690, 704-705, 915 N.W.2d 387 (2018), and "health care," People v. Anderson , 330 Mich. App. 189, 199 n. 6, 199-200, 946 N.W.2d 825 (2019), I presume that the concurring judge understands this proper usage, but he just wants ......
-
People v. Thue
......Franklin , 500 Mich. 92, 100, 894 N.W.2d 561 (2017) (quotation marks and citation omitted)."This Court reviews de novo whether the trial court properly interpreted and applied the Medical Marijuana Act." People v. Anderson (On Remand) , 298 Mich. App. 10, 14-15, 825 N.W.2d 641 (2012). "[T]he intent of the electors governs the interpretation of voter-initiated statutes such as the MMMA, just as the intent of the Legislature governs the interpretation of legislatively enacted statutes." Ter Beek v. Wyoming , 495 Mich. ......
-
Simpson v. Total Renal Care, Inc.
...... burden then shifts to the opposing party who must set out. specific facts showing “a genuine issue for. trial.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby ,. Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986) (citation omitted). That is, the party opposing a motion for summary judgment. ... have been a violation of Michigan Complied Laws §. 333.17211 which prohibits people" from practicing nursing. without a license. ECF No. 32 at PageID.939 (citing MICH. COMP. LAWS § 333.17211). . . \xC2"......
- Grabinski v. Governor