People of Michigan v. Tyisha Monika Toliver ( 2019 )

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, FOR PUBLICATION
October 15, 2019
Plaintiff-Appellant,
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,
-1-
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
-2-
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.]
-3-
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
-4-