PUBLIC HEALTH CODE
Act 368 of 1978
333.16232 Hearings; rules.
Sec. 16232.
(1) The department shall provide an opportunity for a hearing in connection with the denial, reclassification, limitation, reinstatement, suspension, or revocation of a license or a proceeding to reprimand, fine, order restitution, or place a licensee on probation.
(2) The department shall provide an opportunity for a hearing in connection with the denial, limitation, suspension, revocation, or reinstatement of a registration or a proceeding to reprimand, fine, order restitution, or place a registrant on probation.
(3) A disciplinary subcommittee shall meet within 60 days after receipt of the recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law from a hearings examiner to impose a penalty.
(4) Only the department shall promulgate rules governing hearings under this article, article 7, or article 8 and related preliminary proceedings.
History: 1978, Act 368, Eff. Sept. 30, 1978 ;-- Am. 1993, Act 79, Eff. Apr. 1, 1994 ;-- Am. 2013, Act 268, Imd. Eff. Dec. 30, 2013 ;-- Am. 2014, Act 95, Eff. July 1, 2014
PopularName Notes:
Act 368
Notes of Decisions
Dep't of Cmty. Health v. Anderson, 830 N.W.2d 814 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 4× “16237(5), which plainly requires that “the hearing before the hearings examiner, and final disciplinary subcommittee action shall be completed within 1 year after the department initiates an investigation .”
Nathan Murphy-Dubay v. Dept of Licensing & Regulatory Affairs, 876 N.W.2d 598 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 5× “On July 29, 2013, plaintiff sent defendants a follow-up letter, asking for a favorable response or, in the event of a denial, an opportunity to be heard pursuant to MCL 333.16232. On September 23, 2013, plaintiff filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus and declaratory judgment…”
Dep't of Consum. & Indus. Servs. v. Greenberg, 586 N.W.2d 560 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
“MCL 333.16232(3); MSA 14.15(16232)(3) requires that the subcommittee meet within sixty days after receiving the hearing referee’s proposal for decision.”
in Re Vernon Eugene Proctor Md (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 3× “MCL 333.16232 provides, “A disciplinary subcommittee shall meet within 60 days after the receipt of the recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law from a hearings examiner to impose a penalty.”
in Re Charles Portus (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
“240a); Dep’t of Consumer & Indus Servs v Greenberg, 231 Mich App 466, 468-469 ; 586 NW2d 560 (1998) (holding that a licensee is not entitled to relief where disciplinary subcommittee does not meet and impose a penalty within 60 days of receipt of examiner’s recommendations, MCL…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.16232(1) — 1 case
Nathan Murphy-Dubay v. Dept of Licensing & Regulatory Affairs, 876 N.W.2d 598 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“On July 29, 2013, plaintiff sent defendants a follow-up letter, asking for a favorable response or, in the event of a denial, an opportunity to be heard pursuant to MCL 333.16232. On September 23, 2013, plaintiff filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus and declaratory judgment…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.16232(3) — 2 cases
Dep't of Cmty. Health v. Anderson, 830 N.W.2d 814 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
“16237(5), which plainly requires that “the hearing before the hearings examiner, and final disciplinary subcommittee action shall be completed within 1 year after the department initiates an investigation .”
Dep't of Consum. & Indus. Servs. v. Greenberg, 586 N.W.2d 560 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
“MCL 333.16232(3); MSA 14.15(16232)(3) requires that the subcommittee meet within sixty days after receiving the hearing referee’s proposal for decision.”
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.