PUBLIC HEALTH CODE
Act 368 of 1978
333.16235 Subpoena; prima facie evidence of matters recorded; admissible evidence.
Sec. 16235.
(1) Upon application by the attorney general or a party to a contested case, the circuit court may issue a subpoena requiring a person to appear before a hearings examiner in a contested case or before the department in an investigation and be examined with reference to a matter within the scope of that contested case or investigation and to produce books, papers, or documents pertaining to that contested case or investigation. A subpoena issued under this subsection may require a person to produce all books, papers, and documents pertaining to all of a licensee's or registrant's patients in a health facility on a particular day if the allegation that gave rise to the disciplinary proceeding was made by or pertains to 1 or more of those patients.
(2) A copy of a record of a board or a task force or a disciplinary subcommittee or a hearings examiner certified by a person designated by the director is prima facie evidence of the matters recorded and is admissible as evidence in a proceeding in this state with the same force and effect as if the original were produced.
History: 1978, Act 368, Eff. Sept. 30, 1978 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 625, Imd. Eff. Jan. 6, 1979 ;-- Am. 1993, Act 79, Eff. Apr. 1, 1994
PopularName Notes:
Act 368
Notes of Decisions
Attorney Gen. v. Bruce, 369 N.W.2d 826 (Mich. 1985).
· cites it 9× “] The authority of the Attorney General to subpoena information on behalf of the department is provided for in MCL 333.16235; MSA 14.15(16235): (1) Upon application by the attorney general or a party to a contested case, the circuit court may issue a subpoena requiring a person…”
In Re Attorney Gen. for Investigative Subpoenas, 766 N.W.2d 675 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 6× “” Respondent argued that the language of MCL 333.16235 made the “production of patient health information by investigative subpoena permissive,” but not mandatory, in recognition that broad statutory privileges like MCL 333.”
Anonymous v. Attorney Grievance Comm'n, 422 N.W.2d 648 (Mich. 1988).
· cites it 2× “A liberal construction of the commission's subpoena powers in disciplinary proceedings is consistent with other licensing schemes employed in this state.”
Attorney Gen. v. Bruce, 335 N.W.2d 697 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 2× “The authority of the Attorney General to subpoena information on behalf of the department is provided for in MCL 333.16235; MSA 14.15(16235): "(1) Upon application by the attorney general or a party to a contested case, the circuit court may issue a subpoena requiring a person…”
in Re Joel M Engel Lmsw (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 4× “16221(i), specifically and only concerns subpoenas issued pursuant to Part 161 of Article 15 of the Public Health Code, and MCL 333.16235 is found in Part 161. -14- manner of service of a subpoena.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.16235(1) — 5 cases
Attorney Gen. v. Bruce, 369 N.W.2d 826 (Mich. 1985).
“] The authority of the Attorney General to subpoena information on behalf of the department is provided for in MCL 333.16235; MSA 14.15(16235): (1) Upon application by the attorney general or a party to a contested case, the circuit court may issue a subpoena requiring a person…”
In Re Attorney Gen. for Investigative Subpoenas, 766 N.W.2d 675 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).
“” Respondent argued that the language of MCL 333.16235 made the “production of patient health information by investigative subpoena permissive,” but not mandatory, in recognition that broad statutory privileges like MCL 333.”
Anonymous v. Attorney Grievance Comm'n, 422 N.W.2d 648 (Mich. 1988).
“A liberal construction of the commission's subpoena powers in disciplinary proceedings is consistent with other licensing schemes employed in this state.”
in Re Joel M Engel Lmsw (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
“16221(i), specifically and only concerns subpoenas issued pursuant to Part 161 of Article 15 of the Public Health Code, and MCL 333.16235 is found in Part 161. -14- manner of service of a subpoena.”
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.