MENTAL HEALTH CODE
Act 258 of 1974
330.1834 Administrative hearing to contest ability to pay determination.
Sec. 834.
The department or community mental health services program shall inform the responsible parties that they have a right, by means of an administrative hearing, to contest an ability to pay determination that has been made by the department or community mental health services program. If the responsible party desires an administrative hearing, the following procedures apply:
(a) The responsible party shall notify the department or community mental health services program in writing or on a form provided by the department or community mental health services program.
(b) An administrative hearing shall be held and the department or community mental health services program shall make a redetermination of ability to pay.
(c) A redetermination of ability to pay pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be made in accordance with this chapter.
History: 1974, Act 258, Eff. Nov. 6, 1974 ;-- Am. 1995, Act 290, Eff. Mar. 28, 1996
Notes of Decisions
Miller v. Dep't of Mental Health, 442 N.W.2d 617 (Mich. 1989).
“The code also provides that no person shall be denied services because of an inability to pay therefor on the part of the individual, the spouse, or the parents.”
In Re Nichols, 388 N.W.2d 682 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986).
“Nichols entitled to a jury trial? MCL 330.1834; MSA 14.800(834) provides that a determination of financial liability may be contested by means of an administrative hearing held pursuant to the APA.”
Dep't of Mental Health v. Nichols, 150 Mich. App. 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986).
“Nichols entitled to a jury trial? MCL 330.1834; MSA 14.800(834) provides that a determination of financial liability may be contested by means of an administrative hearing held pursuant to the APA.”
Turner v. Deparment of Mental Health, 310 N.W.2d 802 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981).
“The petitioner contested the respondent’s determination of financial liability by requesting an administrative hearing pursuant to MCL 330.1834; MSA 14.800(834). At the administrative hearing, counsel for the petitioner argued that the 1969 probate court order was controlling…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 330.1834(b) — 2 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.